No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final V2 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 14, 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 14, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes from the October 10, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. 3 Mile Plan Update This is a request for a review of annual draft update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, required by Colorado State Statutes. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Pete Wray 3. Terra Vida II Apartments PDP, #PDP130028 This is a request for 276 apartments on 10.2 acres located between Lady Moon Drive, Cinquefoil Lane, Precision Drive and the planned extension of Le Fever Drive. There would be ten, three-story apartment buildings plus a 6,000 square foot office / clubhouse, pool and picnic area, along with nine mixed-use dwelling units. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. Applicant: Imago Enterprises & Milestone Development, c/o Kephart, 2555 Walnut St., Denver, CO 80205 Staff: Ted Shepard 4. Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning, #ANX130001 This is a request for annexation of 38.608 acres located on the north side of Zephyr Road, approximately 1,450 feet east of South Timberline Road. Mail Creek is a residential development containing 137 single family dwelling units; the requested zoning for this annexation is LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Applicant: Jim Birdsall, TB Group, 444 Mountain Avenue, Berthoud, CO 80513 Staff: Lindsay Ex 1 5. Foothills Redevelopment Overall Development Plan, # ODP130004 This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the Foothills Mall Redevelopment. The site is 77.051 acres in size and is generally located east of South College Avenue, north of East Monroe Drive and west of Stanford Road. The site is entirely zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is also located within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. Applicant: Bryan McFarland, Alberta Development Parners, 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Staff: Courtney Levingston 6. Provincetown Filing 3, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 73- 82X/Y This is a request for a one year extension of the term of vested right, to November 14, 2014, of the approved Provincetown 3 rd Filing, Final Plan. The parcel is located generally south of East Trilby Road, west of South Lemay Avenue, and northeast of Robert Benson Lake. The Final Plan has been approved for a total of 433 dwelling units (280 single-family detached dwellings and 153 multi-family dwelling units) on 86.22 gross acres. Applicant: McWhinney, c/o Cole Evans, 2725 Rocky Mountain Ave, Suite 200, Loveland, CO 80538 Staff: Cameron Gloss E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 7. Old Town Flats - Block 23 Project Development Plan, # PDP130022 This is a request for a 94-unit apartment building containing 123 bedrooms located on the southwest quarter of the block surrounded by North College Avenue on the east, Maple Street on the south, Mason Street on the west and Cherry Street on the north. Block 23 is platted as part of the original Town Plat and the parcel size is 0.87 acre. The site is zoned D, Downtown, Civic Center Sub-district. Applicant: Brinkman Development Company, LLC, 3003 East Harmony Road, Fort Collins, CO 80528 Staff: Ted Shepard 8. Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care Project Development Plan, # PDP130024 This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for the Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care facility on a 5 acre undeveloped parcel at the northwest corner of East Horsetooth Road and Lochwood Drive. The project proposes 23 memory care living spaces and 55 assisted living spaces, for a total of 78 living spaces. The site is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L.M.N.). There is a Request for Modification of Standard modification -- an increase in the 20,000 square foot maximum allowance for each building footprint in the L.M.N. zone. Applicant: Cathy Mathis, TB Group, 444 Mountain Ave., Berthoud, CO 80513 Staff: Jason Holland 2 9. Waterfield Overall Development Plan, # ODP130002 This is a request for an Overall Development for a parcel of land located generally at the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road. The parcel is 116.89 acres. There are two zone districts on the parcel: L-M-N – 103.57 acres and M-M-N – 13.32 acres. Proposed land uses include residential, neighborhood center, public neighborhood park, public elementary school and open space. The project does not include Bull Run Apartments and the former Plummer School. There is a Request for Modification of Standard to address the mix of housing types. Applicant: Jim Dullea and Curly Risheill, Parker Land Investments, LLC, 9162 S. Kenwood Ct., Highlands Ranch,CO 80126 Staff: Ted Shepard F. Other Business G. Adjourn 3 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes October 10, 2013 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Hart, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Absent: Carpenter and Heinz Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Foreman, Shepard, and Bichler Agenda Review Chair Smith provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non-agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. Deputy City Attorney Eckman noted the item regarding the Avenir Museum is a question of approval or disapproval; however, the Colorado State University Board of Governors can overrule a disapproval with a 2/3 majority vote. Citizen participation: Brian Schumm, 5807 Ballina Court, suggested the South College Corridor Plan should be used in reviewing projects in the area. He discussed the enclave annexation in the South College area and noted that annexation brought forth several issues. Mr. Schumm went on to discuss the staff report issued as an update regarding the Plan and noted the importance of the South College Access Plan as well. He stated both Plans should be used and project appearance and design should be of utmost 4 Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2013 Page 2 importance. Mr. Schumm discussed the Magnum Motors project and issues with the frontage road in the area. Chair Smith stated the Board expects to continue the discussion relating to the Plan implementation. He suggested Mr. Schumm discuss access issues with appropriate staff members. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the September 12, 2013 Hearing Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the September 12, 2013 Hearing. Member Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Trails Master Plan _______ Project: Trails Master Plan Project Description: The Trails Master Plan will research best practices and trail systems in peer communities known for their high quality trails. Analyze and rate the quality and condition of our existing trail system. Examine the current use of the trails using trail counters and observational and intercept surveys. Examine the future use of the trails utilizing demographic and development trends and data. Develop ideas to improve the current trail system, identify priorities, costs, timelines and standards for new and existing trails, along with potential funding options to complete and enhance the trail system, and involve the community by gathering and sharing information through surveys, public events and discussions with City boards and commissions. Recommendation: Recommend City Council Adoption of the Trails Master Plan Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development, stated he is available for questions. Public Input Devin Hirning, 3508 Muskrat Creek Drive, stated he had previously sent emails to the Board regarding this topic. He stated the Trails Master Plan inadequately addresses the Harmony Corridor and safe routes to parks and schools in the southeast part of town. He stated his emails have quoted two Coloradoan articles and referenced a Council worksession, Larimer County development review notes, the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan, and the 2013 Bicycle Friendly Community Feedback Report. He noted Harmony Road is second only to College Avenue in traffic volume and cited crash statistics for the roadway. Mr. Hirning went on to discuss the growth projections for the southeast part of town and suggested the Trails Master Plan needs further review. End of Public Input Staff Response Foreman stated the Trails Plan specifically addresses the southeast part of town and its lack of trail facilities. He noted access easements are necessary for some of the trails in the area and those trails will be constructed as quickly as possible. 5 Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2013 Page 3 Chair Smith asked Mr. Hirning when he sent his emails and to whom they were addresses. Mr. Hirning replied the initial email was sent to Director Kadrich last week and he responded to a response from Mr. Foreman as well. Director Kadrich stated Mr. Foreman had the information and noted the emails were not forwarded to the Board. Board Questions Member Schneider asked which map is the most accurate. Foreman replied Map 3 shows the proposed trail projects matching with suggested construction dates. He stated the trail near Bacon School is thirteenth on the priority list, primarily due to the fact that easements have yet to be acquired. Member Hart asked Mr. Hirning asked if his concern is related to the fact that the trails shown on the map are not complete or that the map is inadequate. Mr. Hirning replied his issue is related to the fact that the Harmony corridor does not exist as a priority on the Trails Master Plan. Additionally, he stated the southeast part of town does not have safe routes to parks and schools. Member Hart asked if the completion of those off-street trails would be adequate to service the southeast part of town. Mr. Hirning replied it would correct the safe routes issue; however, developments have proceeded without taking trails into consideration. He expressed concern there is no priority listed for an underpass of the Harmony corridor. Member Kirkpatrick stated innovative bicycle treatments have been proposed for the Harmony corridor and asked why there were no connections made along the corridor or if there are plans for such connections in the future. Foreman replied the feasibility of underpasses or overpasses will be studied and discussed the trail plan to split the distance between Harmony and Fossil Creek Reservoir given the detached sidewalk and street system along Harmony. Chair Smith suggested the Board take a recess to read Mr. Hirning’s emails. (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Member Hart stated the major concern in Mr. Hirning’s emails seemed to be prioritization. He asked who sets the priorities and asked what role the Board has in making a recommendation for the Master Plan. Foreman replied staff sets the priorities, primarily based on the availability of easements and the expansion of the trail system. Public outreach will occur during the trail update process. Director Kadrich replied it is customary, on behalf of Council and the City Manager, for any type of planning process to have input from as many Boards as possible. It is within that context that the Board should make a recommendation or suggestions relating to the Trails Master Plan. Member Hart asked if future projects would receive approval based on complying with the Trails Master Plan. Director Kadrich replied that would depend on the development and the relevance of the Trails Plan. Director Smith discussed the relatively narrow purview of the Board and noted the Board will have input regarding safe, direct, and convenient routes with regard to new development. Member Schneider asked if the Land Use Code will be updated or changed based on this Plan. Foreman replied in the negative. Member Schneider suggested a statement regarding the relevancy of connectivity for all developments be included, particularly related to access to the Power Trail. 6 Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2013 Page 4 Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated there is no reference to a Trails Master Plan in the transportation and circulation sections of the Land Use Code. The Code would come into play in enforcing the Trails Plan if it becomes part of the Master Street Plan. Forman replied staff would like to include the Trails Plan in the next Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update on a five year review and ten year update schedule. Member Schneider noted the Board would need to recommend the Trails Master Plan become part of the Street Master Plan so as to become part of the Land Use Code discussion. Chair Smith noted the Board could also suggest the inclusion of the Trails Master Plan directly in the Land Use Code. Member Kirkpatrick asked how the Land Use Code addresses parks. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied they are not addressed. Member Kirkpatrick asked how parks are administered within the City. Foreman replied parks are funded by a one-time fee on new homes. The Parks and Recreation Policy Plan is part of City Plan and the Trails Plan will now become part of the Parks Plan. Deputy City Attorney Eckman read the Land Use Code section related to parks which indicates all development plans shall provide for or accommodate the parks and trails identified in the Parks and Recreation Policy Master Plan that are associated with the development. Member Kirkpatrick asked if Title 6 social equity issues are considered as part of the Plan and if the Lincoln Middle School/Poudre Trail connection is prioritized. Foreman replied there is no connection between Taft Hill and Shields and the Vine Outfall Project has an easement for the Poudre Trail to attach it to Lincoln; funding is needed at this point. Foreman stated he does not have specific knowledge of social sustainability efforts; however, the Transportation Planning staff provides input on those issues. Member Schneider asked if County projects which will be annexed in to the City have the same guidelines to accommodate trails. Foreman replied those projects are part of the City’s development review process. Chair Smith asked why the trail at Trilby and Lemay couldn’t have been routed on the south edge of Southridge Golf Course to avoid those streets entirely. Foreman replied the City missed the opportunity to get an easement through the Paragon Point development. Chair Smith requested a discussion of regional trail connections. Foreman discussed the connection to Carpenter Road and noted the flood has impacted the connection to Boyd Lake. The first priority for the County is to connect Fort Collins to Loveland. In 2014, a trail will be placed from Fossil Creek Drive to Trilby along the east side of Shields. Board discussion Member Hart stated the Trails Master Plan is a good document and stated prioritization issues may need to be constantly reviewed. Member Kirkpatrick agreed with Member Hart and stated she would like to see additional east-west connectivity. Member Schneider made a motion to recommend support of adoption of the Trails Master Plan to City Council. Member Hart seconded the motion. 7 Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2013 Page 5 Chair Smith stated bicycle connections should be safe, direct, and convenient and off the road if possible. He supported the Plan and stated the trail system should be an integral part of future City planning. The motion passed 5:0. _______ Project: Expansion of the Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising at the University Center for the Arts Complex, Colorado State University – 216 E. Lake Street, Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130003 Project Description: This is a request to expand the existing Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising by 10,750 square feet to the east side of the Annex of the old Fort Collins High School building that faces Lake Street. The expansion will be one-story and feature a prominent entry facing Lake Street. The existing driveway off Lake Street would be shifted 120 feet to the east. There would be a reduction in size of the dog park by approximately 25%. The C.S.U. University Center for the Arts comprises the whole block bounded by Remington Street, East Pitkin Street, Peterson Street and East Lake Street. The parcel is zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Recommendation: Approval Member Kirkpatrick recused herself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. Director Kadrich stated staff just received a written comment from an audience member who wished to remain anonymous. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Fred Haberecht, Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning, Facilities Services Center, Colorado State University, stated this project is a 10,500 square foot addition to the annex building at the old Fort Collins High School site. He noted there will be no additional staff or students associated with the addition and the plan attempts to make the exterior of the addition as similar as possible to the existing building with additional brick pattern texture which will represent the textile program. Mr. Haberecht noted two trees will be transplanted as part of the project and the addition will eliminate 22 daytime faculty spaces, of which only three are occupied on a daily basis. He stated this expansion will be funded almost entirely from one private benefactor. Public Input Secretary Lori Bichler read a letter from an audience member expressing concern regarding parking issues and stating the addition offers no public relevance. Mr. Haberecht replied this addition will have exhibits open to the public and noted parking is an issue throughout the area. He stated a resident parking permit program could be considered. End of Public Input Board Questions Member Hart asked about the exterior lighting hours. Mr. Haberecht replied the University complies with State and City lighting requirements regarding exterior lighting and stated safety lighting needs to be on at all times. 8 Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2013 Page 6 Chair Smith noted CSU projects are similar to those of other governmental entities. The Planning and Zoning Board is limited to a Site Plan Advisory Review under criteria including location, character and extent of the development. Board discussion Member Hart conceded area parking difficulties but to disregard this project will contribute to neighborhood parking issues. Member Hatfield made a motion to approve the expansion of the Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising at the University Center for the Arts Complex, Colorado State University – 216 E. Lake Street, Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130003. Member Schneider seconded the motion. The motion was passed 4:0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair 9 ITEM NO 2 MEETING DATE November 14, 2013 STAFF WRAY PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins, Colorado OWNER: N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is an annual draft update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, required by Colorado State Statutes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (Plan) is a policy document for coordinating future annexation and provision of services, required to be updated annually per Colorado Revised Statutes. Section 31-12-105 of the State Statutes requires that cities complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of its municipal boundary. The purpose of the Plan is to describe the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for areas of potential annexation. This State required annual update is routine and recurring and highlights the 2013 changes to approved plans and other documents applicable to those areas defined in the State Statutes. This draft 2013 update of the Plan is presented for Planning and Zoning Board review. After reviewing the Plan, the Planning and Zoning Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. COMMENTS: Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area, that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 10 Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 2 public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. This Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories as follows: Transportation-related items: • Streets • Subways • Bridges • Parkways • Aviation Fields • Other Public Ways • Terminals for Transportation Utilities and related items: • Public Utilities • Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related items: • Waterways • Waterfronts • Playgrounds • Squares • Parks • Grounds • Open Spaces Proposed Land Uses: • Inside Growth Management Area (GMA) • Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) The Plan lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins City Council which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted, not by the City of Fort Collins, but also by Larimer County, CSU or adjoining municipalities, as these are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 11 Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 3 Since Fort Collins has an established Growth Management Area boundary (GMA) and Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County pertaining to future annexation within the GMA, the information included in the Plan certainly applies there, yet less applicable for lands within the three-mile area beyond the GMA. The annual update to the Plan represents a routine and recurring action, to ensure the City complies with the State Statute requirements. There have been very few changes to plans and other documents since the previous year (see below for changes). In Section II of the Plan, revised and updated plans and other documents that were approved in 2013 are listed. Changes and additions to these plans are indicated in bold. Any plans that are no longer applicable for this assessment are struck through for deletions. Summary of approved new/revised Plans and other Documents, and deletions in 2013: Transportation-related Items: • Streetscape Design Standards (Fort Collins) • Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) - Amendments • Master Street Plan - Amendments (Fort Collins) • Harmony Road ETC Master Plan (Fort Collins) Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items:  Timnath Community Separator Study Utilities and related Items: • Energy Policy – 2013 Annual update (Fort Collins) • 2009 Energy Policy Proposed Land Uses: • Midtown Plan (Fort Collins) • Harmony Road ETC Master Plan • Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan – 2013 Update • Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements City Plan and related elements provide sufficient guidance for managing growth within the GMA, and to some degree outside the GMA for contextual purposes. More specifically, the City Structure Plan map shows future land use designations to provide direction for potential annexation and zoning within the GMA. City Plan takes into account all land that is functionally related to the growth of the municipality, not just land within three miles of the municipal 12 Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 4 boundary. Although the Three-Mile Plan is similar to City Plan, it goes further in requiring the location, character and extent of future utilities and infrastructure as well as proposed land uses for the area. As such, the three-Mile Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. The three maps that are included in the Plan reflect the general resources, and infrastructure for significant waterways and airports within the Three-Mile area of the City. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION A. The 2013 update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, generally and accurately describes the proposed location, character and extent of street, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the City of Fort Collins and the proposed land uses for the area. B. The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is in compliance with regulations set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the 2013 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. ATTACHMENT: Draft copy of the 2013 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado 13 Three-Mile Plan for the City Of Fort Collins Prepared by Planning Services, October, 2013 2013 Update 14 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? ........................................................... 3 What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5 Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5 Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items .............................................. 6 Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8 Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................ 9 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary .............................................................. 11 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ....................................................................................................................... 12 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 13 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 2 October 28, 2013 15 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is a policy document for coordinating future annexation and provision of services, required to be updated annually per Colorado Revised Statutes. Section 31-12-105 of the State Statutes requires that cities complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary. The purpose of the Plan is to describe the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for areas of potential annexation. In comparison to a specific annexation impact report, the Three-Mile Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. A proposed annexation should be consistent with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan and Three-Mile Plan, in addition to other policies. The required annual update is routine and recurring, highlighting the 2013 changes to approved plans and other documents applicable to those areas defined in the State Statutes. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? This Three-Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories, as follows: Transportation-related Items:  Streets  Subways  Bridges  Parkways  Aviation Fields  Other Public Ways  Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items: City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 3 October 28, 2013 16  Waterways  Waterfronts  Playgrounds  Squares  Parks  Grounds  Open Spaces Utilities and Related Items:  Public Utilities  Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses:  Inside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) For each of these four categories, the plans, policies, maps, and other documents are identified that have been adopted by the Fort Collins City Council, which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted by others such as Larimer County, CSU or adjoining municipalities, also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. There have been very few changes to plans since the previous year. In Section II below, revised and updated plans and other documents that were approved in 2013 are listed. Changes and additions to these plans are indicated in bold. Any plans that are no longer applicable for this assessment are struck through for deletions. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 4 October 28, 2013 17 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan Transportation-related Items 1. Streets:  Capital Improvement Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan  City of Fort Collins Street Standards  City of Fort Collins Bicycle Plan  City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan  City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan  Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan  Harmony Road ETC Master Plan  Harmony Road Access Control Plan  I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan  Larimer County Transportation Master Plan  Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards  Mason Corridor Master Plan  North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan  North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan  Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study  Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan  Downtown Parking Plan ( for Council consideration on December 4, 2012)  South College Access Control Plan  Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards  Subarea Plans o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 5 October 28, 2013 18  Transfort Strategic Operating Plan  Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002) 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges:  Master Street Plan  North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways: LCUSS Streetscape Standards Update 5. Aviation Fields:  Airport Master Plan Update  The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all the airports within the plan area 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation:  Mason Corridor Master Plan Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items 1. Waterways:  Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study  Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations  The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area  Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality 2. Waterfronts:  The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks:  City Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan  Parks and Recreation Policy Plan  Poudre School District Master Plan  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 6 October 28, 2013 19 o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan  Thompson School District Master Plan  Trails Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces:  Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan  Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan 2012 Update  Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan  Foothills Study  Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plans  Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan  Fossil Creek reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan  Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan  Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study  Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland  Regional Community Separator Study  Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 7 October 28, 2013 20 o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan  Timnath Community Separator Study  Wellington Community Separator Study  Windsor Community Separator Study Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities:  2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update  2009 Energy Policy  208 Plan  Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan  City Plan  Drinking Water Quality Policy  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan  Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy  Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update  Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan  South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management  Water Conservation Plan  Energy Policy – 2013 Annual update (Fort Collins Utilities) 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality:  2009 Energy Policy  Energy Policy – 2013 Annual update (Fort Collins Utilities)  208 Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan  City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan  Drinking Water Quality Policy  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan  Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 8 October 28, 2013 21  Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update  Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan  South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management  Water Conservation Plan Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA):  2009 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Structure Plan  Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement  Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement  Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan 2012 Update  Foundation for a New Century CSU Campus Master Plan, 2004, including: o Agricultural Research Development and Educational Center (ARDEC) Master Plan o Foothills Campus Master Plan o South Campus Master Plan  Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o Harmony Road ETC Master Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan o Midtown Plan 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA: City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 9 October 28, 2013 22  A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland  City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan  LaPorte Area Plan  Larimer County Master Plan  Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan  Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan  Northern Colorado Community Separator Study  Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan  Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code  Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan Update, April 2013  Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 10 October 28, 2013 23 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 11 October 28, 2013 24 - City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 12 October 28, 2013 25 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2013 Update Page 13 October 28, 2013 26 ITEM NO ______3___________ MEETING DATE November 14, 2013 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P., #PDP130028 APPLICANT: Imago Enterprises and Milestone Development c/o Kephart 2555 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205 OWNER: Imago Enterprises, Inc. Milestone Development 140 Palmer Drive 1400 16 th Street Fort Collins, CO 80525 Denver, CO 80202 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: As proposed, the project consists of 276 apartments on 10.2 acres located between Lady Moon Drive, Cinquefoil Lane, Precision Drive and the planned extension of Le Fever Drive. There would be ten, three-story apartment buildings plus a 6,000 square foot office / clubhouse, pool and picnic area, along with nine mixed-use dwelling units. There would be approximately 449 parking spaces divided between garages and surface lots which equates to 1.62 spaces per unit. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. The applicant is the same developer as the existing Terra Vida Apartments located one block to the south. (This project was originally referred to as Presidio Apartments during the plan review process but changed names at a later date for marketing purposes.) A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(C)(1) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking / Orientation to a Connecting Walkway – is proposed for Buildings Five and Nine. A Modification to 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) - Rear Elevation of Garages is proposed for Garages 17, 19 and 20. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 27 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Modification of Standard and the P.D.P. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Multi-family and mixed-use dwelling units are permitted within the Basic Industrial Non- Retail Employment Activity Center of the Harmony Corridor. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of both the Harmony Corridor Plan and the H-C zone. Further, the P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards with two exceptions. First, a Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) is recommended to allow the entrances on Buildings 5 and 9 to be located more than 200 feet from a public sidewalk and to allow their entrances to not face the public street as a design consideration to improve internal circulation to the clubhouse. Second, a Modification to Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) is recommended to allow the rear elevation of three garages to have a length that exceeds 55 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: H-C; Banner Health Hospital and Medical Office Building S: L-M-N; Terra Vida 1 (Presidio) Apartments (10 buildings, 240 units) E: H-C; Vacant (Brookfield Townhomes Future Phase) W:H-C; Harmony Tech Park Third Filing, (Numerica and Custom Blending) The site is presently vacant and has never been a part of a site specific project. The parcel, however, is designated by the Harmony Corridor Plan as being part of the Basic Industrial Non-retail Employment Activity Center. The site is Tract I of the 270-acre Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Fifth Amendment. The following approvals have been granted: • Harmony Farm Annexation - 1984. • Harmony Technology Park O.D.P. (155 acres) – August, 1997. • Celestica P.D.P., - November, 1997. • Brookfield Annexation – December, 1999. • Kendall-Harmony Annexation – June, 2000. 28 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 3 • Johnson-Harmony Annexation – July, 2000. • Harmony Tech. Park, First Amended O.D.P. (267 acres) – September, 2000. • Harmony Technology Park P.D.P. (61 acres) – May, 2001. • Brookfield P.D.P., November, 2001. • Harmony Technology Park, Second Amendment – May, 2004. • Harmony Technology Park, Third Amendment – April, 2008. • Custom Blending Phase One – May, 2008. • Harmony Technology Park, Fourth Amendment – January, 2012. • Harmony Technology Park, Fifth Amendment – May, 2013. • Presidio Apartments – June, 2011. • Harmony Technology Park, Third Filing, Lot One, First Replat, (49,900 square feet, 4.9 acres) – May, 2011 (Numerica, under construction). • Custom Blending Phase Two Expansion – October, 2013 (under construction). 2. Harmony Corridor Plan: As mentioned, the site is located within the Harmony Corridor Plan (H.C.P.) and within a specifically defined area designated as “Basic Industrial Non-retail Employment Activity Center.” Multi-family and mixed-use dwelling units are permitted, secondary uses as per the H.C.P. The project is surrounded by public streets and is fully integrated and designed to function in coordination with the Harmony Corridor District. 3. Compliance with Harmony Corridor Plan Standards: Since the project does not front on Harmony Road, nor is it located in shopping center, there are very few applicable Harmony Corridor Plan Standards. In addition, there are very few applicable Harmony Corridor Plan standards (1995) that remain valid that have 29 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 4 not been superseded by the Land Use Code (1997). Compliance with the applicable remaining standard is as follows: Land Use and Locational Standards and Guidelines: Secondary and supporting uses will also be permitted in the Basic Industrial Non-retail Employment Activity Center, but shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the Office, (or Business) Park, Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development, as applicable. Multi-family shall mean attached single family, 2-family or multi-family dwellings. As mentioned, Terra Vida II Apartments are located on Tract I of the 270-acre Harmony Technology Park O.D.P. Tract I is 11.7 acres and represents only 4.3% of the O.D.P. which was approved with 25% (67.5 acres) of secondary uses. 4. Compliance with Harmony Corridor Zone District Standards: A. Section 4.26(B)(2) – Land Use Mixed-use dwellings are permitted subject to administrative review. Multi-family dwellings are permitted subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Further, multi-family dwellings are defined as a secondary use subject to not occupying more than 25% of the development plan. (When a development application contains both Type One and Type Two uses, it will be processed as a Type Two review.) B. Section 4.26(E)(2)(a) – Site Design This standard requires that, in the case of multiple ownership and to the extent reasonably feasible, an applicant shall enter into cooperative agreements with adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development plan that establishes an integrated pattern of streets, outdoor spaces, building styles and uses. In compliance with this standard, the parcel is surrounded by public streets that conform to the approved O.D.P. Connectivity is gained on all four sides by the public sidewalks. C. Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) – Maximum Height This standard requires that Buildings Four, Eight and Ten, which contain the mixed-use dwellings, shall not exceed six stories and that all other buildings not exceed three stories. All proposed buildings are three stories in height except for the clubhouse which is two stories. 30 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 5 D. Section 4.26(D)(4) – Density This standard requires that the project shall have an overall average density of no less than seven dwelling units per net acre. The project has a density of 27.05 dwelling units per net acre which complies with the standard. There is no maximum density. E. Section 4.26(D)(5) – Mix of Housing Types This standard requires that there be a minimum of two housing types on any residential project that is between 10 and 30 acres. The size of the parcel is 10.2 acres and provides multi-family and mixed-use dwellings to comply with the standard. As noted, the nine mixed-use dwellings are on the first floor in Buildings Four, Eight and Ten facing Precision Drive and Cinquefoil Lane. F. Section 4.26(D)(6) – Access to Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place This standard requires that 90% of all the dwelling units be within 1,320 feet (one-quarter mile) of a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or central feature or gathering place that is located within the project or within adjacent development. The project includes a pool and a 6,000 square foot clubhouse which is centrally located on 20,880 square feet (.48 acre). The site is also located slightly more than one-quarter mile from a the future Southeast Community Park located on 54 acres between Fossil Ridge High School and Kechter Road. Joint development with Poudre School District to date includes water storage, irrigation, one ball field and two tennis courts. This park is scheduled to be completed in 2014 at the earliest. 5. Compliance with Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan: As mentioned, the site is 10.2 acres designated as Tract I of the 270-acre Harmony Technology O.D.P., Fifth Amendment which was approved in May of 2013. (This Amendment did not affect Tract I.) The O.D.P. indicates that this parcel is for secondary uses, multi-family. Terra Vida Apartments P.D.P complies with the O.D.P. 6. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. provides full tree stocking around all buildings. Street trees are provided along all four public streets. Foundation shrubs are provided around all 31 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 6 buildings. Earthen berms are located to help shield the rear elevation of the garages. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping All parking spaces are divided between surface and garage spaces. Surface spaces are located internal to site and screened from public view by buildings, garages and landscaping. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Of the total 449 parking spaces, 173 are surface which requires a minimum of 10% interior landscaping in the form of islands. The parking lot is landscaped in a manner that exceeds the required minimum. D. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access Circulation and Parking The access and circulation system provides one vehicular connection to Le Fever Drive and one to Precision Drive. There are internal walkways out to all four perimeter streets. Each pedestrian connection is identified by an architectural feature. Two of these connections meet the definition of a major walkway spine. Five mixed-use dwellings are located along Cinquefoil Lane and four are located along Precision Drive for entrance visibility and are connected to the public sidewalk with walkways. E. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking This standard requires that of the 396 total bedrooms, there must be no less than 60% (238) enclosed spaces. There are 276 (70%) enclosed spaces, one per garage parking space. The remainder 120 (30%) spaces are distributed throughout the project in 15 fixed racks with eight spaces per rack. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) – Walkways Walkways within the site are designed to provide connections to all four perimeter streets and the clubhouse. Two north-south walkways are set within 30-foot wide landscaped tracts and qualify as major walkway spines. G. Section 3.2.2(E) – Parking Lot Layout The fundamental design is to orient the parking to the site interior and reserve the perimeter for street-facing buildings. This orientation creates a strong relationship between the buildings and the four public streets. The leasing office and clubhouse are located directly on the primary driveway connecting to Le 32 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 7 Fever Drive. The interior sidewalks connect the buildings to the central common area. One lesson learned from Terra Vida I (Presidio Apartments) was that, while there were excellent relationships between buildings and streets, this orientation came at the expense of internally isolating the clubhouse, pool and picnic area by being surrounded by parking, drives and garages. As a result, for Terra Vida II, the central clubhouse area is now framed by two 24-unit buildings. This has the effect of pushing five garages out to the perimeter. These garages, however, include architectural features and are screened by a combination of earthen berms and landscaping. H. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(2) – Parking – Minimum Number of Spaces There are 156 one-bedroom units which require 234 spaces and 120 two- bedroom units which require 210 spaces for a total of 444 required spaces. The project provides 449 spaces which exceeds the required minimum and equates to 1.62 spaces per unit. (This total assigns the residential required minimum parking to the nine mixed-use dwelling units which results in a higher requirement.) I. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting Parking lot lighting will feature down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. There are no foot-candles that exceed the maximum allowable. The public street lighting has been factored into the Lighting Plan to avoid redundancy. J. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(E)(F) – Building Project and Compatibility This standard is designed to ensure compatibility of new buildings with the surrounding context. For this location, the context is a mix of residential densities and vacant land with H-C and L-M-N zoning. The surrounding context is further described as follows: • To the east are the future phases of the Morningstar (Brookfield) Townhomes. These are two story buildings with a mix of four, six and eight-plexes. This project was approved as a secondary use in the Harmony Corridor zone. At full build-out, this project will consist of 298 units on 33 gross acres for a density of 9.00 dwelling units per acre. The existing Morningside Townhomes are two-story with pitched roofs and achieve a height ranging from 25 to 34 feet. • To the south are the three-story apartments of Terra Vida I. This project features 240 units divided among 10, 24-plex buildings. 33 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 8 • To the west is Lot 4 of Harmony Technology Park, Third Filing and a regional stormwater detention pond. This area is zoned H-C and includes a proposed two-story office building containing 30,000 square feet. There are two other significant primary uses to the west. First is Custom Blending Phase One with Phase Two under construction with a total of 65,000 square feet. The second is referred to as “5042” and is 49,900 square foot industrial flex building with 17,000 square feet leased to Numerica. • To the north is Banner Health Hospital campus. Phase One is under construction and includes a three-story building. Future phases include adding onto the hospital with two-story additions and a separate two-story medical office building. As can be seen, the surrounding area is zoned Harmony Corridor and is developing as a mix of primary and secondary uses. The basic intent of the Harmony Technology O.D.P. is to place the more intense land uses closer to Harmony Road and then transition to the south with secondary uses. South of Rock Creek Drive, one-half mile south of Harmony Road, the character of the area is distinctly residential. Both Terra Vida I and II Apartments fulfill this transitional function. For example, residential buildings in the H-C are capped at three stories in height. A primary use, however, could be as high as six stories. The design of the buildings contributes to the land use transition from Harmony Road south to Rock Creek Drive. While Terra Vida II is more urban than Terra Vida I, the buildings are residential in character with low profile pitched roofs and attractive exterior materials. The exterior includes a combination of cultured stone and lap siding. Colors will be earth-tone. Entrances are emphasized with an accent roof. The architectural character, building size, materials and color are appropriate and fulfill the transitional function of a secondary use in the Harmony Corridor district. K. Section 3.2.3(C)(D) – Access to Sunshine and 3.5.1(G) – Special Height Review With shallow-pitched roofs, the buildings are slightly over 39 feet in height but do not exceed 40 feet. L. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.) has been reviewed and evaluated by the Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning Departments. Primary 34 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 9 access will be via two new private drives that intersect with Le Fever Drive on the north and Precision Drive on the south. The T.I.S concludes: • The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. • Currently, and in the short range future (2018), given development of Terra Vida II, the key intersections will operate acceptably during the peak hours with existing geometry and intended geometry at the key intersections. (The short range projections include an increase in the background traffic and trip generation from existing vacant parcels.) Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes are attained. • None of the stop sign controlled intersections are expected to meet peak hour signal warrants. • Banner Health is building Le Fever Drive. Terra Vida II will build their segment of Cinquefoil M. Section 3.8.30(B) – Multi-Family Development Standards – Mix of Housing Types This standard requires that for projects greater than 10 acres, there be two housing types. The project consists of 10.2 acres. The two housing types are multi-family and mixed-use dwellings. While there is no standard requiring a prescribed mix of quantity, Terra Vida II is providing nine mixed-use dwellings; the same ratio as Terra Vida I. N. Section 3.8.30(E)(3) – Buildings – Minimum Setbacks This standard requires that the minimum required setback for buildings along a non-arterial street is nine feet. All streets are non-arterials and buildings are setback by ten feet. O. Section 3.8.30(F)(2) – Variation Among Repeated Buildings This standard requires that there be three building types excluding the clubhouse. Of the ten buildings, there are three 36-unit buildings, four 24-unit buildings and three 24-plex buildings that contain the mixed-use units. (The 35 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 10 architecture of Terra Vida 11 is intentionally different from Terra Vida I to avoid repetition.) Buildings are differentiated in the following manner: • The 36-unit building has a larger footprint and three entrances. The central entrance is highlighted by a two-story feature capped by a secondary, flat roof. Cultured stone is arranged as a consistent base but varies in height from one story up to two stories. The balance of the building field is divided between stucco and lap siding. The ends are topped with a horizontal feature to contrast with the larger pitched roof. • The 24-plex that contains the mixed-use units is characterized by sloping projecting secondary roofs over the central building module creating a more contemporary image. This feature is carried over to the ends but to a lesser degree. The two main entrances are highlighted with flat roof. The cultured stone base, lap siding and stucco are arranged symmetrically but in a different pattern than the two other building types. • The 24-plex that does not contain the mixed-use units is characterized by a flat secondary roof over the central building module. The ends feature sloping secondary roofs that help break up the larger pitched roof. The cultured stone, lap siding and stucco are again arranged symmetrically but in a different pattern than the other two building types. P. Section 3.8.30(F)(3) – Variation in Color This standard requires that there shall be at least three color schemes and that no more than two similarly colored structures are placed next to each other along a street or major walkway spine. All three building types feature various arrangements of the following: • 24 and 36 – Stucco and Lap Siding, SW 6128: Beige Tone Blonde • 24 and 36 – Stucco and Lap Siding, SW 7075: Medium Gray Tone • 24 – Stucco and Lap Siding, SW 6054: Deep wine/Rust tone, Canyon Clay • 24 and 36 - Stucco, Fascia and Lap Siding, SW 7005: Pure White • 24 and 36 – Stucco, Lap Siding, SW 2802: Deep Wine/Rust tone Rookwood Red • Dimensional asphalt shingles – gray/black blend • Dimensional asphalt shingles – charcoal 36 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 11 There are no more than two similar buildings in a row along the four streets or the two major walkway spines. Q. Section 3.8.30(F)(4) – Entrances This standard requires that entrances be clearly visible from streets and public areas through the use of architectural elements and landscaping. Three buildings feature the mixed-use dwellings with individual unit entrances facing the public street and highlighted with connecting walkways. Three buildings face directly onto the two major walkway spines. Four buildings are internally oriented. As mitigation for the internally-oriented buildings, there are five, free-standing gates located just behind the public sidewalk along the four public streets. Referred to as “pedestrian portals,” these features are intended to invite and guide residents and visitors into the site interior. There would be two distinct designs, major and minor, that are covered and attractive. These features set a tone that the site is open to all. R. Section 3.8.30(F)(5) - Roofs This standard requires that roofs feature at least two distinct features to avoid repetition. All roofs are pitched with a 3:12 slope. Roofs are punctuated with secondary roofs that are pitched and flat so that there are no long unbroken rooflines. Rooflines are further mitigated by building modules that project above the eave. S. Section 3.8.30 (F)(6) – Facades and Walls This standard requires that multi-family buildings feature sufficient articulation through a variety of techniques. All buildings are articulated with projecting modules, secondary roofs, covered stairwells, balconies and windows. There are no blank walls. There are three primary building materials and a variety of color combinations. In general, buildings are not repetitive internally or relative to Terra Vida I. The facades and walls create a built environment that is at the human scale and demonstrates a residential character. 7. Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking: A. The standard at issue: Section 3.5.2(D)(1) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. 37 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 12 (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk or 300 feet from a major walkway spine. (2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. B. Description of Modification: Building Seven, located internally east of the clubhouse, has two entrances that are greater than 200 feet from the public sidewalks but less than the 300 feet allowed by being along a major walkway spine. While within the specified distance, the entrances are on the east side of the building yet the major walkway spine is on the west. Also, the southerly entrance to Building Five is 210 feet from Precision Drive; short by ten feet. C. Applicant’s Justification: Building Seven is internal to the site and helps frame the clubhouse. Building Five has two entrances also facing internally with one entrance out of compliance by ten feet. Regarding Building Seven, its location was influenced by the lesson learned at Terra Vida I where pedestrian access to the centrally located clubhouse was impaired by parking, garages and drives. This clubhouse was viewed as being isolated from the tenants. As a remedy, Terra Vida II frames the clubhouse with two buildings with the result that Building Seven is in the middle of the project versus along a street. Regarding Building Five, the internal entrances are specifically intended to buffer the residential character from the primary uses that are developing, and expected to develop, across the street on the west side of Lady Moon Drive. As part of Harmony Technology Park O.D.P. and Zoned Harmony Corridor, the area to the west includes: • Custom Blending (66,7000 square feet, light industrial) • 5240 Lady Moon Drive (49,900 square feet including 17,000 square feet for Numerica) • Proposed office building 38 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 13 The influence of Banner Health may act as a catalyst for additional medical related development throughout Harmony Technology Park. The applicant contends that from an urban design perspective, the P.D.P. provides for a sensible blend between relating buildings to streets as well as creating an internal residential ambiance highlighted by the clubhouse and pool area. Regarding Building Seven, while most buildings comply with street orientation and connecting walkways, the location of this building contributes to creating a better internal pedestrian circulation system than if the area were instead, parking, garages and drives. Finally, regarding the south entrance to Building Five, the proposed distance from the public sidewalk is found to be only slightly out of compliance with the standard of 200 feet. D. Staff Evaluation The site planning for these two buildings contributes to an overall design that satisfies both internal circulation and external relationships to the larger neighborhood. While not mutually exclusive, Staff finds that the design solution meets the overall purpose of the Land Use Code for the following reasons: (1.) The project benefits from the overall design of bringing eight of the ten buildings up to the street, and activating rather than isolating the clubhouse. All surface parking is screened from public view. Such orientation is a fundamental aspect of City Plan. (2.) All street-facing elevations are detailed and articulated. There are no blank or uninteresting walls facing the streets. (3.) The internal network of walkways is generous. Walkways link all buildings to the central clubhouse and pool as well as out to all four streets. In total, there are 11 walkway connections to the four public sidewalks spread out over 10.2 acres. (4.) This orientation also contributes to a logical transition in land use intensity from Harmony Road south to Rock Creek Drive. E. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds that the purpose of the standard is to discourage multi-family development from becoming an enclosed, inwardly-focused apartment complex 39 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 14 surrounded by surface parking and garages. Instead, the standard requires multi-family buildings to be integrated into the public street pattern by providing street-fronting buildings in the traditional manner of homes along neighborhood streets. Staff finds that Terra Vida II Apartments accomplishes this vision and reinforces the system of streets and blocks. Staff, therefore finds that: • The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. • The P.D.P., as proposed, will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code 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., the purpose statement of the Land Use Code. 8. Modification of Standard – Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) – Perimeter Garages: A. The standard at issue: (a) Length. Any garage located with its rear wall along the perimeter of a development and within sixty-five (65) feet of a public right-of-way or the property line of the development site shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in length. A minimum of seven (7) feet of landscaping must be provided between any two (2) such perimeter garages. B. Applicant’s Request: The applicant is requesting that three garages have greater length: Garage 17 – 155 feet Garage 19 – 85 feet Garage 20 – 90 feet C. Applicant’s Justification: The applicant contends that, in general, garage parking represents a higher quality of design than surface spaces. Garages allow for bicycle parking to be enclosed versus being placed within units, hallways, stairwells or balconies. The number of garage spaces equals the number of dwelling units so all units have equal access to the 40 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 15 benefit. Placing these three garages along the southern perimeter allows for two residential buildings to frame the internal clubhouse. The applicant contends that these garages will face Terra Vida I, not Morningside Village or Observatory Village. The area between the rear elevation and the south property line is well landscaped. Finally, these garages have been upgraded with architectural details such as building footprint projections, a base of cultured stone, lap siding and pitched roofs. D. Staff Evaluation: Staff finds that by placing these three garages along the perimeter, internal pedestrian circulation is improved. The length of the rear elevations has been mitigated with earthen berms and landscaping. Architectural features include a distinctive base, middle and top. The roof pitch of 4:12 is residential in character and the height is 14 feet. Garages 19 and 20 are setback from the street by a minimum of 25 feet. The streetscape along Precision Drive features apartment buildings, the major walkway spine and a major pedestrian portal so the street will not be dominated by garages. E. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds that the design solution results in an internal pedestrian circulation that allows the central area to become an effective gathering area and not isolated by parking and drives. This is because in an alternative design, apartment buildings could be placed on the perimeter with garages within the interior but this would have a negative effect on providing pedestrian access to the clubhouse and open space area. As mitigation, the design solutions related to setbacks, landscaping and architectural features contribute to a streetscape that remains at the human scale. As proposed, the three garages, with rear elevations that face a public street, are found to be a practical approach to the distribution of buildings, central clubhouse, surface parking and garage placement. (1.) The granting of the Modification would not detrimental to the public good. (2.) The plan as proposed, would result in a plan that is found to be equal to or better than a plan where the clubhouse was cut-off from the residents and where all the parking spaces were in surface parking lots. This is because garages 17, 19 and 20 are sufficiently landscaped and designed to mitigate their impact on the streetscape along Precision Drive. 41 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 16 9. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on August 7, 2013. A summary is attached. The meeting was sparsely attended and there was no opposition. 10. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The P.D.P. is located within the Harmony Corridor Plan and complies with the applicable Harmony Corridor Plan standards. B. The P.D.P. complies with the Harmony Corridor zone district standards for land use, site design, height, density, mix of housing and access to a central feature. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards with one exception. D. A Modification of Standard is required for Section 3.5.2(C)(1) to allow Buildings 5 and 9 to have entrances that do not face the street or and are slightly further than 200 feet from a public sidewalk. E. This Modification complies with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H) in that: (1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. (3.) The P.D.P., as proposed, will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the Purpose Statement of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. F. A Modification of Standard is required for Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) to allow Garages 17, 19, and 20 to have rear elevations along Precision Drive that exceed 55 feet. G. This Modification complies with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H) in that: (1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. (2.) The P.D.P., as proposed will promote the overall purpose of the standard in a manner that is equal or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. This is because in an alternative design, apartment buildings could be placed on the perimeter with garages within 42 Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P. #PDP130028 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 17 the interior but this would have the negative effect on providing pedestrian access to the clubhouse and open space area. (3.) The P.D.P., as proposed provides placement, landscaping and architectural features to ensure that the streetscape along the north side of Precision Drive remains at the pedestrian scale. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the: Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(C)(1). Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a) Terra Vida II Apartments P.D.P., #PDP130028. Attachments: Aerial Vicinity Map Zoning Vicinity Map Applicant’s Statement of Planning Objectives Site Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Neighborhood Meeting Summary Transportation Impact Study 43 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner DATE: November 8, 2013 RE: ITEM 3 - Terra Vida II, Addendum to Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking The purpose of this memo is to provide further justification for the Modification of Standard to allow Building Seven to have two entrances on the opposite side of the major walkway spine and for Building Five to have an entrance 10 feet out of compliance with the length of a connecting walkway from the public sidewalk to the southern entrance. Findings of Fact: E. This Modification complies with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H) in that: (1.)The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. (2.)The P.D.P., as proposed, will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the Purpose Statement of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This is because the P.D.P., as designed, will continue to advance the following purposes of the Land Use Code: Section 1.2.2 (G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. (J) improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (O) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. 44 Fossil Ridge High School Precision Dr Galileo Dr Le Fever Dr Northern Lights Dr Brookfield Dr Southern Cross Ln Steelhead St Observatory Dr Cassiopeia Ln Voyager Ln Technology Pkwy Star Dust Ln Exploration Ln Dayli g h t C t Copernicus Dr Observatory Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Rock Creek Dr B ig Dipper D r E Harmony Rd E Harmony Rd © Terra Vida II 1 inch = 500 feet Site 45 HC LMN POL Fossil Ridge High School UE Precision Dr Galileo Dr Le Fever Dr Northern Lights Dr Brookfield Dr Southern Cross Ln Steelhead St Observatory Dr Cassiopeia Ln Voyager Ln Technology Pkwy Star Dust Ln Exploration Ln Dayli g h t C t Copernicus Dr Observatory Dr Cinquefoil Ln Lady Moon Dr Rock Creek Dr B ig Dipper D r E Harmony Rd E Harmony Rd © Terra Vida II 1 inch = 500 feet Site 46 1 Terra Vida II Apartments Project Development Plan Application and Narrative September 4, 2013 Prepared by Milestone Development Group 47 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DIRECTORY 3 LIST OF OFFICERS/DIRECTORS INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION 4 PREVIOUS PROJECT NAMES 4 PLANNING OBJECTIVES 4 PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 5 Landscape, Open Space and Non‐vehicle Circulation Elements 8 Stormwater Low Impact Development Plan 8 Ownership and Maintenance 8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 48 3 PROJECT DIRECTORY LAND OWNER Imago Enterprises, Inc. 140 Palmer Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 970‐226‐6289 Contact: Lester Kaplan DEVELOPER Milestone Development Group Milestone Terra Vida II LLP 1400 16th Street, 6th Floor Denver, CO 80202 303‐298‐7270 Contact: Ken Kiken ARCHITECT Kephart Community Planning Architecture 2555 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205 303‐832‐4474 Contact: Paul Campbell CIVIL ENGINEER Northern Engineering 200 south College Avenue, Suite 10 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970‐568‐5414 Contact: Nick Haws LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Henry Design Group 1501 Wazee Street, Suite 1‐C Denver, CO 80202 303‐446‐2368 Contact: Karen Henry TRAFFIC CONSULTANT Delich Associates 2272 Glenhaven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 970‐669‐2061 Contact: Matt Delich GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS CTL/Thompson 351 Linden Street, Suite 140 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970‐206‐9455 Contact: Spencer Schram 49 4 LIST OF OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION Ken Kiken PREVIOUS PROJECT NAMES None PLANNING OBJECTIVES Terra Vida II is a 10.2 acre multifamily residential development incorporating the Principles and Policies of the Fort Collins City Plan to create a high quality rental residential housing development with public transit, pedestrian and bicycle access to the growing employment centers in the Harmony Corridor area. Terra Vida II was planned with several design objectives: Create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment  Provide a strong central pedestrian and bicycle spine through the development to split the 10 acre effectively into two smaller blocks  Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through the site for adjacent residential developments to the Banner Hospital site and Harmony Corridor employment centers  Create street “readable”, welcoming entrances to the central spine and to secondary pedestrian and bicycle corridors through the site  Provide a bicycle shop and bike wash facility on site for residents that allows easy repair and maintenance of bicycles used for commuting  Provide dedicated bike storage in all standalone garages in addition to bike racks at all residential buildings and storage for bicycles in each apartment Utilize existing site features to provide recreational and open space opportunities  Create a state of the art exercise, pool and spa facility in our Clubhouse that provides a fitness opportunity superior to a 24 Hour Fitness or similar facility that is available to residents 24/7  Provide an outdoor kitchen, barbeque facilities and outdoor living rooms within our Clubhouse grounds to encourage community activities outdoors  Provide a heated pet wash and extensive pet stations stocked with bags and waste disposal facilities maintained by our staff to encourage dog walking by residents and members of adjacent communities  Provide lush well maintained landscaping to create an attractive streetscape and pedestrian experience  Provide a wider paved pedestrian and bicycle path on only one side of the central spine to drive regular social interaction between community members  Orient buildings toward the streets to provide an attractive, welcoming streetscape and to screen interior parking areas from view  Provide gated patio areas from first floor units to adjacent streets and the circulation spine Minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties  Provide a consistently reducing flow of development density from the new Banner Hospital project to the north through the higher density development in Terra Vida II to the lower density Terra Vida Apartments to the lowest density townhome and single family developments to the east and south of Terra Vida. 50 5 PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Specific principles and policies of the Fort Collins City Plan that are addressed by the Terra Vida II project are: PRINCIPLE LU‐1: Growth within the City will promote a compact development pattern within a well‐ defined boundary. Policy LU‐1.1 Compact Urban Form. The desired urban form will be achieved by directing future development to mixed‐use neighborhoods and districts while reducing the potential for dispersed growth not conducive to pedestrian and transit use and cohesive community development. PRINCIPLE LU‐2: The City will maintain and enhance its character and sense of place as defined by its neighborhoods, districts , corridors and edges. Policy LU‐2.1 City‐Wide Structure. The City will adopt a city‐wide structure of neighborhoods, districts, corridors and edges as a means of creating identifiable places and achieving the goals of compact development that is well served by all modes of travel. Policy LU‐2.2. Urban Design. The design review process, supplemented by design standards and guidelines, will be used to promote new construction and redevelopment that contribute positively to the type of neighborhoods, districts, corridors and edges described herein while emphasizing the special identity of each area. Terra Vida II will effectively be an infill between the new Banner Hospital to the north and the existing Terra Vida Apartments and residential communities further to the south. Terra Vida II will have a distinctly more urban feel that the developments to the south creating a logical transition between the employment center to the north and the residential areas to the south. The community is designed with strong pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and provides extensive bicycle transportation support facilities and recreational facilities with a more urban feel on the site. Terra Vida II further supports the urban form by meeting the density requirements for multifamily development in the H‐C corridor and is an approved secondary use under the HTC development plan. PRINCIPLE T‐1: The physical organization of the city will be supported by the framework of transportation alternatives the balance access, mobility, safety, and emergency response throughout the city, while working toward reducing vehicle miles traveled and dependence upon the private automobile. Policy T‐1.1. Land Use patterns. The City will implement land use patterns, parking policies, and demand management plans that support effective transit, an efficient roadway system, and alternative transportation modes. Appropriate residential densities and non‐residential land uses should be within walking distance of transit stops, permitting public transit to become a viable alternative to the automobile. Policy T‐1.2. MultiModal Streets. Street corridors will provide for safe, convenient and efficient use of all modes of travel, including motor vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Terra Vida II complies with the land use patterns envisioned by the City Plan by providing appropriate residential density within easy walking and biking distance of major employment and retail centers. PRINCIPLE T‐2: Mass Transit will be an integral part of the City’s overall transportation system. Policy T‐2.2. Transit Stops. Transit stops will be integrated into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Transit Stops should be provided no more than ¼ mile walking distance of most residences to the extent feasible. The design and location of transit stops should function as an integral part of these destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities and weather protection. 51 6 Policy T‐4: Bicycling will serve as a practical alternative to automobile use for all trip purposes. PRINCIPLE T‐5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a practical transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in balance with all other modes. Direct pedestrian connections will be provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work and public facilities. Policy T‐5.1 Land Use. The City will promote a mix of land uses and activities that will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community. Policy T‐5.2 Connections. Pedestrian connections will be clearly visible and accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting and paving materials. Other important considerations include: a. Building entries as viewed from the street should be clearly marked. Buildings should be sited in ways to make their entries or intended uses clear to and convenient for pedestrians. b. The location and pattern of streets, buildings and open spaces must facilitate direct pedestrian access. c. Creating barriers which separate commercial developments from residential areas and transit should be avoided. Lot patterns should provide safe and direct connections from residential areas to schools, parks, transit, employment centers and other neighborhood uses. Policy T‐5.4 Sidewalks. Sidewalks will be designed, constructed and maintained to provide safety, comfort, and a walkable community. New development will follow design standards for sidewalk design. PRINCIPLE T‐8: The City will develop secure pedestrian settings by developing a well lit, inhabited pedestrian network and by mitigating the impacts of vehicles. PRINCIPLE T‐9: Private automobiles will continue to be an important means of transportation. Terra Vida II’s central pedestrian spine provides a pedestrian and bicycle link between the Banner Hospital development and other employment centers to the north of and the residential and educational facilities to the south. The central pedestrian and bicycle spine will be well lit, well landscaped, with clearly defined entrances and distinctive signage leading to residential buildings. The pavement choice has been selected to provide a smooth, continuous surface with visual interest provided by joint patterns to allow the surface to be easily maintained in inclement weather and to reduce future pavement movement. Bicycle transit will be activities will be actively supported within the development through the bike shop and bike wash facilities as well as numerous bike racks, and dedicated storage racks for bicycles in garage units. Bicycles must be regularly maintained in order for them to be regularly used for commuting. A new transit stop will be located adjacent to Banner Hospital on Lady Moon within reasonable pedestrian access of the site. Parking and garages internal to the site will be provided for automobile traffic in compliance with city requirements. PRINCIPLE HSG‐1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. Policy HSG‐1.1 Land Use Patterns. The City will encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed‐ use developments that are well‐served by public transportation and close to employment centers, services, and amenities. In particular, the City will promote the siting of higher density housing near public transportation, shopping, and in designated neighborhoods and districts. 52 7 Policy HSG‐1.2 Housing Supply. The City will encourage public and private, for‐profit and non‐profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single‐ and multiple‐family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing that is proportionately balanced to the wages of our labor force. Policy HSG‐1.4 Land for Residential Development. The City will permit residential development in all neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Terra Vida II provides for a multifamily product in southeast Fort Collins in and area that is largely single family detached homes. This is consistent with the city plan and the land use code. Demand for rental residential housing in the Fort Collins area is strong with vacancies at historically low levels due to demand for rental housing alternatives and limited recent developments of this housing type in the area. PRINCIPLE ENV‐6: Natural habitat /ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced within the developed areas of Fort Collins. Policy ENV‐6.1 Protection and Enhancement. The City’s regulatory powers will be used to preserve, protect and enhance the resources and values of natural areas by directing development away from sensitive natural features – such as wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife habitat. When it is not possible to direct development away from natural areas, these areas will be protected in the developed landscape. Terra Vida II is not immediately adjacent to any natural areas. Principle AN‐1: New Neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure. Policy AN‐1.1 Relationships to Residential Districts. A new neighborhood will be considered as part of a Residential District. In a Residential District, Low Density Mixed‐Use neighborhoods will be located around a Medium Density Mixed‐Use Neighborhood which has a Neighborhood Commercial Center or Community Commercial District as its core. This provides nearby access to most things a resident or household needs on an everyday basis. Policy AN‐1.2 Street Networks. Neighborhood streets and sidewalks will form an interconnected network, including automobile, bicycle and pedestrian routes within a neighborhood and between neighborhoods, knitting neighborhoods together and not forming barriers between them. Dead ends and cul‐de‐sacs should be avoided or minimized. Multiple streets and sidewalks should connect into and out of a neighborhood. Streets will converge upon or lead directly to the shared facilities in the neighborhood. Policy AN‐1.3 Traffic Calming. For a network to provide a desirable residential environment, it must be designed to discourage excessive speeding and cut‐through traffic. Street widths and corner curb radii should be a narrow as possible, while still providing safe access for emergency and service vehicles. Frequent, controlled intersections, raised and textured crosswalks, and various other specialized measures may be used to slow and channel traffic without unduly hampering convenient, direct access and mobility. Policy AN‐1.4. Street Lighting. Outdoor lighting should be scaled for the comfort and interest of a pedestrian, providing the minimum level of illumination for safety. Lighting should be designed to emphasize the desired effect and not the light source, avoiding sharp contrast between bright spots and shadows, spillover glare, or overhead sky glow. Policy AN‐1.6 Pedestrian Network. A neighborhood should have a frequently connected network of walkways and bike paths, with small parks and outdoor spaces, benches and other amenities as appropriate. On long blocks, intermediate connections in the pedestrian network should be provided, with a maximum distance of about 500 to 700 feet between walking connections. In particular, direct walkway and bikeway routes to schools should be provided. PRINCIPLE AN‐5: All new residential buildings should be designed to emphasize the visually interesting features of the building, as seen from the public street and sidewalk. The visual impact of garage doors, driveways and other off‐street parking will be minimized and mitigated. 53 8 Terra Vida II is specifically designed to enhance the streetscape with the majority of buildings oriented toward the public streets. Private patios extend from individual unit toward the street like porches providing a sense of connection between the project and the larger community. Lush landscaping with variable elevations breaks up the larger planes of the multifamily buildings. All parking is internal to the site so garage doors and driveways are part of the streetscape. Pedestrian and bicycle entrances to the site are denoted by defined entrance features. The project contains three distinct building types. The buildings themselves are highly animated and well detailed with variables rooflines, defined entry features, and variations in the vertical planes of the buildings, incorporating a variety of building materials and colors in each building. PRINCIPLE LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium‐density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Terra Vida II is a multifamily community that meets the density requirements for the HTC and provides a transition between the new Banner Hospital site and the lower density Terra Vida Apartments to the south of the townhouse and single family developments east of Cinquefoil and south of Rock Creek Drive. Landscape, Open Space and Non‐Vehicle Circulation Elements Terra Vida II includes recreational, open space and landscape elements including a Clubhouse with a 5 lap lane junior Olympic pool with spa and expansive pool deck including an outdoor kitchen and outdoor living area. An internal fitness center equal to a 24 hour fitness center, including a spinning/yoga room open to residents 24/7. The project features a strong pedestrian/bicycle corridor designed to increase resident interaction with the larger community by providing one wide pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to the entrance drive through the property and extending north south through the entire development with a landscaped open space on the other side. Amenities along the central walkway spine will include benches and dog waste stations. Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) Plan Stormwater generated by the Terra Vida II project will be routed to the ODP water quality detention pond to be constructed as part of the Banner Health Final Development Plan. This pond will be built in accordance with the low impact development (LID) standards. Ownership and Maintenance The property owner/developer will be responsible for maintenance of all open spaces, internal private drives and other features and amenities of the property. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT ANALYSIS All pool chemicals stored on the site are in tablet form and are kept separately in their original containers (5 gallon or less plastic buckets) in a locked cabinet inside of the locked pool maintenance room. MSDS sheets for all chemicals are kept in the onsite management office. MSDS sheets will be provided with the Building Permit application. 54 55 Terra V i d a I I S i t e P l a n F o r t C o l l i n s , C o l o r a d o LAND PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 1501 WAZEE STREET SUITE 1-C DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Phone: 3 0 3 - 4 4 6 - 2 3 6 8 Fax: 3 0 3 - 4 4 6 - 0 9 5 8 AparGROUP t m e n t s THE ENRY DESIGN M i l e s t o n e D e v e l o p m e n t G r o u p , L L C 1 4 0 0 1 6 t h S t r e e t , 6 t h F l o o r D e n v e r , C o l o r a d o 8 0 2 0 2 P 303-419-0744 P r e p a r e d f o r : P r e p a r e d B y : A r c h i t e c t : C i v i l E n g i n e e r : D a t e : O c t o b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 V i c i n i t y M a p 0 40’ 80' 120' Scale 1" = 40' North 56 57 58 59 Terra V i d a I I L a n d s c a p e P l a n F o r t C o l l i n s , C o l o r a d o LAND PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 1501 WAZEE STREET SUITE 1-C DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Phone: 3 0 3 - 4 4 6 - 2 3 6 8 Fax: 3 0 3 - 4 4 6 - 0 9 5 8 AparGROUP t m e n t s THE ENRY DESIGN M i l e s t o n e D e v e l o p m e n t G r o u p , L L C 1 4 0 0 1 6 t h S t r e e t , 6 t h F l o o r D e n v e r , C o l o r a d o 8 0 2 0 2 P 303-419-0744 P r e p a r e d f o r : P r e p a r e d B y : A r c h i t e c t : C i v i l E n g i n e e r : D a t e : O c t o b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 V i c i n i t y M a p 0 40’ 80' 120' Scale 1" = 40' North L e g e n d S h a d e T r e e O r n a m e n t a l T r e e E v e r g r e e n T r e e P r i m a r y E n t r y P o r t a l S e c o n d a r y E n t r y P o r t a l 60 TERRA VIDA II TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 61 TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 62 TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 63 TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 64 TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 65 TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 66 TERRA VIDA II LADY MOON DRIVE AND LE FEVER DRIVE Fort Collins, CO www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET 67 68 69 70 1 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Terra Vida II Apartments DATE: August 7, 2013 APPLICANT: Milestone Development c/o Mr. Ken Kiken and Ms. Carter Laing, and Imago Enterprises c/o Mr. Les Kaplan CONSULTANT: Mr. Paul Campbell, Kephart, Inc. CITY PLANNERs: Ted Shepard and Noah Beals The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the project consists of 276 apartments on 10.2 acres of vacant ground located between Lady Moon Drive, Cinquefoil Lane, Precision Drive and the planned extension of Le Fever Drive. The applicant is the same developer as the existing Terra Vida Apartments located one block to the south. (This project was originally referred to as Presidio Apartments during the plan review process but changed names at a later date for marketing purposes.) There would be ten apartment buildings plus a clubhouse, pool, picnic area and leasing office. There would be approximately 464 parking spaces divided between garages and surface lots which equates to 1.68 spaces per unit. The site is located in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) Zone District and is a part of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan. Multifamily dwellings are a permitted secondary land use in the Harmony Corridor zone and subject to consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board in a public hearing which has not been scheduled yet because at this point, the project has not been formally submitted. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicants or the consultants. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. What are the primary access points to the project? A. The primary access points are on the north from Le Fever and on the south from Precision. 2. Would the project look the same as Presidio Apartments? 71 2 A. No, we are taking extra measures to make sure that this project is not seen as a repeat of the first project. The site plan, clubhouse, and architectural elevations of the garages and buildings are all being designed so that this project stands on its own. This project is across the street from Banner Health Hospital Campus so Terra Vida II will have a higher density and a more urban feel to it than Presidio. 3. What about drainage? A. Stormwater will be conveyed to a regional stormwater detention pond that is located off-site, across Cinquefoil Lane. This pond was sized to accept stormwater runoff from our project? 4. Is there a 36-unit building in Presidio? A. Now, Presidio consists of all 24-unit buildings. 5. How will you divide up the garage spaces? A. There will be one garage space per unit. 6. Are you able to keep the garages from becoming storage units? This would have the effect of pushing cars onto the surrounding streets. A. Yes, it is a violation of the lease to convert a garage into a storage unit. 7. How tall are the buildings? A. The three story buildings are between 38 and 40 feet in height except the clubhouse and leasing office building which will be two-stories. 8. What about traffic? A. Our Traffic Study indicates that the traffic generated by our project can be handled on the surrounding streets. Banner Health is building Le Fever and we will build our portion of Cinquefoil. 9. Will there be a light at Harmony and Cinquefoil? A. No, our understanding is that this intersection will be controlled by a center median so turning movements will be restricted to right-in and right-out only. 10. When will you begin construction? A. We would like to begin construction in the first quarter of 2014. 72 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Roads.............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrians Facilities ...................................................................................................... 9 Bicycle Facilities..............................................................................................................9 Transit Facilities ..............................................................................................................9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 10 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 10 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 10 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 14 Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 14 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 14 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 21 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 21 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 21 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 22 DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES 74 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 8 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 Intersection Geometry ................................................................................. 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................... 7 5. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 11 6. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 12 7. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 13 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. Recent Peak Hour Traffic C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS Standards D. Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation F. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES 75 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (ITIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Terra Vida II apartments. The proposed Terra Vida II site is located north of Precision Drive and east of Lady Moon Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. The “Harmony Tech Park ODP Master Transportation Impact Study,” (MTIS) December 2007 was submitted and accepted by the City of Fort Collins. This MTIS addressed the operation at the key intersections for the long range (2030) future. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project developer (Milestone Development Group), the project planning consultant (Kephart), the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff, and the Fort Collins Transportation Planning staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). A Base Assumptions Form and related information are provided in Appendix A. The study involved the following steps: • Collect physical, traffic, and development data; • Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; • Determine peak hour traffic volumes; • Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; • Analyze signal warrants; • Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 1 76 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Terra Vida II site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, industrial, or residential. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northwest of the proposed Terra Vida II site. Roads The primary streets near the Terra Vida II site are Harmony Road, Lady Moon Drive, Rock Creek Drive, Cinquefoil Lane, and Precision Drive. The existing geometry at the key intersections is shown in Figure 2. Harmony Road is to the north of the Terra Vida II site. It is an east-west street designated as a six-lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a six-lane cross section with appropriate auxiliary lanes at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection. At the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection, Harmony Road has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, three through lanes in each direction, and a westbound right-turn lane. The existing posted speed in this area is 55 mph. Lady Moon Drive is a north-south street designated as a collector street south of Harmony Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Lady Moon Drive has a two-lane cross section, with a center continuous two-way left-turn lane, south of Harmony Road. The north leg of the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection serves the Hewlett-Packard campus. At the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection, Lady Moon Drive has northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, a northbound through lane, a southbound combined through/right-turn lane, and a northbound right-turn lane. The Harmony/Lady Moon intersection has signal control. At the Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection, Lady Moon Drive has a southbound left-turn lane, a southbound combined through/right-turn lane, and a northbound combined left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection has all-way stop sign control. The existing posted speed is 30 mph on Lady Moon Drive. Rock Creek Drive is an east-west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Rock Creek Drive has a two-lane cross section east of Ziegler Road. At the Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersection, Rock Creek Drive has an eastbound combined left-turn/through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane, and a westbound combined left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The existing posted speed is 30 mph on Rock Creek Drive. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 2 77 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Harmony Rock Creek Ziegler Lady Moon Kechter Interstate 25 Horsetooth Timberline Precision Terra Vida II Cinquefoil Fossil Ridge High School Preston Middle Traut School Core Knowledge Kinard Core Knowledge Middle School Bacon Elementary School Zach Elementary School Lincoln Elementary School Fort Collins High School SCALE: 1"=2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 3 78 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 4 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East - Denotes Lane _ Two-way Continuous Left-turn Lane 79 Cinquefoil Lane is a north-south street designated as a collector street south of Harmony Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Cinquefoil Lane exists between Precision Drive and Kechter Road. With the Banner Health Medical Campus proposal, Cinquefoil Lane will be constructed between Harmony Road and Le Fever Drive. With Terra Vida II, Cinquefoil Lane will be built between Le Fever Drive and Precision Drive. Precision Drive is an internal street within the Harmony Tech Park. Precision Drive is classified as a local street. Precision Drive is built between Technology Parkway and Cinquefoil Lane. The posted speed on Precision Drive is 30 mph. Le Fever Drive is an internal street within the Harmony Tech Park. With the Banner Health Medical Campus proposal, Le Fever Drive will be constructed between Lady Moon Drive and Cinquefoil Lane. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the Harmony/Lady Moon, Lady Moon/ Precision, and Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersections are shown in Figure 3. The traffic data at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection was collected in May 2013. The traffic data at the Lady Moon/Rock Creek and Lady Moon/Precision intersections was collected in November 2012. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. It is important to note that all of the traffic counts were performed when Fossil Ridge High School was in session. Since traffic counts were performed on different days, the traffic volumes between the intersections were averaged and are shown on Figure 4. Existing Operation The Harmony/Lady Moon, Lady Moon/Precision, and Rock Creek/Lady Moon intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Terra Vida II site is in an area termed “other.” In areas termed “other,” acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better for the overall intersection, and level of service E or better for any leg or movement. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better for any approach leg for an arterial/collector and level of service C or better for any approach leg for a local and collector/local intersection. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 5 80 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 6 24/26 58/44 3/5 5/5 37/78 16/22 16/12 18/59 12/49 20/16 56/50 7/3 1/0 93/71 0/1 2/1 57/103 4/13 1/5 0/0 0/1 22/9 0/0 1/1 48/32 46/5 39/41 5/96 3/40 6/152 30/7 1372/2002 33/67 150/12 1766/1763 26/28 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East 81 AM/PM BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 7 28/31 53/34 3/5 6/6 36/78 16/22 21/13 23/63 16/53 20/16 65/60 7/3 1/0 93/62 0/1 2/1 56/103 4/31 1/5 0/0 0/1 39/11 0/0 2/2 Harmony Precision Rock Creek HP East Lady Moon 48/32 46/5 39/41 5/96 3/40 6/152 30/7 1372/2002 33/67 150/12 1766/1763 26/28 82 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E E EB T/RT B B EB APPROACH B B WB LT D D WB T A B WB RT A A WB APPROACH A B NB LT D DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 8 D NB T D D NB RT A A NB APPROACH D D SB LT D E SB T/RT D D SB APPROACH D E Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL B B EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT A A SB T/RT A A Lady Moon/Rock Creek (all-way stop) OVERALL A A 83 Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Harmony Road, adjacent to developed properties (Intel, Hewlett-Packard, etc.). There are sidewalks along the east side of Lady Moon Drive, between Harmony Road and Precision Drive. South of Precision Drive, there are sidewalks along both sides of Lady Moon Drive. There are existing sidewalks along the south side of Rock Creek Drive. On the north side of Rock Creek Drive, there are sidewalks adjacent to developed properties. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist on Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, Lady Moon Drive, and Technology Parkway. Bike lanes are not required on local or connector streets. Transit Facilities Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes 16 and 17. Routes 16 and 17 run along Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. There are transit stops very close to this site. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 9 84 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Terra Vida II is proposed as a 276 apartment development. Figure 5 shows a site plan of the Terra Vida II site. The site plan shows access to/from Precision Drive and Le Fever Drive. The short range analysis (Year 2018) includes development of the Terra Vida II site and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth, and other approved developments in the area. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at this site. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartment 276 D.U. EQ 1796 EQ 28 EQ 111 EQ 110 EQ 59 Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the Terra Vida II site. Future year data was obtained from the NFRRTP and other traffic studies. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution used for the Terra Vida II site. The trip distribution was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. 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 NFRRTP, reviewing traffic studies for other developments, and reviewing historic count data for this area of Fort Collins. As mentioned earlier, the Banner Health Medical Campus proposal will construct Cinquefoil Lane between Harmony Road and Le Fever Drive. With Terra Vida II, Cinquefoil Lane will be built between Le Fever Drive and Precision Drive. Therefore, Cinquefoil Lane was assumed to be built between Harmony Road and Kechter Road for the short range (2018) background traffic forecasts. Some traffic from the existing uses using Lady Moon Drive was reassigned to Cinquefoil Lane. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 10 85 SCALE: 1"=200' SITE PLAN Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 11 86 Harmony Rock Creek Lady Moon Precision 45% 35% 5% NOM 15% Cinquefoil SCALE: 1"=600' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 12 87 SHORT RANGE (2018) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 13 40/40 96/68 3/6 35/44 41/102 24/40 58/39 20/82 20/69 30/23 92/78 8/3 4/0 178/117 2/13 29/7 86/176 11/38 7/35 0/1 1/4 28/12 1/0 13/6 106/121 52/6 33/65 6/108 3/45 7/170 34/8 1559/2305 93/84 169/15 1993/1995 73/80 7/2 24/13 2/9 0/1 7/27 3/13 19/10 3/13 2/6 12/5 15/6 11/6 2235/2090 1581/2494 18/46 66/50 Harmony Precision Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. The site generated trip assignment for the Terra Vida II site is shown in Figure 8. The site generated traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted traffic at the key intersections. Figure 9 shows the short range (2018) total peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). None of the stop sign controlled intersections are expected to meet peak hour signal warrants. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2018 condition. Using the short range (2018) background peak hour traffic volumes, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours, except for the eastbound left-turn movement at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection during the afternoon peak hour. Since the traffic volumes for this movement are so low (8 vph) and the eastbound left-turn has a protected phase, it is likely that a vehicle approaching the intersection would have a red light. Therefore, the vehicles would have to wait through much of the signal cycle before there was a green indicator for the eastbound left turn. A mitigation measure is to allow permissive eastbound left turns. However, due to the high speeds on Harmony Road, this is not done by the City of Fort Collins. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the LOS F for the eastbound left-turn movement at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection not be applicable in this case. This same issue is present in the short range (2018) total peak hour operation as well. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the short range (2018) total condition as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours, except as noted above. Geometry The short range (2018) geometry is shown in Figure 10. The geometry at the analyzed intersections is the existing geometry. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 14 89 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 15 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East Cinquefoil LeFever Site Access Presidio Access Site Access 1/4 16/64 25/13 41/23 1/5 15/8 5/3 4/15 1/2 2/1 9/38 4/2 1/5 35/18 6/25 15/58 19/9 1/6 35/20 6/3 NOM 10/5 1/4 0/1 25/13 NOM AM/PM 9/38 1/5 12/45 50/27 4/2 6/3 6/25 1/6 4/14 19/9 14/8 0/1 1/2 SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 16 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East Cinquefoil LeFever Site Access 1/3 22/8 0/1 12/6 NOM 33/17 10/39 5/19 8/33 19/10 NOM 20/10 Presidio Access Site Access NOM 1/4 NOM 16/64 25/13 41/23 40/40 97/73 3/6 50/52 46/105 24/40 62/54 21/84 20/69 30/23 94/79 8/3 4/0 179/123 6/27 29/7 92/179 17/63 7/35 0/1 1/4 47/21 TABLE 3 Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E F EB T B C EB RT B B EB APPROACH B C WB LT D E WB T B B WB RT A A WB APPROACH B B NB LT D E NB T D D NB RT A A NB APPROACH D E SB LT D E SB T/RT D D SB APPROACH D E Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL B C Harmony/Cinquefoil (RT-in/RT-out) NB RT D C EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T A B EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T/RT A B NB LT/T/RT B B SB LT A A SB T/RT A B SB APPROACH A A Lady Moon/Rock Creek (all-way stop) OVERALL A A Precision/Presidio Access SB LT/RT A A (stop sign) EB LT/T A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT A A Cinquefoil/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 17 92 TABLE 4 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT E F EB T B C EB RT B B EB APPROACH B C WB LT D E WB T B B WB RT A A WB APPROACH B B NB LT E E NB T D D NB RT A A NB APPROACH E E SB LT D E SB T/RT D E SB APPROACH D E Harmony/Lady Moon (signal) OVERALL B C Harmony/Cinquefoil (RT-in/RT-out) NB RT E C Lady Moon/Le Fever WB LT/RT B A (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A Lady Moon/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A EB LT/T A B EB RT A A EB APPROACH A B WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT/T/RT B B SB LT A A SB T/RT A B SB APPROACH A B Lady Moon/Rock Creek (all-way stop) OVERALL A B Le Fever/Site Access NB LT/RT A A (stop sign) WB LT/T A A Continued on next page DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 18 93 Continued from previous page TABLE 4 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Cinquefoil/Le Fever EB LT/RT A A (stop sign) NB LT/T A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A Precision/Site Access-Presidio (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT A A Cinquefoil/Precision (stop sign) SB LT A A DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 19 94 SHORT RANGE (2018) GEOMETRY Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 Page 20 Harmony Precision Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East Cinquefoil LeFever Site Access Presidio Access Site Access - Denotes Lane _ Two-way Continuous Left-turn Lane 95 Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Terra Vida II. The Terra Vida II site is located within an area termed as a “Other,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured factors. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Terra Vida II: 1) Banner Health Medical Campus; 2) the commercial/industrial uses within the Harmony Tech Park; 3) the residential uses to the southeast of the site; and 4) Fossil Ridge High School. In most cases, sidewalks do not exist within the pedestrian influence area, except along developed properties. It is assumed that sidewalks will be completed as properties develop. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination area (Fossil Ridge High School) within 1320 feet of the Terra Vida II. The bicycle level of service is acceptable. The bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. Transit Level of Service Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes 16 and 17. Routes 16 and 17 run along Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. There are transit stops very close to this site. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 21 96 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Terra Vida II site development on the short range (2018) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: • The development of the Terra Vida II site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Terra Vida II site will generate approximately 1796 daily trip ends, 139 morning peak hour trip ends, and 169 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable. • In the short range (2018) future, given development of the Terra Vida II site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections operate acceptably during the peak hours, expected as noted, with existing geometry and intended geometry at the key intersections. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. DELICH Terra Vida II TIS, August 2013 ASSOCIATES Page 22 97 ITEM NO _____4_____________ MEETING DATE ___11/14/13_________ STAFF ___EX_____________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning ANX #130001 APPLICANT: Jim Birdsall, TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, Colorado 80513 OWNER: Lehman Farm LLC 3030 S College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A written petition has been submitted requesting annexation of 39.608 acres located on the north side of Zephyr Road, approximately 1,450 feet east of South Timberline Road (just east of Bacon Elementary). The property is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County, adopted in 1999, properties within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area receive their land use approvals in the County and are annexed into the City prior to construction. Mail Creek is a residential development containing 137 single family dwelling units; the requested zoning for this annexation is LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment would be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be placed on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 98 Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning ANX #130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – November 14, 2013 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to annex and zone 39.608 acres located on the north side of Zephyr Road, approximately 1,450 feet east of South Timberline Road (just east of Bacon Elementary). The property is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County, adopted in 1999, properties within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area receive their land use approvals in the County and are annexed into the City prior to construction. Mail Creek is a residential development containing 137 single family dwelling units; the requested zoning for this annexation is LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, which is in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan. The surrounding properties are currently zoned LMN to the south (Timbers Development), west (Bacon Elementary), north (Kechter Crossing), and east (proposed Kechter Farm development). Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. BACKGROUND: The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County regarding the Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir (adopted on August 31, 1999) and the IGA between the City and County regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development (adopted on June 24, 2008) stipulate the following: “The County may accept development applications for lands located within any area that is part of a “receiving area” established through an adopted subarea plan for any Larimer County Transferable Density Units Program. At such time as the County requires a landowner in a receiving area to request annexation to the City, the City will process the annexation petition such that the annexation, if approved by the City, will be completed within thirty-five (35) days following the County’s approval of the final plat” (Section 5B). The IGA’s referenced are available online at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/iga-doc.pdf. Mail Creek Crossing is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and is in a designated receiving area. In addition, Mail Creek Crossing does have 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits through Kechter Crossing to the north (annexed in December of 2012) and Zephyr Road to the south (annexed in July 2002), thus satisfying the 99 Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning ANX #130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – November 14, 2013 Page 3 requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN in the City of Fort Collins; Kechter Crossing (residential) E: PUD in Larimer County; Proposed Kechter Farm S: LMN in the City of Fort Collins; Timbers (residential) W: LMN in the City of Fort Collins; Bacon Elementary FA1 – Farming in Larimer County; Vacant Land ANALYSIS: The requested zoning for this annexation is the LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. The City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan provide guidance that the subject 39.608 acres should be zoned L- M-N. Thus, based on the guidance provided by the Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area it is staff’s finding that this property should be zoned L-M-N. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which was established for the purpose of regulating signs for non- residential uses in certain geographical areas of the City that may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The notice requirements, set forth in Section 2.26 of the Land Use Code were met through this application, including that a) public notice for this hearing was sent to all residents within 1000’ of the subject property, b) a sign was posted on the subject property, and c) the notice was published in the Coloradoan at least seven days prior to the hearing. In addition to this public notice, there was significant public outreach during the land use approval process through Larimer County, including a neighborhood meeting, and public hearings before the Planning Commission (July 17, 2013) and Board of County Commissioners (August 12, 2013). The project was approved by the Board of County Commissioners by a vote of 3-0. 100 Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning ANX #130001 Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – November 14, 2013 Page 4 FINDINGS: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On November 5, 2013, the City Council will consider a Resolution accepting the annexation petition and determining that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiates the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning of LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Structure Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Annexation Map 101 Zephyr Road Kechter Road S Timberline Road BACON ELEMENTARY GODDARD SCHOOL Mail Creek Ditch Mail Vicinity Creek Crossing Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± MailLocation Site Creek Crossing Annexation Kechter Farm Legend City Limits Larimer County ATTACHMENT 1 102 Fossil Reservo Cre © Mail Structure Creek Crossing Plan Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) KECHTER RD E CR 36 S TIMBERLINE RD 1 inch = 0.3 miles ZIEGLER RD CrossingCreek Site - Mail Annexation Annexaton - Ar ea￿ KFeacrhmter (under review) ATTACHMENT 2 103 Zephyr Road Kechter Road S Timberline Road LMN LMN RL UE MMN LMN MMN NC UE UE UE LMN BACON ELEMENTARY GODDARD SCHOOL Mail Creek Ditch Mail Zoning Creek Crossing Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± MailLocation Site Creek Crossing Annexation Kechter Farm Legend City Zoning ZONE Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Low Density Residential (RL) Urban Estate (UE) ATTACHMENT 3 104 ATTACHMENT 4 105 ITEM NO _____5___________ MEETING DATE 11/14/13________ STAFF C. Levingston____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Foothills Redevelopment Overall Development Plan – #ODP130004 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 an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the Foothills Mall Redevelopment. The site is 77.051 acres in size and is generally located east of South College Avenue, north of East Monroe Drive and west of Stanford Road. The site is entirely zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is also located within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. The ODP consists of three planning areas: Phase One (PA1) for commercial/retail uses, Phase Two (PA2) for commercial/retail uses and Phase Three (PA3) for multi-family residential uses. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan, #ODP130004. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of Foothills Mall Redevelopment ODP complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 106 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan - #ODP130004 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing November 14, 2013 Page 2 • The Foothills Mall ODP complies with the applicable Overall Development Plan criteria in Sections 2.3.2(H)(1-7) of the Land Use Code, including all General Commercial District standards and general development standards that can be applied at a level required for an Overall Development Plan submittal. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN); with Low Density Residential beyond Single family homes South General Commercial (C-G) Various commercial uses, the Marriott East Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN); with Low Density Residential beyond Multi-family residential West General Commercial (C-G) Various commercial uses The majority of the ODP was included as part of the larger 155 acre Spencer First Annexation and annexed in July of 1969. The southern portion of the ODP was part of the Strachan Second Annexation in August of 1971. The property was platted in 1972 as Southmoor Village, Fifth Filing. The Foothills mall opened in 1973. An expansion to the existing Foothills Mall was approved in 1988 for anchor stores J.C. Penney, Mervyn’s and Sears. In 1995, the existing plan was amended to provide for an expansion of Foley’s (now Macy’s). In January 2013, a minor amendment to the existing Foothills Mall P.U.D. for the deconstruction of the 1980’s addition (previously J.C. Penney’s) was submitted. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan (PDP) on February 7, 2013. A Final Plan for the PDP is yet to be approved. 107 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan - #ODP130004 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing November 14, 2013 Page 3 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: The project complies with all applicable ODP review criteria; with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards 1) This criterion requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards. • The proposed land uses are mulit-family residential and commercial. Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the General Commercial (C-G) District subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Commercial and retail uses such as theaters, indoor recreation, parking structures are all permitted uses. B. Section 2.3.2 (H)(3) – Master Street Plan 1) This criterion requires the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required by Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F). In addition, the ODP shall also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. • The proposed ODP is in conformance with the City’s Master Street Plan. Improvements such as a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road are identified. D. Section 2.3.2 (H)(4) – Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties 1) This criterion requires an ODP to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the ODP from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). • Access to the ODP will be from two points along South College Avenue, one point along East Monroe Drive, three points along Stanford Road and one point along Matthews Street. Pedestrian access will be provided by tying into the existing walk and street system along Stanford Road and 108 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan - #ODP130004 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing November 14, 2013 Page 4 South College Avenue (arterial street). Bicycle lanes will be striped along East Monroe Drive. • Improvements such as the pedestrian underpass at College Avenue and the restriping of bike lanes on Monroe Drive are identified on the ODP. E. 2.3.2 (H)(5) – Natural Features 1) This criterion requires an ODP to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). • The existing Larimer Canal No 2 and associated buffer zones to be mitigated for under separate documents, in accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. F. Section 2.3.2 (H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan 1) This criterion requires an ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. • The proposed ODP is consistent with the Foothills Basin Master Drainage Plan. Drainage will be collected and conveyed to proposed water quality areas throughout the site. As an existing infill redevelopment site, on-site detention will not be required for existing impervious areas as most of the detention for the site is provided for downstream in the Southmoor Pond. G. Section 2.3.2 (H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses 1. This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP • The General Commercial District does not have density maximum or specific mix of uses requirements. As such, this section does not apply. 3. Compact Urban Growth - Section 2.3.2 (H) (3): 1. This criterion requires that the ODP conform to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards as per Section 3.7.2. 109 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan - #ODP130004 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing November 14, 2013 Page 5 • This site is an infill site and the ODP meets the requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards because least 1/6 of the proposed development’s boundaries are contiguous to existing development. 4. Neighborhood Meeting: While the neighborhood meeting requirement for this ODP was waived by the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, a neighborhood meeting was held for the related Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan in September, 2012. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Foothills Mall Redevelopment ODP, staff makes the following Findings of Fact: A. The ODP is in compliance with Section 2.3.2 Overall Development Plan Procedures and complies with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7), summarized as follows: 1. The proposed ODP is consistent with the permitted uses and applicable district standards of the General Commercial (C-G) District. 2. The proposed ODP conforms to the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required in Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F) and conforms to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements in Section 3.6.4. 3. The ODP identifies all natural areas, habitats and features. 4. The ODP conforms to the Foothills Basin Master Drainage Plan. 5. The ODP conforms to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards of Section 3.7.2. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan – ODP#130004. 110 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan - #ODP130004 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing November 14, 2013 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Overall Development Plan (ODP) 111 112 113 ITEM NO ____6________ MEETING DATE November 14, 2013 STAFF GLOSS PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Provincetown Filing 3, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 73-82X/Y APPLICANT: McWhinney c/o Cole Evans 2725 Rocky Mountain Ave, Suite 200 Loveland, CO 80538 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a one year extension of the term of vested right, to November 14, 2014, of the approved Provincetown 3rd Filing, Final Plan. The parcel is located generally south of East Trilby Road, west of South Lemay Avenue, and northeast of Robert Benson Lake. The Final Plan has been approved for a total of 433 dwelling units (280 single-family detached dwellings and 153 multi-family dwelling units) on 86.22 gross acres. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a one year extension by the Planning and Zoning Board, for vesting of the Final Plan through November 20, 2014. The Provincetown, 3rd Filing was approved on August 10, 2006 by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Final Development Plan was approved and a Development Agreement was executed on November 20, 2006. The three year final plan approval that was to expire in 2010 has since been extended twice administratively per LUC Sec. 2.2.11(D)(4). Having exercised the two available administrative extensions, the Final Plan was granted a one year extension at the October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, valid through November 20, 2013. The project continues to comply with LUC ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS and ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division 4.4 – Low Density Mixed Use District (LMN). Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 114 Provincetown Filing 3 – Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, Project # 73-82X/Y Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: On August 10, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Provincetowne Filing 3. The project is a component of the larger Provincetown Overall Development Plan. On September 21, 2010, the Provincetowne Filing 3 Final Plan vesting was extended for one year by the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4). On November 16, 2011, the Provincetowne Filing 3 Final Plan vesting was again extended for one year by the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4). On October 18, 2012, the Provincetowne Filing 3 Final Plan vesting was extended to November 20, 2013 by the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4). 2. Article 2 - Administration Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions (Notes and emphasis added). Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. (Both administrative extensions have been exhausted.) Any additional one- year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. The request for an extension of vested rights (see attached) identifies the applicants effort to work diligently and in good faith to complete the entirety of engineering improvements required under the approved Final Plan. The applicant commenced construction of the final engineering improvements associated with Stoney Brook Rd, and San Juan and Shady Bend Drives, but have encountered delays due to weather and the scheduling of contractors. The applicant anticipates that the required improvements will still be completed prior to the existing November 20, 2013 deadline; however, an extension provides extra time in the construction schedule if factors outside of the applicant’s control arise. 115 Provincetown Filing 3 – Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, Project # 73-82X/Y Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 3 Extending the vested right for the Final Plan for one additional year is not detrimental to the public good. This is because the project continues to meet all aspects of the Land Use Code. Further, the project continues to represent a pattern of land use that complies with the Structure Plan Map, and ties into the larger Provincetown neighborhood. The request for an extension of vested rights was made on October 24, 2013, more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of November 20, 2013. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights for Provincetowne Filing 3, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Provincetowne Filing 3 is in compliance with all applicable Article 3 General Development Standards of the Land Use Code. B. Provincetowne Filing 3 continues to be in compliance with Article 4 Districts, Division 4.4 – Low Density Mixed Use District (LMN). C. The request for extension of vested rights satisfies Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions, due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. D. The request for extension of vested rights was made at least 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights to Provincetowne Filing 3 to November 20, 2014. ATTACHMENT: Applicant request for extension of vested rights 116 117 ITEM NO _____7___________ MEETING DATE November 14, 2013 STAFF __SHEPARD_____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Old Town Flats – Block 23, P.D.P.#PDP130022 APPLICANT: Brinkman Development Company, LLC 3003 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, CO 80528 OWNER: Old Town Flats, LLC 3003 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, CO 80528 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a 94-unit apartment building containing 123 bedrooms located on the southwest quarter of the block surrounded by North College Avenue on the east, Maple Street on the south, Mason Street on the west and Cherry Street on the north. Block 23 is platted as part of the original Town Plat and the parcel size is 0.87 acre. As proposed, the project would be an L-shaped building, five stories in height. The ground floor would include five dwelling units combined with at-grade and tuck-under parking spaces serving as a podium, above which there would be four residential stories. There would be 84 parking spaces along with bicycle parking. The building would contain a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom units for a total of 123 bedrooms. The ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms is .68. The ground floor would include the parking spaces and 4,300 square feet of floor area for five mixed-use dwellings, leasing office and common area. The upper four floors would each contain about 18,415 square feet for a building total of 77,960 square feet. The site is zoned D, Downtown, Civic Center Sub-district. RECOMMENDATION: Approval Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 118 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The P.D.P. complies with both the standards of Section 4.16, Downtown zone district, Civic Center sub-district and the applicable General Development Standards. The P.D.P. was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 121,013 which requires a ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms of at least .70. Even though exempt from this requirement, the P.D.P. provides 84 spaces for 123 bedrooms for a ratio of .68. A neighborhood meeting was held and the project was received favorably. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: D, Civic Center; Vacant, Block 23 S: D, Civic Center; Transit Center and Municipal Offices E: D, Civic Center; Vacant, Block 23 W: D, Civic Center; Penny Flats - Three Multi-Family Buildings Block 23 is part of the original Town Plat. It is characterized by the curvature of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks slicing across the northwest corner of the block. A twenty-foot wide public alley runs north-south connecting Cherry and Maple Streets. While a variety of businesses have occupied the North College Avenue frontage, the area of the block west of the alley has remained undeveloped for decades. There are three buildings on the block east of the alley, two of which are vacant. A bicycle repair shop is operating out of one of the buildings on a part-time basis. The site is located within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District adopted in June of 2007 to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Street corridor. Ordinance 121, 2013, which requires a minimum parking ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms of .70, was passed on second reading on September 3, 2013. The P.D.P. was submitted on July 31, 2013 and, therefore, not subject to this regulation. 2. Compliance with Section 4.16 – Downtown, Civic Center Zone District: A. Section 4.16(B)(2)(a) – Permitted Use List Multi-family development containing more than 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms are permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The P.D.P. contains 94 units and 123 bedrooms and is forwarded to the Board for consideration. 119 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 3 B. Section 4.16(D)(2)(b) – Building Height Buildings on Block 23 are allowed a maximum height ranging from seven to nine stories or 115 feet (plus or minus). The P.D.P. is five stories with a height of 60 feet. C. Section 4.16(D)(4)(b)1. – Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings – Base Taller buildings (over three stories) must have a clearly defined base, one or two stories in height that is distinct from the upper portion of the building. The building elevations show a base that includes brick alternating between one and two stories. Along Mason Street, there are a series of horizontal projections over the living portion of both the first and second floor living areas. Along Maple Street, there is a building entrance and four individual unit entrances that contribute to the pedestrian scale at the street level. In addition there is a series of projecting balconies on the second floor. There is a distinctive projection over the corner which identifies the leasing office and common area. All of these features, in combination, further define and distinguish the first two stories from the upper stories. D. Section 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. – Building Mass Reduction, Upper Floor Setbacks This standard requires that upper portions of taller buildings be setback above the base in such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design. Above the first floor, the building is stepped back by one-half foot. Portions of the upper stories are separated from the base by a projecting roof element which accentuates the step back. E. Section 4.16(D)(5)(a) – Building Character and Facades – Blank Walls This standard requires that there be no blank walls along a public street, public plaza or walkway that exceed 50 feet in length. Per the architectural elevations, there are no blank walls. Along Mason Street, there are three modules that are openings to the tuck- under parking but these areas are landscaped and are not blank walls. F. Section 4.16(D)(5)(b) – Building Character and Facades – Outdoor Activity This standard requires that buildings promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and courtyards. At the corner of the building, there is an entrance to the leasing office and common area. Along Maple Street, there are four individual entrances to ground-floor apartments that area characterized by doors and courtyards defined by low metal fencing. These outdoor areas are approximately 12’ x 5 (60 square feet) which allows for seating. Along Mason Street, there are two separate seating nooks created by stone 120 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 4 seat walls on three sides. At the north end of Mason Street, seat walls define a slightly larger gathering area. These areas are accented by landscaping and decorative pavers. Along both streets, second floor projecting balconies add to the articulation and contribute to creating the pedestrian scale that mitigates the mass of the building. G. Section 4.16(D)(5)(c)2. – Building Character and Facades – Windows There is storefront glass, framed by brick, at the corner which distinguishes the entrance to the leasing office and common area. H. Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) – Exterior Façade Materials Street-facing materials are predominantly brick and split-face concrete block. Stair towers are split-face block. Metal panels at the corner provide vertical articulation dividing the building mass into modules. Stucco is used at the upper stories in differing colors as a contrast to the masonry base. I. Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) – Site Design – Parking Lots This standard requires that parking lots not dominate street frontages by being located to side or rear of buildings. The P.D.P. places the 84-space parking lot behind the building with access gained from the alley thereby preserving an activated streetscape along both Mason and Maple Streets. J. Section 4.16(E)(1)(c) – Site Design - Plazas This standard requires that ground floor open space be provided to promote both active and passive activities for the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public. Features must promote a proportionality that is at the human scale in relation to the building. The P.D.P. provides for the aforementioned seating nooks and northern plaza along Mason Street. These areas will be further defined and emphasized by pavers versus concrete. The landscaping and street trees soften the impact of the building and support the human scale. The extra area provided by the Mason Street right-of-way and the water line easement allow for the pedestrian amenities between the building and street to be usable and functional. The seating nooks, with three-sided seat walls, allow people to face each other versus sitting side-by-side on a long seat wall. These improvements also have the benefit of providing greater interest between the museum and the transit center. K. Section 4.16(F)(4) – Incorporation of New Buildings This standard requires that new buildings establish continuity and a visual connection between new and existing buildings within and adjacent to the Civic Center sub-district. 121 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 5 The architectural design of Old Town Flats provides continuity and visual connection between existing buildings such as the Downtown Transit Center the historic Trolley Barn and newer buildings such as Penny Flats by use of brick that is orange in tone, which is sensitive to the older buildings. Stucco and metal panels relate to the newer buildings such as the Discovery and Science Museum and the three buildings associated with Penny Flats. The scale of the building, at five stories, will be one the larger buildings in the adjacent area but proportional to the municipal office building at 215 North Mason Street (three stories), Discovery and Science Museum (63 feet to the top) and the C.S.U. Engines and Energy Conversion Lab including the new addition under construction (four stories, 56 feet). The building is articulated along the two public streets. The interior portions of the building will ultimately be partially screened by future development of Block 23. 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(D) – Landscaping Street trees are provided along both Mason and Maple Streets at 40-foot intervals in an eight-foot wide parkway. The area between the back of the public sidewalk and the building along Mason Street is 16.5 feet wide and will feature landscape beds designed to screen the parking lot openings and enhance the quality of the pedestrian seating areas. Along Maple Street, this area ranges from 7 to 11 feet wide and will be landscaped to define the transition from public to private space that is necessary in an urban environment, by emphasizing individual entrances and yet creating a degree of privacy for the courtyards and front doors. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Exterior Landscaping Between the building modules, there are openings along Mason Street where the parking lot is exposed. These openings are framed by vertical pilasters and the aforementioned seating nooks and north plaza. With the extra width afforded by the water line easement, a sufficient amount of plant material is provided to fully screen these openings at maturity. The water line easement running north-to-south allows for 34.6 feet from curb to building to be treated in the following manner: • Parkway with street trees – 8 feet • Public sidewalk – 10 feet • Planting area, seating nooks and plaza – 16.5 feet. 122 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 6 C. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking With 123 bedrooms, at least 74 (60%) enclosed bike parking spaces are required and 49 (40%) spaces may be located on the exterior in fixed racks. The P.D.P. provides 98 enclosed spaces and 26 exterior spaces. The interior spaces are provided within the units. The exterior spaces are divided between 14 located along the public streets and 12 located within the parking lot. D. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) – Residential Parking In the T.O.D. At the time the Old Town Flats P.D.P. was submitted on July 31, 2013, the governing standard exempted multi-family development in the T.O.D. from having to provide a minimum number of parking spaces. As noted, this standard was revised by Ordinance 121, 2013 which requires 70% of what would be required outside the T.O.D. but not adopted until September 3, 2013. For informational purposes, the P.D.P. provides 84 parking spaces for 123 bedrooms parking at a ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms of .68. E. Section 3.2.4 – Lighting There will decorative wall-mounted lighting along both public streets and pole-mounted lighting within the internal parking lot. All fixtures will be down-directional and fully- shielded. F. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Trash and recycling containers will be placed within the internal parking lot, close to the alley, and enclosed by materials that match the building. G. Section 3.5.1(G) – Building Height Review While the proposed height of 60 feet is within the 115-foot allowance of the Downtown, Civic Center zone, a shadow analysis is required for buildings over 40 feet. Shading: The analysis also reveals that the building will not cast a shadow greater than a shadow that would be cast by a 25-foot hypothetical wall located along the property line between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on December 21 st . Views: With respect to views, the building does not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks. 123 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 7 Light and Shadow: With respect to light and shadow, based on the shadow analysis, there are no shadows that create a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public or private property. Privacy: With respect to privacy, the proposed building at 60 feet in height would not infringe on the privacy of adjacent public or private property particularly adjacent residential areas and public parks. Neighborhood Scale: With respect to neighborhood scale, the proposed five story building, while higher than adjacent buildings, is proportional to two four-story buildings to the west in Penny Flats, the Museum of Discovery and Science (63 feet) 215 North Mason (three stories) and the C.S.U. Engines and Energy Conversion Lab and Addition (four stories). H. Section 3.5.2(D) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking The P.D.P. provides a strong relationship to both public streets. The main building has two entrances to the stair towers on both streets. The leasing office and common area includes an entrance facing the corner. Five individual units have front doors facing Maple Street. I. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Levels of Service The P.D.P. represents infill re-development of a portion of a downtown block. The Transportation Impact Study makes the following conclusions: • Current operation is acceptable at all of the key intersections. • No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required. • A new traffic signal may be needed in the long-range at Mason/Cherry. • Sight distance should be maintained at the Alley/Maple intersection. • The project meets LOS requirements for alternative modes. • No new auxiliary lanes are required. • The P.D.P. is feasible from a traffic engineering perspective. J. Section 3.8.30(D)(3) – Block Requirements – Minimum Building Frontage While the P.D.P. represents development of only about 25% of Block 23, it is important that such development would not preclude the balance of the block complying with the 124 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 8 standard. This standard requires that buildings comprise the block faces and block sides and not parking lots or vehicular use areas. Along Maple Street, between the alley and Mason Street, the building comprises 100% of the block face. Along Mason Street, from the north property line to Maple Street, the building comprises 100% of the block face with the exception of ground floor openings for the tuck-under parking. As mentioned, these openings will be treated with seating nooks and landscaping. As designed, the P.D.P. will contribute positively to the balance of the block complying with this standard. 4. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 5, 2013 and a summary is attached. Most of the discussion centered on the overall architectural design of the building, its height, number of parking spaces and the extent of landscaping along Mason Street. In general, those attending the meeting made helpful suggestions and provided positive comments. 5. Findings of Fact / Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Old Town Flats – Block 23 P.D.P., staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. Multi-family development containing 94 units and 123 bedrooms is a permitted use in the Downtown zone, Civic Center sub-district, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. 2. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of the Section 4.16, Downtown zone district, Civic Center sub-district. 3. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Old Town Flats – Block 23 P.D.P. #PDP 130022. Attachments: Aerial Vicinity Map Zoning Vicinity Map Applicant’s Statement of Planning Objectives Site Plan Landscape Plan 125 Old Town Flats, Block 23 #PDP130022 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/2013 Page 9 Building Elevations View Analysis Shadow Analysis Neighborhood Meeting Summary Transportation Impact Study 126 Lee Martinez Community Park Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Civic Center Park North Washington Park «¬287 «¬14 Maple St Pine St Mason Ct Cherry St W ill o w St N College Ave N Mason St N Howes St Jefferson St © Old Block Town 23 Flats 1 inch = 200 feet Site 127 D POL D RDR LMN CCR NCB Lee Martinez Community Park Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Civic Center Park North Washington Park «¬287 «¬14 Maple St Pine St Mason Ct Cherry St W ill o w St N College Ave N Mason St N Howes St Jefferson St © Old Block Town 23 Flats 1 inch = 200 feet Site 128 Old Town Flats (Block 23) Statement of Planning Objectives July 31, 2013 (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan. The proposed project supports Plan Fort Collins’ principles and policies in the following ways: Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the economic health of the community. The project will also supply housing for expanding Fort Collins businesses. Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by providing energy-efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable products, limit construction waste, and recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing housing near the heart of downtown on the new MAX BRT route adjacent to the Downtown Transit Center, allowing residents to walk or ride bikes or busses to Old Town, the CSU campus, shopping and other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use. Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern development and will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically identified as a target for infill and redevelopment. Community and Livability: This project helps manage growth by providing housing on an infill site in a compact development. Safety and Wellness: This project will increase the safety of cyclists by providing an improved, 90-degree rail crossing on Mason Street. Safety for multiple modes will be maintained by locating parking to the interior of the site, thus reducing vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. Physical and mental wellness is promoted by the proximity to numerous amenities, Culture, Parks, and Recreation: Located near the new Museum of Discovery, the Lee Martinez Farm and Old Town, Old Town Flats offers a wide variety of cultural opportunities, including movies, theaters, science and history education and discovery, the Old Town Library, restaurants, hands-on farm experience, and other entertainment. The project’s adjacency to the Poudre Trail, Lee Martinez Park, and Washington Park will provide ready access for many forms of passive and active recreation, such as biking, running, softball, basketball, tennis, Frisbee, and playgrounds. High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity within the city by offering a community of housing to a variety of people (professionals, young families, students, and empty-nesters) in an open, non-discriminatory way. 129 Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by providing housing directly on the Mason Street ETC and adjacent to the Downtown Transit Center. LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. Access points, sidewalks, right of way street trees and landscaping within the project will be paid for by the developer. Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill This site is within Figure LIV1, Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas of the City Plan and meets this policy. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine The project is on the corner of North Mason Street and maple Street and is located on the community spine identified in City Plan. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Located in the Civic Center Downtown Sub-district, the architectural design shall be in context of its surroundings and be compatible with the established architectural character of Downtown Fort Collins. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass, similar window pattern, use of materials that have similarity on color shade and texture. LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Well lit streets with street trees and detached walks are included within both street frontages of the development on Mason Street and Cherry Street. Mason Street will be enhanced to provide a wider walk with seating nooks that have plaza spaces at both north and south ends of the site. LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Street trees will be included per standards at least 40’ O.C. along all public ROW’s. LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Space Public spaces will be included on the corner of Maple and Mason Street as well as the northern end of the site on Mason Street. Additionally three seating nooks will be provided adjacent to the sidewalk between these areas. LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features The seating nooks are unique gathering spaces for a variety of seating, gathering, mingling and will be located within a rich native landscape. LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, emphasizing foundation planting 130 LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Native and adaptive planting and a minimized turf area reserved for functional/multi-use lawns will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds will be maintained without excessive pruning or ‘snow-balling’ of shrubs. LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The street and pedestrian network will allow access from the North Transit Center for MAX through to the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Poudre River trails along Mason Street by utilizing the proposed wider sidewalk condition. The east-west movement will additionally be enhanced that connects midblock on Maple through to Mason Street corner Policy LIV 21.4 – Provide Access to Transit The wider sidewalk on Mason Street provides direct access to the Downtown Transit Center. LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets or Spaces The building fronts Maple Street and Mason Street. LIV 22.5 – Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes With native landscape, seating nooks and street trees, the streetscapes on Maple and Mason Street will be visually interesting. LIV 22.6 – Enhance Street Design and Image Mason Street and Maple Street will be tree lined with inviting walkways creating comfortable places to be. LIV 22.8 – Reduce the Visual Prominence of Garages and Driveways The wider Right of Way along Mason street will allow for a variety of topography to create mounded landscape beds with native grasses and perennials to help screen the parking beneath the building along Mason Street. LIV 23.1 – Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces With the limited space on downtown city block the wider Right of Way along Mason Street is viewed as an opportunity to create a lineal park with double row of street trees, a combination of lawn and native landscape combined with unique seating nooks and plaza. LIV 30.2 –Connect to Surrounding Neighborhoods Sidewalk connections enhance pedestrian connectivity and bicycle connectivity on all street frontages of the site. LIV 30.3 – Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Pedestrian access is improved along Mason Street and bicycle access is also improved with updates to create a safe 90 degree crossing at the railway line. This safe crossing does not currently exist. 131 LIV 31.4 – Design for Pedestrian Activity The wider sidewalk design along Mason Street has been designed to allow for greater pedestrian access to the north and south of the site. The addition of MAX will likely result in additional pedestrian flow to the Poudre River Trail and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. The site occupies the south-west quadrant of Block 23. The open space available for the project pertains specifically to the right of way along Mason Street as a wider condition typical of downtown blocks. This wider right-of-way has afforded the project an opportunity to enhance this area into a linear park condition. This concept allows for more pedestrian movement north and south while creating unique and attractive public gathering spaces at the corner and the northern extent of the lot. In between are public seating nooks that offer a variety of seating arrangements. The landscape is proposed to consist of native grasses and perennials, which utilize the lower water use species in Colorado. Street trees play a major role in defining human scale and the significance of the wider pedestrian sidewalk along Mason Street. This sidewalk allows people to access the Poudre River Trails and Fort Collins Museum of Discovery from Mason Street and the Transit Center for the new MAX. The enhancement of Maple Street also allows for easy pedestrian movement east and west in front the site. (iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant’s intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. The proposed project site is currently owned by NBH Bank, N.A. and is in the process of transferring ownership to a single purpose LLC. Once ownership has transferred to the new LLC, they will assume maintenance of the site. (iv) Estimate the number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. Not Applicable (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The L-shaped building is oriented to provide a strong urban edge along Mason Street and Maple Street. The ground level façade will intertwine residential entries, seating and outdoor plaza area to create a dynamic urban street. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street-level experience. The building facades are scaled to be compatible with the surrounding context. This also allows the parking to be tucked under the building and mostly hidden from the street. Pedestrians will circulate primarily along the perimeter street edges. This site is also across the street from the Downtown Transit Center which will allow for easy access along the new MAX route. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The Planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. See attached Modification for Compact Parking 132 (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. Not Applicable (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. A Neighborhood Meeting was held on June 5, 2013 and a summary of all comments/questions and responses was issued by the planner, Ted Shepard. We have reviewed the summary and believe the proposed project has addressed many of the neighborhood questions. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. Current Name: Old Town Flats Name used at PDR: Block 23 133 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 10/30/2013 2:59:18 PM C:\Revit Local Files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_pschultz.rvt OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 COVER SHEET PDP 1 OLD TOWN FLATS PDP 1 COVER SHEET PDP 2.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP 2.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP 3 SECTIONS & TYPICAL UNIT PLANS PDP 4 SHADOW ANALYSIS PDP 5 SHADOW ANALYSIS PDP 6 SHADOW ANALYSIS PDP 7 VIEW ANALYSIS PDP 8 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PDP 9 PHOTOMETRIC DETAILS OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS_______DAY OF _________________________, 20______. ______________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES 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 THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON THIS_______DAY OF _________________________, 20______ BY ________________________________________________________ (PRINT NAME) AS _____________________________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _______________________________ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ___________________________________________ ______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION 135 136 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 8" LEVEL 3 123' - 0" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 5 143' - 8" CONCRETE COLUMN MAIN BUILDING ENTRY ALUMINUM STOREFRONT METAL COPING METAL FASCIA "JULIET" BALCONY SEAT WALLS - RE: LANDSCAPE 1 PDP 3 2 PDP 3 3 PDP 3 4 PDP 3 5 PDP 3 6 PDP 3 7 PDP 3 1 3 10 1 4 8 4 3 EYEBROW CORNICE 8 4 2 11 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" : LANDSCAPE BERM +0" +0" 12 5 +5" +0" +23" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 8" LEVEL 3 123' - 0" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 5 143' - 8" STAIRS BEYOND CONCRETE COLUMN SEAT WALLS, RE: LANDSCAPE METAL COPING 11 3 8 6 3 11 EYEBROW CORNICE 2 TRASH ENCLOSURE 5 CONCRETE WALL T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" 4 3 4 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 8" LEVEL 3 123' - 0" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 5 143' - 8" ELECT SERVICE PANELS GAS METER CONCRETE COLUMNS TRASH ENCLOSURE 3 6 1 8 3 4 11 10 5 2 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS 1 12 T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROJ. NO. DRAWN: LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 8" LEVEL 3 123' - 0" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 5 143' - 8" PROPERTY LINE 3'-0" 2'-10" 5'-7" BALCONY - TYPICAL 2'-10" 3'-0" 5'-7" 1'-9" EYEBROW CORNICE T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE 2'-5" 1'-11" 8'-0" 1' - 6" 11" WATER TABLE EYEBROW EYEBROW BEYOND EYEBROW CORNICE BEYOND "JULIET" BALCONY T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE 11" WATER TABLE EYEBROW 1'-11" 1'-6" EYEBROW BEYOND EYEBROW CORNICE BEYOND 8'-0" T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 8" LEVEL 3 123' - 0" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 5 143' - 8" PROPERTY LINE EYEBROW CORNICE 1'-5" 8'-0" 5" EYEBROW BEYOND T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE 3'-5" 8'-0" PROPERTY LINE PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 10/30/2013 3:15:32 PM C:\Revit Local Files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_pschultz.rvt OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 VIEW ANALYSIS PDP 7 OLD TOWN FLATS VIEW 01 LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM MAPLE ST VIEW 02 LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM MASON ST VIEW 03 LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM MAPLE ST VIEW 01 VIEW 02 VIEW 03 BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE AFTER AFTER AFTER REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 140 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 9/24/2013 11:20:43 AM C:\revit local files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_janastasi.rvt 1" = 50'-0" OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 SHADOW ANALYSIS PDP 5 OLD TOWN FLATS 1 SUN STUDY-NOVEMBER 7 10AM 3 SUN STUDY-NOVEMBER 7 12PM 5 SUN STUDY-NOVEMBER 7 2PM 2 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-NOVEMBER 7 10AM 4 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-NOVEMBER 7 12PM 6 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-NOVEMBER 7 2PM REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 141 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 9/24/2013 11:21:10 AM C:\revit local files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_janastasi.rvt 1" = 50'-0" OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 SHADOW ANALYSIS PDP 6 OLD TOWN FLATS 1 SUN STUDY-DECEMBER 21 10AM 3 SUN STUDY-DECEMBER 21 12PM 5 SUN STUDY-DECEMBER 21 2PM 2 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-DECEMBER 21 10AM 4 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-DECEMBER 21 12PM 6 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-DECEMBER 21 2PM REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 142 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 9/24/2013 11:21:35 AM C:\revit local files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_janastasi.rvt 1" = 50'-0" OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 SHADOW ANALYSIS PDP 7 OLD TOWN FLATS 1 SUN STUDY-FEBRUARY 7 10AM 3 SUN STUDY-FEBRUARY 7 12PM 5 SUN STUDY-FEBRUARY 7 2PM 2 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-FEBRUARY 7 10AM 4 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-FEBRUARY 7 12PM 6 SUN 1" = 50'-0" STUDY PLAN-FEBRUARY 7 2PM REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 143 1 Neighborhood Meeting Summary Project: Block 23 Multi-Family Apartments Date: June 5, 2013 Applicant: Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners Dave Derbes, Brinkman Partners Consultants: Eduardo Llanes, Oz Architecture Paul Mills, Russell Mills and Associates Planner: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, C.D.N.S. The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the request is for an apartment building on the southwest quarter of the block surrounded by North College Avenue on the east, Maple Street on the south, Mason Street on the west and Cherry Street on the north. This block is referred to as Block 23 and the parcel size is 0.87 acre. The project would consist of an L-shaped building, five stories in height. The ground floor would include five street-facing dwelling units and parking spaces above which there would be four residential stories containing a total of 83 units. There would be 76 parking spaces along with bicycle parking. The building would contain a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom units for a total of 118 beds. The first floor would include the parking spaces and 4,300 square feet of floor area for the live-work units and common area. The upper four floors would each contain about 18,415 square feet for a building total of 77,960 square feet. At this preliminary stage, the size of the building and number of units are best estimates and may change over time. The site is zoned Downtown, Civic Center Sub-district. Questions, Concerns, Comments (Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or the consulting team.) 1. Would the alley be widened beyond its existing width? A. No, the public alley width would remain as is. 2. Why is the building pulled back from the intersection of Maple and the alley? A. This will allow sight distance for vehicles exiting the alley so they can see bikes or pedestrians on the sidewalk. 144 2 3. Why is the sidewalk on Mason Street angled as shown? A. This is because bikes going north on Mason need a 90-degree crossing of the railroad tracks and not an angled crossing as in the present condition. 4. The building appears pulled back from Mason unlike Penny Flats. A. This is because there is a water line running parallel to Mason and it must be within a 20-foot wide utility easement. No buildings or street trees can be in this easement in case the line needs to be repaired or replaced. So, right behind this easement, we are proposing a double row of street trees as mitigation. 5. What is the height of the building and does the height comply with the Code? A. Five stories. Yes, we comply with the Code which allows up to seven stories. 6. I prefer that the height match Penny Flats, which is four stories, for consistency. Why is the building five stories? A. Five stories are needed in order to provide parking at grade and then provide for a sufficient number of units in order for the project to make economic sense. There is a possibility that the future buildings along North College could exceed five stories. 7. What is the height of the first floor? A. The first floor will be 14 feet in height and will match the second Penny Flats building which was built by our company and called Mason Flats. 8. Instead of stories, what is the height differential, as measured in feet, between the proposed building and Penny Flats? A. The second Penny Flats building, Mason Flats, is about 60 feet high. The proposed building would be less than 60 feet high. And, there is about 100 feet of public right-of-way, plus the water line easement so there is about 138 feet separating the two buildings. Finally, our site sits about two feet lower than Penny Flats. 9. Could you describe the streetscape along Mason Street? A. Yes, in order to make up for the water line easement, there will be a double row of street trees flanking a wide sidewalk. We intend on providing a series of planters and seat walls to help break down the space to the pedestrian scale and create visual interest. 145 3 10. Where is your north property line? A. Our north property line is approximately the mid-block line. We see the north edge of our site as being a good location for an east-west walkway that would connect our project to North College. 11. How many bedrooms per unit? Will there be any four bedroom units? A. The building will include mostly studios, one’s, two’s and three-bedroom units. There will be no four-bedroom units. 12. What is the ratio of parking stalls to dwelling units? A. This number has not been finalized but we are estimating about .7 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 13. I encourage you to provide more parking. Otherwise, cars will spill out onto the neighborhood streets seeking overnight parking. 14. What are the plans for the first floor units along Maple? Would there be any retail proposed? A. We see these units having individualized entrances that may be conducive to allowing for home occupations. This would allow for dwelling units to be combined with home occupations that provide for personal or professional services. We don’t expect any retail tenants along Maple as such tenants would prefer to front onto North College. 15. What would happen if, over time, Maple Street took on a different character? Would retail ever be considered for these first floor units? A. Yes, the units are designed to be converted to non-residential tenant space should the demand arise. 16. Will these be apartments or condos? A. We are planning on apartments. There is no market for condos at this time but we could consider the possibility at some point in the future. 17. What about the exterior materials? A. We have some ideas but are open to hear suggestions. 18. I suggest that you consider brick and stone in combination. I suggest that you take your cue from the surrounding vernacular but don’t replicate. I like the patios and open space within the project. 146 4 19. I like the idea of expressing modules along Mason but not to the point where you lose cohesion. I would not want the exterior elevations to appear muddled. 20. The open parking on the north, east and west elevations may need to be screened or mitigated. A. We are looking at providing screen walls to block headlights and to offer some protection from wind, dust, snow, etc. 21. You may have an ice problem on the north side of the building. A. Yes, we are aware of that condition. 22. I like the top floors being stepped back from the wall of the lower floors. 23. I prefer usable balconies that are not shaped like narrow rectangles. It is difficult to furnish and enjoy narrow balconies. 24. I don’t like Juliet balconies. A. While not very functional, they do have the advantage of letting in a lot of light. 25. I don’t mind Juliet balconies. What I really like are the rooftop common areas like the Lofts on Magnolia. A. Our economics do not allow us to provide a rooftop common area. 26. Recessed balconies create a nice appearance. 27. Where are the hallways? A. Down the middle of the building. 28. Will there be bike parking? A. Yes, we will provide one bike parking space per bedroom and 60% of these will be enclosed in either the individual units or within the portion of the garage that is covered. 29. How many elevators? A. One, located close to the corner of Mason and Maple. 30. Are there laundry facilities? A. Yes, one per unit. 147 5 31. Will the building be L.E.E.D. certified? Are there solar panels? A. We don’t know yet. 32. When do you think you will break ground? A. We anticipate at some time in the fourth quarter of 2013. 33. Will you be providing any upgrades in construction for sound buffering due to the train? A. Yes, the City’s building code already requires such upgrades based on proximity to the railroad tracks. 34. I appreciate the design along Mason and encourage you to keep thinking about making this area a mini linear park. Perhaps instead of using concrete, you could use flagstone pavers to enhance the appearance. 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 BLU Nove Plann c/o T tshep City o Re: O Fort Flats Fort and e solut the d prom resta empl an Ol Town that i Than it bec Since Steve Direc Blue E OCEAN EN ember 11, 2 ning and Zo Ted Shepard pard@fcgov of Fort Colli Old Town Fl Collins Plan Blue Ocea developme Collins by s encourage a As Fort C tions and id downtown a mote the MA aurants, and Old Town loyees are lo ld Town loc n Flats prov is an import nk you for yo come a part erely, e Schroyer ctor of Real Ocean Ente NTERPRISES, I 013 oning Board d, Chief Plan v.com ins ats Develop ITEM NO ___________ MEETING DATE Nov. 14, 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: Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Development Plan, PDP #130024 and Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(E)(2)(e) APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Ave. Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: MVG-MS, a Colorado Limited Liability Company 1509 York Street Denver, CO 80206 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for the Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care facility on a 5 acre undeveloped parcel at the northwest corner of East Horsetooth Road and Lochwood Drive. The project proposes 23 memory care living spaces and 55 assisted living spaces, for a total of 78 living spaces. The Land Use Code (L.U.C.) defines the project use as an Institutional, Long Term Care Facility. The site is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L.M.N.), and the proposed use is permitted in this zone district subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The proposed modification of standard requests an increase in the 20,000 square foot maximum allowance for each building footprint in the L.M.N. zone. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Development Plan #130024 and Modification of Standard to Section 4.25(E)(2)(e). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of this Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, 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. 175 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 2 • The Modification of Standard to Section 4.25(E)(2)(e) that is proposed with this P.D.P. meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), and the granting of this Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L.M.N.) of Article 4 – Districts, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 4.25(E)(2)(e) is approved. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject property was annexed into the City in April 1973. Formal planning of the surrounding area began in the mid ‘70’s. The proposed Morningstar site remains a vacant unplatted parcel. The parcel is surrounded by single-family detached homes and multi-family condominiums that were planned and built in the 1980’s. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North L.M.N. Collindale 2 P.U.D. Condos (multi- family) South P.O.L. Collindale Golf Course East L.M.N. Collindale P.U.D. ’87 – Convenience Store, Retail, Office, Day Care (vacant) West L.M.N. Collindale P.U.D. Condos (multi-family) and Collindale 3 rd Filing (single-family detached) 176 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 3 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L.M.N.): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards with the following comments: A. Section 4.5(A) – Purpose The P.D.P. is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district as the project proposes a land use and architectural design that is complementary and supportive of the surrounding neighborhood, while reinforcing variety in housing choices and strengthening existing connections to surrounding neighborhoods. The purpose of the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is described in the L.U.C. as follows: The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. B. Section 4.5(A) and (B) – Permitted Uses The proposed land use is classified as an Institutional, Long Term Care Facility which is permitted in the district as a “Type 2” use subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval. Based on the L.U.C., the 78 living spaces provided are subdivided into two long term care use classifications: • The 23 memory care living spaces are classified as a Nursing Care Facility because the residents are provided twenty-four hour nursing care and supervision. 177 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 4 • The 55 assisted living spaces are classified as an Intermediate Health Care Facility because the residents receive supportive care due to a physical and/or mental condition and require care in an institutional environment. A note has been added to the site plan which describes the use categories that are tied to the approval of this P.D.P. This is necessary in order to ensure that the project is not operated as an Independent Living Facility (also a subcategory of Long Term Care), due to the fact that this use would require additional parking and is restricted to 25% of the total gross floor area of a long term care development. C. Section 4.5(E) – Development Standards 1) 4.5(E)(2)(b) Maximum Size. No building footprint shall exceed a total of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, with the exception of schools and places of worship or assembly. Request for Modification. The applicant requests a modification to allow a building footprint of approximately 43,000 square feet. 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, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or 178 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 5 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). Applicant’s Justification: Summary of the applicant’s written justification: The applicant states that 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 for the following reasons: “The core issue of this modification revolves around whether or not it would be more desirable to have one building footprint at 42,423 sq. ft. or two – 20,000 square foot building footprints that meet the strict application of the Code. The difference between the proposed alternative plan and a plan that meets the code is that this type of facility could not exist and function in two separate buildings for the following reasons: a. The operation and license of the facility from the State of Colorado Department of Health would be difficult to obtain if facilities were operating in two separate buildings. The license would require central operational facilities, dining and food preparation and staffing which would add an undue operational expense making the facility financially infeasible. b. In addition to operational costs, the facilities would require duplicate common spaces in each building to support the needs of the residents. • The proposed alternative plan continues to improve the design, quality and character of new development by exceeding the building standards set forth in Section 3.5. The use of high quality residential 179 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 6 building materials, building articulation, projections and recesses, along with pitched roof elements ensures sensitivity to and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. • The proposed alternative plan continues to encourage innovations in land development by allowing a creative way to mitigate the larger footprint by stepping the retaining wall along the west side. The stepped wall, in combination with additional landscape and a 6’ high solid fence, results in reducing the effect of the building. • The current footprint of the building is 42,423 sq. ft., which represents 19.8% of the site coverage. The remaining 80% of the site is parking, storm water detention area and landscape. The building is placed at the south end of the site, at the street intersection and shaped to fit the angles of the site, thus allowing for over 50% of the site to be landscaped. • The proposed alternative plan continues to encourage the development of vacant properties within established areas. The site is surrounded by existing development - a golf course, a restaurant, pool, daycare, neighborhood center, and multi-family development. A larger footprint is appropriate in this setting, especially if the building is designed to provide a suitable transition between the street activity and the adjacent residential development. • The proposed use of the site to provide assisted living and memory care benefits the community as a whole with limited impact on the adjoining properties. A plan that complies with the standard could be developed with much greater intensity. For example, a multiple office building complex could be constructed, with a total of 37,500 sq. ft. At a parking ratio of 3 cars per 1,000 sq. ft., there could potentially be 113 parking spaces on the site. This would amount to greater impacts to the neighborhood in addition to generating a substantial amount of traffic in the area. • As previously stated, at the neighborhood meeting conducted with City representatives on September 23, 2013, neighbors commented that they liked the new plan, appreciated the Developers listening to their input from a previous neighborhood meeting, and were supportive of the updated site plan, building plan and exterior elevations. No opposition to the proposed use was heard from the neighbors. Further, the proposed alternative plan seeks to provide a substantial benefit to the City by addressing an important community need specifically 180 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 7 and expressly defined and described in the policies of City Plan. More specifically the following: Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing 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. Policy LIV 7.6 – Basic Access Support the construction of housing units with practical features that provide basic access and functionality for people of all ages and widely varying mobility and ambulatory–related abilities.” Staff Finding Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(E)(2)(b) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). This is because: A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. B. The project design satisfies Criteria 4 (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. This is because: The intent of this standard is to reduce the visual impact of inappropriate building mass that may result from large building footprints. An alternative plan could propose the same or more overall building coverage in multiple buildings on the site that are 20,000 square feet per building and be in compliance with the standard. The fact that the proposed building is configured in a massing that is larger than 20,000 square feet does not by itself make the building form less desirable than two or more separate buildings that are situated in close proximity in accordance with the standard. In order to ensure that the building mass is equal to or better than a site design that meets the standard, the applicant has provided multiple recesses and projections ranging from 30 to 85 feet in depth that exceed the minimum requirement of 30 feet. The building footprint is deeply recessed so that three distinct masses are formed, which work to obscure the view of the overall building footprint from vantage points around the building. The rotated angle of the northern portion of the building also helps to obscure views of the overall mass. A significant portion of the building is one-story which further reduces the overall mass of the building footprint. 181 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 8 Section 4.5(E) – Development Standards (continued) 2) 4.5(E)(2)(c) Height. In order to encourage roof forms, dormers, windows, balconies and similar features associated with occupied space, to the extent reasonably feasible, buildings or parts of buildings shall be at least one and one-half (1.5) stories in height (with functional and occupied space under the roof). The maximum height shall be two and one-half (2.5) stories. • The building design has multiple elements to satisfy this standard with the extensive use of dormer, hip and shed roof elements. The applicant has responded to staff’s request to keep the 2 nd story roof eave low, just above the 2 nd story window, so that the overall building height is reduced. 3) 4.5(E)(2)(d) Roof Form. Buildings shall have either: 1) sloped roofs; 2) combined flat and sloped roofs, provided that the sloped portion(s) forms a substantial part of the building and is related to the integral structure, entries and activity areas; or 3) flat roofs with building massing stepped or terraced back to form usable roof terrace area(s). The minimum pitch of any sloped roof shall be 6:12. Buildings containing more than four thousand (4,000) square feet of gross floor area shall have at least three (3) roof planes that are directly related to building facade articulations. • The building design complies with this standard by providing varied roof planes and sloping roof pitches that are at least 6:12. 4) 4.5(E)(2)(e) Building Massing. No building permitted by this Section shall have a single undifferentiated mass with a footprint over ten thousand (10,000) square feet. No building footprint shall exceed a total of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. 1. For any building with a footprint in excess of ten thousand (10,000) square feet, walls that are greater than seventy-five (75) feet in length shall incorporate recesses or projections created by wall plane returns of at least thirty (30) feet; any such building shall be differentiated into multiple sections of mass in order to achieve proportions that are compatible in scale with adjacent residential neighborhoods. 2. Minimum front yard setback of all buildings shall be fifteen (15) feet in order to provide a landscaped front yard consistent with the residential character of the L-M-N zone district. 182 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 9 Provided that the modification is approved allowing a building footprint greater than 20,000 square feet, the proposed building design exceeds the minimum standard by providing at least 9 recesses that exceed 30 feet, with 4 of the recesses greatly exceeding the minimum standard. The building is divided into three main sections and is further divided with smaller recesses and projections, with an overall effect of articulation and scale that is compatible with the massing of the adjacent residential neighborhood. The project also provides building setbacks that meet or exceed the 15 foot front setback and 8 foot rear setback. 5) 4.5(E)(2)(h) Hours of Operation. The decision maker may limit hours of operation, hours when trucking and deliveries may occur, and other characteristics of the nonresidential uses in order to enhance the compatibility with residential uses. • In order to address concerns expressed by neighbors, staff is recommending that the hours of operation for trash pick-up and service area deliveries be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday – Friday and Saturdays 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. A note is included on the site plan with the restricted hours. • City Ordinance 15-421 requires that hours of solid waste or recyclable materials on any street designated a “local residential” or “residential collector” street must be made between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. There is no specific ordinance regarding deliveries. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards; with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: • There are no existing trees on the site. Two 34” caliper cottonwood trees are adjacent to the site along the north property line, and are in fair to poor condition. The applicant has conferred with the City Forester concerning these trees and has designed a grading plan for the area around the trees with a very minimal change to the existing grade. The curb along the portion of the parking lot drive isle near 183 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 10 these trees has been raised to 8 inches to provide a grade transition as far away from the trees as possible, allowing minimal disturbance of the root zone; • Per the request of planning staff and neighbors, the applicant added additional landscaping along the west retaining wall and surrounding the storm water detention areas. Additional landscaping was also added along the existing internal sidewalk to soften views into the proposed parking area from the adjacent condo unit north of the site; • “Full Tree Stocking” is provided along all high use and high visibility areas of the development, with generous quantities of trees located along building faces; • Trees are planted in the parking lot interior and perimeter in excess of the minimum requirements; • Ground cover areas in parking lots and at building foundations are also planted in excess of the minimum requirements, with deciduous and evergreen shrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses used extensively. The use of irrigated lawn has been kept to a minimum. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: • The existing neighborhood sidewalk along the north of the property will remain and will be placed in a public access easement with the platting of the property. No easement currently exists for this internal sidewalk. Sidewalk connections are planned between buildings and through parking areas in accordance with the standards. Bicycle parking meets the minimum quantity required and is placed appropriately near the building entrance. • A new Transfort bus stop along Horsetooth Road has been provided with the project. • The parking and circulation of the development is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. Sidewalk connections are direct and contribute to the attractiveness of the development. • Parking requirements in terms of quantity and dimensions of parking stalls are provided in accordance with the standards. 184 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 11 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting: • A photometric plan was submitted for the project. As proposed, the project complies with the lighting design standards in Section 3.2.4. Parking lot and drive lighting is provided by down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. B. Division 3.5 – Building Standards 1) 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility • The project is designed to be compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods. Portions of the building have been reduced to one- story. The mass of the building has been significantly subdivided into smaller façade elements with a consistent level of detail provided around all faces. The use of secondary elements in the facades includes a variety of roof styles, window sizes and bracket details to enhance the building’s residential character and human scale. Accent roofs are used extensively. Variations in materials and color are used to further emphasize the residential scale and character of the building. The overall effect of the massing, articulation and material placement gives the building an appearance that is similar to a series of attached residential dwellings and lessens the feel of an institutional use. • The applicant has also provided enhanced detailing of site elements to respond to staff and neighbor suggestions. The retaining wall located to the west of the building is terraced into two levels and an ashlar fieldstone masonry pattern is specified to give the wall an enhanced architectural appearance that is consistent with the quality of the stone proposed with the building façade. Landscaping is included along the top, bottom and middle section of the wall, with shrub material layered from top to bottom, so that the wall pattern is not completely hidden but softened and enhanced. A wood privacy fence is provided along the top of the wall to screen the service / fire lane, and the applicant has provided an enhanced fence design per the request of staff. The applicant has also provided a cedar trellis detail over the top of the trash enclosure to ensure that the top view of the enclosure is screened from the third story of neighboring windows. 185 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 12 2) 3.5.3 Building Standards • The architectural design and overall shape of the building footprint has gone through extensive revisions throughout the development review process in order to respond to neighbor concerns and to comply with the Character and Image requirements of Section 3.5.3(E). In accordance with the Site Specific Design requirement of 3.5.3(E)(1), the standard building prototype which Morningstar previously used in other communities was redesigned to better fit the shape of the site, as well as provide a better architectural style that is unique to this location. The redesign of the building footprint has allowed the building to be shifted further east away from the Collindale residences to the west. • The overall design satisfies the institutional building requirements of Section 3.5.3. All building elevations provide a recognizable base and top treatment in accordance with Section 3.5.3(D)(6). The variation in massing requirement is satisfied by breaking up the building mass into a series of intersecting wall planes in a module format. The variations in massing, juxtaposed materials and forms, and repeated patterns of recesses and projections provide vertical and horizontal interest, breaking down the overall scale of the building. • Attention is given to providing a residential appearance with variation material patterns and textures. The use of materials and patterns is balanced, with colors and textures helping to emphasize and articulate overall building forms. C. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: • The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.) that was submitted to the City for review and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with this P.D.P. are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Street improvements to be constructed meet the Level of Service requirements. Additionally, an acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the City multi-modal transportation guidelines. 186 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 13 • A new detached sidewalk will be constructed along the Lochwood frontage as part of the project. The existing sidewalk internal to the site along the north will remain. As previously mentioned, this sidewalk is not currently within an easement and be placed in a public access easement as a requirement of development approval. • A westbound right-turn lane on East Horsetooth Road was outlined as a potential requirement with the T.I.S. Due to the fact that the installation of the right-turn lane will require the removal of five mature cottonwood trees, the City Engineering Department has discussed and accepted a variance requesting that the right-turn lane not be constructed. While it is acknowledged that the addition of the right-turn lane will improve the overall operation of the intersection by a small amount, it will not change the required level of service. 4. Neighborhood Meeting Two neighborhood meetings were held for the proposed project, on February 25, 2013 and September 23, 2013. A staff summary of the neighbor’s concerns and the applicant’s responses is included below. Detailed meeting minutes and letters from the neighbors are attached with this staff report. Neighborhood Meeting Concerns & Response Summary Concern: Existing traffic issues at Horsetooth and Lochwood. Neighbors have expressed concerns about the difficulty of turning left from Lochwood to East Horsetooth, particularly at rush hour. Applicant’s Response: A traffic study was submitted with the project proposal and it finds little to no impact to the existing conditions at the intersection, due to the low volume of traffic that this type of use traditionally generates. It is also helpful that the employee shift changes do not coincide with a.m. and p.m. rush hours. There will be approximately 20 employees. Shift changes will be at 7:45 a.m., 2:45 p.m., and 10:45 p.m. Because of the number of employees, not a lot of traffic is expected during shift changes. Concern: Increased risk of flooding of the drainage ditch and Collindale residences to the west. Applicant’s Response: Drainage from the site currently goes into the ditch. With this project, water will fill on-site storm water detention ponds and be temporarily detained rather than going into the ditch immediately. Storm water detention ponds have been designed so that water is released at a slow rate into the ditch from the east, without 187 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 14 any more frequency than with what is happening in current conditions with the grass field. Concern: Close proximity of building to Collindale neighborhood to west. Applicant’s Response: The site plan and building were reconfigured and the building has been shifted further east, portions of the west side of the building facing the neighbors were made one-story. Concern: Ambulances and Siren noise and frequency Applicant’s Response: Applicant explained that with their other similar facilities, they have about 1-2 emergency calls per month. They will contract for ambulance services and request that sirens not be used. They will enter the area from Horsetooth Rd., and will use the north entrance. Ambulances are typically required to use arterial streets such as East Horsetooth Road unless responding directly to an emergency within a neighborhood on a local residential street. Concern: Views and privacy from the adjacent residences Applicant’s Response: Applicant has provided additional landscape screening along the west and northwest of the site. Applicant has also provided an enhanced wood fence with framed trim panel insets and a wood trellis over the trash enclosure. Delivery and service hours have been restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday – Friday and Saturdays 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Concern: Height of retaining wall and building; cumulative height of both Applicant’s Response: Applicant has stepped the building height so that portions of the building along the west are one-story in height. The retaining wall has been stepped with two terrace levels and an enhanced masonry pattern is proposed which has a random cobblestone appearance. The wall has also received landscaping of various heights to provide more transition and filtered views. The building has also been shifted east away from the ditch with the closest massings of the building 67 to 87 feet away from the property line. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Development Plan Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(E)(2)(e) regarding Height/Mass that is proposed with this P.D.P. would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). This is because the plan reduces the visual impact of 188 Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care PDP #130024 Planning & Zoning Hearing November, 14, 2013 Page 15 the larger footprint by providing multiple recesses and projections ranging from 30 to 85 feet in depth that exceed the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and a significant portion of the building is one-story which further reduces the overall mass of the building footprint. B. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. D. The P.D.P. complies with the relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 4.25(E)(2)(e) is approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Morningstar Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Development Plan, P.D.P. #130024 and Modification of Standard to Section 4.25(E)(2)(e). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Statement of Planning Objectives and Modification Request 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Plat 6. Utility Plans 7. Engineering variance letter 8. Transportation Impact Study Summary 9. Neighborhood Meetings 1 and 2, minutes comments and responses 10. Letters from Neighbors 189 Page 1 August 14, 2013 MVG-Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care PDP Statement of Planning Objectives The MVG-Morningstar PDP is located at the northwest corner of East Horsetooth Road and Lochwood Drive. The property is currently vacant. Uses surrounding the property consist of the following: South: Horsetooth Road and Collindale Golf Course West: Collindale PUD 2nd and 3rd Filing Condominiums North: Collindale II Condominiums East: Schrader C-Store and KinderCare Learning Center The proposed project consists of a 71,165 sq. ft., two story building for an assisted living and memory care facility. The building is designed to have a central core area with two wings for the living spaces. The core area will contain the main entrance foyer, reception, administrative offices, a lounge, a bistro and a common dining area for the assisted living residents. The dining room opens into a courtyard/patio. The kitchen and “back of house” facilities are also located here, utilizing the service drive on the west side of the building. The south wing will contain the assisted living units for the residents and the north wing will house the memory care residents. It is designed to revolve around a central courtyard. IN addition to a small dining and gathering area, there will also be an outdoor fenced-in pathway for the use of the residents. The architectural style of the building is unique to both Fort Collins and the owner utilizing a combination of materials, elevations and building massing breaks to create both interest and maximize views and orientation. The creation of an interior courtyard with a portion of the building along the northwest containing only one story will reduce the impact of the building for the residents within the memory care wing and allow both visibility and light to enhance their daily lives. The reduction in the building scale permits the adjacent neighbors to welcome the reduced scale visually. The mix of stone, horizontal siding, and architectural elements with bay windows, brackets and mix of composition shingles and metal roofing will create a very aesthetic building for the community. Main access to the site will utilize two entrances entrance off of Lochwood Drive. All drives will be 24’. There is a circular drive drop-off area at the main entrance to the building. 49 off-street parking spaces will be provided. 58% of the site is open space, detention and landscaping. The landscape material will provide seasonal interest and color as well as meeting the City’s code for foundation planting and vehicle use screening. The service area on the west side of the building will be screened with landscape and a 6’ high solid privacy fence. 190 Page 2 Unit Mix: 1. Memory Care a. Studios 15 b. Singles 8 ______________________________________ Total Memory Care 23 2. Assisted Living a. Studios 19 b. Singles 21 c. Doubles 15 ______________________________________ Total Assisted Living 55 Total All Units 78 The 4.9-acre site is in the L-M-N zoning district. According to the Purpose Statement contained within Article 4 of the Land Use Code, “The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” The area surrounding the MVG-Morningstar project contains a mix of single-family homes, condominiums, a daycare care facility, convenience store, golf course, restaurant and other office uses. The site is ideal for this type of density as it provides a transition between the single-family attached neighborhoods to the north and west and the more intensely developed areas to the east. The project will provide a concrete pad for a future Transfort bus shelter on Horsetooth Road. Assisted living facilities are defined as a “Long Term Care Facility” in the LMN Zoning District. Long term care facilities are permitted as a Type II use. (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: The MVG Morningstar PDP meets the following applicable City Plan Principles and Policies: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. 191 Page 3 Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment The MVG-Morningstar PDP will provide a compact urban redevelopment project that is in an ideal location, is within walking distance to many destinations and is within an established neighborhood infill area. Environmental Health Principle ENV 8: Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality Due to the nature of this type of population, the residents of MVG- Morningstar PDP are not expected to drive vehicles at all. The employees will be encouraged to utilize alternative transportation and public transportation for the majority of their daily trips. Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. Policy LIV 6.1 – Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods The MVG-Morningstar PDP provides an opportunity for redevelopment of an existing underutilized site and the design of the building will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural design will be sensitive in shape, form and patterns of building materials. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing 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. MVG-Morningstar PDP is a residential care facility. The central location is ideal and will be convenient for family members and employees. Principle LIV 28: Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will provide opportunities for a mix of low density housing types in a setting that is conducive to walking and in close proximity to a range of neighborhood serving uses. Policy LIV 28.2 – Mix of Uses Policy LIV 28.4 –Neighborhood Center 192 Page 4 The project is located in a well-established neighborhood containing a mix of uses such as single-family detached housing, a day care center, and offices as well as within walking distance to a neighborhood center. Transportation Principle T 9: Enhanced Travel Corridors will contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Policy T 9.1 – Locating Enhanced Travel Corridors Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops There will be a future Transfort stop adjacent to the site. Horsetooth Road is a 4-lane arterial street. (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. There are no wetlands or significant natural habitats within the boundaries of the site. (iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. Open space and landscaped areas will all be maintained by Morningstar. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. There are estimated to be approximately 20 employees in the building at one time. (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. Morningstar chose this location because there was a need in the Fort Collins area for assisted living. Morningstar provides senior living communities. Within these communities, residents can still maintain their independence, while requiring help with other daily activities. A licensed nurse is available and a 24-hour care staff. The memory care community offers secured environment to safeguard those with memory impairment (Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia). The building has exceptional architecture and meticulous attention to details and we feel will be a good fit within the established neighborhood. This building is a new design and uniquely Fort Collins. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require, 193 Page 5 or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. At this time the project is not proposing any variance from the City of Fort Collins criteria. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. There are no existing wetlands, natural habitats or features currently located on site. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. Questions and concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting: Issue: Ditch backing up when it rains. Answer: The drainage ditch will convey water to the downstream pond located at the northwest corner of the site. The pond cannot release water with any more frequency than what currently exists today. Morningstar does not plan on piping the ditch and the drainage report provided with the submittal will show that the construction of the improvements on the site will not exacerbate the problem. Issue: Possibly move the northernmost access away from Building A of the Cherry Hills Condos. Answer: The PDP shows the access moved south as requested, but we’re not sure if the City will allow it. Issue: Concerns with detention pond holding water/mosquito risk Answer: The detention ponds will hold water for a very short period of time before releasing downstream. Issue: Proximity of building to western boundary Answer: The building has been re-designed since the neighborhood meeting. It is now longer in a north-south direction and the “west” wing is now gone. There is a service drive between the building and the retaining wall along the drainage easement. The retaining wall will have a 6’ fence on top of it to provide screening to the service area. In addition, landscape is provided within the drainage easement, at the bottom of the wall. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project is called MVG-Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care PDP. The project was referred to as Horsetooth & Lochwood – Morning Star Assisted Living at Conceptual Review. 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Keystone’s Family of Products 14 Keystone ProductPortfolio www.keystonewalls.com Key FeAtures  Multiple Face Dimensions • three unique sizes.  Structural Integrity • Higher unit-to-unit shear resistance. • increased vertical drainage through face units. • open cores allow for gravel interlock across block interfaces. • improves connection strength between face units and geogrid. • Pins with shouldered caps provide positive unit shear resistance.  Ease of Installation • Unit shape’s tail element makes handling easier.  Aesthetics • three or more face dimensions offers random appearance. • natural stone look. • Multi-color blends and roughened, antiqued face available in most markets.  Design Versatility • near vertical or battered setback options available through two pin positions. K E y S t o n E H a L F C E n t U r y W a L L ® dIstINCtIve APPeArANCe and character of a random-pattern, hand-crafted stone wall with the structural integrity, performance, and environmental friendliness of concrete. the three different-sized units make Keystone Half Century wall™ fast and almost effortless to create visually stunning and heavy-duty wall structures. Keystone Half Century wall can be combined with Keystone Century wall or used on its own for almost any application. Harvest Blend Colorado Blend Piece # 1 2 3 Block Height 4" 4" 4" Block width 18" 11" 7" Block depth 12" 12" 12" Block weight (lbs.) 90 60 35 shoulder Pins yes yes yes Approximately 24 sq. ft. of wall face per pallet. Note: Unit colors, dimensions, weight, and availability vary by manufacturer. 3 1 2 Natural Appeal Keystone ProductPortfolio 15 Half-Century™ KEYSTONE Half-Century™ KEYSTONE Half-Century™ KEYSTONE Half-Century™ KEYSTONE 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 DELICH MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 ASSOCIATES Access intersections, Lockwood Drive has all movements combined into a single lane. There is stop sign control at the Lochwood/Gas Station Access and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections on the Gas Station Access and Kindercare Access, respectively. Lochwood Drive has a posted speed of 25 mph. The Gas Station Access and Kindercare Access serve more uses; however, they are the primary uses and were used for naming purposes. Figure 2 shows recent afternoon peak hour counts at the Horsetooth/Lochwood- Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. The count data was obtained in February 2013. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix B. Since the traffic counts were obtained on different days, they were balanced between intersections and are shown in Figure 3. Table 1 shows the current morning and afternoon peak hour operation of the Horsetooth/Lochwood- Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. A description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care site is in an area termed “low density mixed use district” on the Fort Collins Structure Plan. In areas termed “low density mixed use district,” acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections along arterial streets during the peak hours, is defined as level of service F, which is considered to be normal in an urban environment. The key intersections operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. At the Horsetooth/Lochwood- Collindale Access intersection, the calculated delay for some movements was commensurate with level of service F during the peak hours. Figure 4 shows the site plan for MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care. Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used as the reference document in calculating the trip generation. Code 254, Assisted Living with occupied beds as the trip generation variable was used. Table 2 shows the trip generation for MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care. This trip generation was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. The trip generation for MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care is calculated at: 214 daily trip ends, 14 morning peak hour trip ends and 24 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip distribution for this site is shown in Figure 5. The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering judgment. The trip distribution was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. Figure 6 shows the site generated traffic assignment of MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care. Figure 7 shows the short range (2018) background afternoon peak hour traffic at the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2018) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. The traffic on Horsetooth Road was increased at the rate of 1.5 percent per year. Lochwood Drive, 211 DELICH MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 ASSOCIATES north of the site, is built out and therefore was not increased. Table 3 shows the short range (2018) background afternoon peak hour operation at the Horsetooth/Lochwood- Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. At the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access intersection calculated delay for some movements with level of service F during the peak hours. Figure 8 shows the short range (2018) total peak hour traffic at the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. Table 4 shows the short range (2018) total peak hour operation at the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. At the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access intersection calculated delay for some movements was commensurate with level of service F during the peak hours. The existing westbound right-turn volume in one peak hour (pm) at the Horsetooth/Lockwood-Collindale Access intersection exceeds the threshold shown in Figure 8-4, LCUASS for a right-turn deceleration lane. This proposed development will add a small amount of traffic to this movement. Provision of this right-turn lane will not change the operational level of service at this intersection. Therefore, this right-turn lane is not recommended. Based upon a previous version of this memorandum, City staff concurred with this recommendation and requested a variance letter pertaining to this right-turn lane. Figure 9 shows the short range (2018) geometry at the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections. This is the current geometry. The MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. As shown on the site plan (Figure 4), there is a concrete sidewalk along the north side of this property. This sidewalk was built by others and is maintained by others. This walk will remain and it is not the responsibility of this development. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care. The MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care site is located within an area termed as “other,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories. There are five destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care: 1) the residential area to the north of the site, 2) the residential area to the east of the site, 3) the residential area to the west of the site, 4) Warren Park to the southwest of the site, and 5) Collindale Golf Course to the south of the site. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are two bicycle destinations: Warren Park and Collindale Golf Course to the south. The 212 DELICH MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 ASSOCIATES Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. This site connects directly to bike lanes on Horsetooth Road and Lochwood Drive, which achieves level of service A, as shown in Appendix F. Transfort Route 5 (Horsetooth/Lemay intersection is approximately 1650 feet from this site. It is doubtful that residents of this facility would use the Transfort system, however employees could use it. It is concluded that, with development of MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care, the future level of service at the Horsetooth/Lochwood-Collindale Access, Lochwood/Gas Station Access, and Lochwood/Kindercare Access intersections will be acceptable. No new auxiliary lanes are recommended at the key intersections. The level of service for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes will be acceptable. 213 SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 Rolling Green Lemay Avenue Lemay Avenue Horsetooth Road Lochwood Drive MorningStar Assisted Living/Menory Care 214 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 AM/PM Horsetooth Road 0/5 0/2 7/0 101/77 0/3 38/25 53/81 933/876 5/16 25/44 753/879 2/2 Lochwood Drive 93/91 11/13 52/138 27/18 6/18 42/49 99/94 2/3 54/150 4/6 2/4 5/10 Colindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access 215 BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 AM/PM Horsetooth Road 0/5 0/2 7/0 100/90 0/4 37/29 54/91 933/876 5/16 25/49 753/879 2/2 Lochwood Drive 94/80 11/13 52/126 27/16 6/18 43/43 100/83 2/3 54/138 4/6 2/4 5/10 Colindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access 216 DELICH MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM NB LT/T/RT B F EB LT A B WB LT B B SB LT F F SB T/RT C E Horsetooth/Lochwood-Colindale Access (stop sign) SB APPROACH D F Lochwood/Gas Station Access WB LT/RT A B (stop sign) SB LT/T A A Lochwood/Kindercare Access WB LT/RT A A (stop sign) SB LT/T A A TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 254 Assisted Living 78 beds 2.74 214 0.12 9 0.06 5 0.15 12 0.15 12 217 SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 218 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Case TIS, October 2013 Horsetooth Road Lochwood Drive Colindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access 65% 35% NOMINAL 219 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 AM/PM Horsetooth Road 3/8 NOM. 2/4 6/8 3/4 Lochwood Drive Collindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access 6/8 3/4 NOM. 2/4 NOM. 3/8 3/4 NOM. NOM. NOM. NOM. 2/4 220 SHORT RANGE (2018) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assited Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 AM/PM Horsetooth Road 0/5 0/2 7/0 100/90 0/4 37/29 54/91 1005/944 5/16 25/49 811/947 2/2 Lochwood Drive 94/80 11/13 52/126 27/16 6/18 43/43 100/83 2/3 54/138 4/6 2/4 5/10 Collindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access 221 DELICH MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2018) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM NB LT/T/RT B F EB LT B B WB LT B B SB LT F F SB T/RT D F Horsetooth/Lochwood-Colindale Access (stop sign) SB APPROACH E F Lochwood/Gas Station Access WB LT/RT A B (stop sign) SB LT/T A A Lochwood/Kindercare Access WB LT/RT A A (stop sign) SB LT/T A A TABLE 4 Short Range (2018) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM NB LT/T/RT B F EB LT B B WB LT B B SB LT F F SB T/RT D F Horsetooth/Lochwood-Colindale Access (stop sign) SB APPROACH E F NB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT B B Lochwood/Gas Station Access- MorningStar Access (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A B Lochwood/Kindercare Access- MorningStar Access (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A 222 SHORT RANGE (2018) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 AM/PM Horsetooth Road 0/5 0/2 7/0 103/98 0/4 39/33 60/99 1005/944 5/16 28/53 811/947 2/2 Lochwood Drive Colindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access 6/8 55/130 27/16 0/0 96/84 11/13 0/0 0/0 3/8 6/18 NOM. 43/43 3/4 54/138 4/6 0/0 100/83 2/3 0/0 0/0 2/4 2/4 NOM. 5/10 223 SHORT RANGE (2018) GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES MorningStar Assisted Living/Memory Care TIS, October 2013 Horsetooth Road Lochwood Drive Colindale Golf Course Access Gas Station Access Kindercare Access - Denotes Lane 224 Morning Star Assisted Living Neighborhood Meeting February 25, 2013 Development Review Overview: Q: Where are we in the development review process? A: Step 3, Neighborhood Meeting. No formal submittal yet. Still need site plan, drainage plans, landscape plans, traffic study etc. to get together for a formal submittal. Q: Will we be notified of future public meetings? A: If you received a notification for this neighborhood meeting, you will also get a letter for a public hearing if the applicant decides to go forward to the Planning & Zoning Board. Please pick up a business card in the back. The best way to give input to the P&Z Board is to send something in writing (either a letter or email). Anything sent in writing will be printed out and is given to the members of the P&Z Board. My email address is jholland@fcgov.com. Applicant Presentation: Visit morningstarseniorliving.com for more information on Morning Star and the company. Building oriented to be 25 foot setback from Horsetooth per City Land Use Code build-to line. Land Use Code encourages entrances near the intersection and parking to the side/behind the building. Two access points that line up with existing streets. Parking and drop-off spaces. Parking for 58 cars, for employees and visitors. Continuous walkways and paths around the facility; sidewalk connections. Mostly open space to the north and stormwater detention. Loading and service area near the parking lot. Have visibility for people coming to the site (primarily from E. Horsetooth Rd). Most service delivery coming from Lochwood and Horsetooth; service areas located near the entrance and away from existing condominiums. Building fully equipped with sprinkler system. Other entrances for exit purposes, memory care wing to the north and west. A total of 77 units. 23 proposed memory care suites; all on the first floor with direct access and interior courtyard area. Also assisted living suites on the first floor. Includes many amenity areas on the first floor. Dining/kitchen and activity rooms located on the first floor near the front entrance. An open, visual connection to the second floor. On the second floor, it is comprised entirely of assisted living suites. Elevator and stairway located near the center of the building. 225 Elevation (on Horsetooth looking to the north). 2 story construction, using various materials (synthetic stone, lap siding, shake shingles, wood trim around windows, composition shingles to match residential neighborhoods, copper roof near some entrances) Roof peaks 6/6 or 6/12 slope. Incorporating different textures and colors. No vinyl siding, all high quality materials. Q&A Session: Q: What is memory care, what are memory care units? A: For residents with some form of dementia (Alzheimer's or dementia related). A secured unit with their own courtyards, activity areas, dining areas. Q: What will the fencing look like? A: Generally wood, 7 feet high. A high-quality privacy fence with maybe lattice work. Q: Outdoor lighting would be where? A: There will be some specifically where the emergency exits are located. 4 exits (N, E, S, W). Lighting on the building will be cut off and by code cannot spill over the property line. A photometric analysis will be provided in the formal submittal. There is lighting for the parking and some landscape lighting. Parking lot lighting fully-shielded so you can't see the light-source itself. Q: Will there be extra streetlights and a traffic light put anywhere? A: Difficult question to answer at this point. Because Lemay and Lochwood are so close together, it may be problematic to install a second light; potential spacing issues. Timing of the two Lemay streetlights. Required to do a full traffic study to determine how much traffic increase the project will add to the street system. If a light is warranted, and they can make it work operationally, that is something to look at. Q: What are the staffing hours, when does the staff come and go? A: Three shifts, 7am-3pm, 3pm-11pm, 11pm-7am Q: How close are the condominiums and the ditch? It looks like the D building is closest to the proposed structure. Will there be lighting next to these buildings? When there are heavy rains, the ditch backs up very quickly to the D building. Right now the land is absorbing the water, but with added pavement and walkways with more draining in, it needs to be widened, deepened or diverted. A: C, D, E are the close buildings. 80 feet from the D building. A: A full drainage report of the area will be required for both minor and major storms. The drainage ditch will have to convey both minor and major storm events. Water is not allowed to get up to buildings on either side. Q: Will that also apply to buildings down the street? A: Yes, water must be safely conveyed to downstream pond. Pond on the corner of lot and cannot release water on our site with any more frequency than with that is happening in current conditions. Look at how much water is coming off open grass field and release water slowly out so it mimics what is happening today. Q: Why this location, what attracted you to Fort Collins? A: We do market studies in many cities. We have 5 communities in Denver area, a new one in Co. Springs and a market firm told us there was a need in the Fort Collins area for assisted living and 226 memory care. They use a formula that X number of seniors of this age and Y percentage will need assistance in the near term. A: Generally look for some drive-by traffic and for a residential feel that fits into a neighborhood. Similar when you are building your house, you want other homes around; you don't build it next to skyscrapers. So seniors can feel at home. Q: What is the area planned for? It was planned as a Collingdale community area and tennis courts, this has never come to pass. I was shown plans of the original intent, and now we're being told another thing, can we believe this is going to happen now? A: There is a process we have to go through with blessings by planners and the City. A significant amount of work going into the project. When the market study says this is where we should be, we will continue to move forward. Q: Will the plans deviate very much? A: There may be slight changes and details not looked at so far in this stage. We still need to do 3- dimensional studies. We know historically what size equipment room or elevator rooms we need, but each City may have unique requirements and some things may change, but minor deviations. The massing may change some; we won't change from 2 stories. Roof pitch may change. C/Q: I have gone out with my tools/equipment and cleaned the ditch from Horsetooth all the way down to Shepardson Elementary and no one else would do it. During heavy rains or when the reservoir is full, there is constant leakage and always water flowing through. Ditch becomes a mess and has flooded in the past. Has flooded up to the patios of the condos and Shepardson is in the floodplain. I've had help cleaning the ditch out. Collingdale HOA management has never done anything about the ditch. I have contacted the City Councilwoman who got in touch with the City Manager with a response that it is not the City's problem; it is Collingdale's concern. To make it better for homeowners (floodwaters, seepage) and I believe it could be solved before the project is started and dug so there is an underground conveyance through Shepardson. If that was done, where the ditch is could be landscape buffer and hopefully flood less. Can the ditch be dug out and put underground? A: Information that can be kept in mind. This sounds like more of an issue they may not be able to completely solve because the ditch is not on their property. C: City has told me the properties edging on the ditch are responsible for certain parts. This project would be responsible for a certain part of the ditch. If the ditch is left without improvements, it is not good. The developers are responsible for their portion of the ditch. C: I have a sump pump in my basement because the water table is so high. During a storm it has flooded and part of the fence came down. The water was above the concrete fence footings and the boards rotted out. Many issues with water causing street damage. City claims there is too much pressure underneath and street is again having issues. Please look into this and be aware for drainage. A: Most of the drainage study issues we have not really begun except for preliminary discussions. A detailed report will be prepared for the City's engineering department. Still a lot of information to come, and we are aware of certain water issues, but not detailed analysis at this point. Q: As the land lays today it is a small valley. Will dirt be brought in and leveled? A: The portion in the rear will have to come up somewhat to comply with ADA requirements. Building has to be on a single plane. Still some studying to do. 227 Q: The northernmost entrance is not very far from the A building of the Cherry Hills Condo, is there any possibility for moving it south due to proximity to the buildings and many families, children, dogs and pool across the street -- population not good at paying attention. A: We would like to move it further south, but the location of the access may move slightly. Most critical entrance is the one further south. The northern access may come down, but still need to work it out with Staff. Site line distances coming around the curve not looked at quite yet. Q: Are they both entrances/exits? A: Yes C: Poudre Fire Authority requires 2 entrance/access to the site. Q: At what point in the process will a dust control plan or vibration plans be completed? Many neighborhoods close by that will be disturbed. A: Those plans will come near the completion of the project. Q: Can we comment/input on that? A: Not sure if you can comment but likely done before we pull a building permit. If there is a requirement to come up with mitigation plans, would come after P&Z hearing. A: It is a requirement for a state permit that a contractor is required to pull after approval by the City showing erosion control measures. It doesn't mean there is no dust generated, but there are requirements. Q: What is the site zoned now? A: This is one of the uses that could go in this zone. This zone district is Low Density Mixed-Use zone and it is fairly restrictive. Parcel has been vacant for a long time. Uses could be neighborhood centers, such as a convenience store, daycare, offices, clinics, places of worship, vets, etc. A gas station cannot go in here because there is another too close by. If it wasn't this type of use, it would more than likely be multifamily. C: Intersection of Horsetooth & Lochwood -- at this time it is already pretty dangerous, is there any consideration for putting a traffic light or turn lanes? During rush hour can't turn left or out of the golf course or Rolling Greens. City never planned for the traffic in the corridor. You can't walk or cross the street either. Traffic has increased with the new hospital and police buildings. Q: How disruptive will it be with ambulances and sirens? A: Generally two types, will use ambu-cap service and they come for non emergency situations and take them to the hospital (95%). If we tell them it's an emergency an ambulance will come with sirens, but not as common. C: We hear plenty of sirens as it is. Q: Memory care is not skilled nursing? A: No; we don't have any skilled nursing. Skilled nursing and assisted living are two different things. Q: What types of staff will you have? Are shifts equal? A: Majority are care managers, who do hands-on care, the assistance of bathing, dressing, grooming, reminders, etc. Majority on day shift from 7am-3pm. Also dietary staff, dishwashers, cooks, housekeepers, maintenance, business office functions (sales and marketing), director -- roughly 20-25 people on the day shift. 228 A: Evening shift more care managers, nurse from 8am-8pm. About 10 people. A: Night shift about 3-4 people overnight. Q: Are care managers CNAs? A: No, these are mostly for skilled nursing facilities. Q: How many total residents? A: 75-85, some vacancies and majority of room single-occupied, but some married couples or some may choose a roommate. Q: Concerned about the detainment of water, can you do that in CO? and the bug issues with mosquitoes and the effect of nearby wetlands heading out towards the power trail. What is the scope? A: Cannot capture water and use it for a different use in CO -- does not really apply to holding water temporarily and releasing downstream. This will be a detention pond (not holding water permanently) for a short period of time before releasing downstream. Pond will hold back a certain quantity, but also a water quality pond so contaminants settle out and water going out is cleaner; this is a requirement of the City of Fort Collins. Q: Will the pond be covered? It could be a safety issue. A: Safety concerns when it is deep or has steep slopes. Try to keep the sides sloped very gently and it will not be very deep and shallow because of water table issues. Will not likely be fenced in; no City requirement to fence it in. Water will stay for roughly 24-48 hours. Q: What will it take to put a pipe in? A: Issue is likely figuring out how far downstream would be required, looking at costs and easements -- difficult to answer. C: Most properties getting flooded are down the line, exacerbating the problem with all the pavement being put in. When the Warren Lake area was developed and piping through it is seeping and the water is coming through the stormwater drainage of the City. Would like to see a solution besides just a bigger ditch. Can give the history of the ditch for the last 30 years. C: Not all water comes from Warren. We have water standing on lawns after precipitation events. Cherry Hill is a hill, and when it rains or snows it drains down the hill like a river. Causes problems with mowing. Q: Building footprint only using about half the land. Is this a prototype building that you are just trying to fit onto the land. Will there be a phase 2 later on that we have to worry about? Why not spread the building out throughout the rest of the site. A: City development code has specific setbacks and orientations that help determine location/size/orientation of the building. A: Certain requirements of State jurisdictional like the length of corridors, and certain distances you can't go over and can't get licensed. This layout tries to consolidate the corridors. Trying to make the facility work under state guidelines and requirements. A: There will be no phase 2. A: Try and keep the hallways shorter and have more open and green space, make it feel like a garden. Most residents will need some assistance and can't walk a long way. A: Can design in many different ways and different unit compositions. There will be no road going back around the building. We have to provide a space yet to be determined by the fire department for a 229 truck to pull in and have enough space and length for their hoses to get around the building. Only preliminary feedback from the City, no proposal submitted yet. Q: Are local businesses used for this development? A: All the consultants are local. A: Architect from Kansas City. C: Collingdale units will be looking into the memory care units; located very close to this development. Q: Will you be putting in mature trees to look at rather than the building? A: We haven't developed the landscape plan. They will be mature, but not likely to be 50'. Likely a 2'' caliper tree. 10-12 feet in height. Q: Is there a chance there will be a dirt access road for fire access? A: No. Q: Are you accepting veterans in the units? A: Yes Q: Do the assisted living have any facility in their rooms, microwaves or is it all in the dining room? A: Each room has a kitchenette. Not independent cooking in their rooms; no stove or cooktop. Not available in the memory care units. A: Sink/shower, storage in memory care. C: I think it is an appropriate use of the land. Everything looks great, but my concern is the elevation to make the building level. As you level, the backyards are already flooding and swampy and this will exacerbate the runoff during flooding times as it currently flows into the empty field. The complex is squeezed to the back. Can you rotate and move the building slightly to help with the drainage/flooding issues. C: Why does the west wing have to be there, or shortened up a bit? Truncate that wing? A: In order to keep it 2-stories there has to be a certain footprint, or you have to go to 3 stories. A: 3 stories not permitted. A: If you cut off too many, financially it doesn't work. Q: Is this the only piece of property you looked at in Fort Collins? A: Looked at many areas. Market study indicated this site would be the strongest. C: Looks like you need more space or larger property to build this. I don't see this is feasible with all the groundwater and drainage problems; being so close to the condos -- why choose this spot? A: Looked at what works and what the market study says. C: After you place your development here, you'll really congest the area. Traffic is backed up from the stoplight and if no stoplight can be put at Horsetooth/Lochwood, it is going to be very congested. How many no-votes do we need to stop the project. The other places in town they aren't put into the residential areas. On the westside of town, they have a lot of facilities with big open areas that is all that's there. Why this piece of property is so prime to put this facility into. A: We don't know if a light is completely infeasible or off the table. Traffic operations and city-staff will look into this. 230 C: Can't get onto Horsetooth; 40mph speed limit but people are going faster. A: This type of use has a lower traffic count than almost all other uses. Only a few residents will be driving and staff is off-peak hours. They get to work before rush hour. Sadly family members don't visit often and come during off-peak hours. A:This kind of use generates about 200 trips per day. A bank or fastfood is more like 1200-1600 trips per day. C: Getting in for an ambulance seems like it would be difficult to get in during rush hour if there is an emergency. Q: Currently there isn't a bus that runs down Horsetooth; nearest on Lemay Ave. Are there plans for the City to expand the routes? To go all the way down to the high school? A: Yes; but not sure on specific bus routing, but would be incorporated into an existing route. During preliminary meeting with City there is to be a pad for a bus stop yet to be determined. City aware there needs to be a bus. Q: Will bus be expanded just for this development or for the City master plan as a whole? A: Can't answer why they are asking for a bus pad. When a development comes in it is the City's opportunity to get certain improvements like a bus stop. Q: We all pay HOA fees to maintain the neighborhood; will Morning Star help pay in dues? A: Unlikely if you already have an established HOA. A: Have a preliminary title report; we need this report first to fully answer. Need to get the information. C: The owner of the land is the one that developed the nearby area. He built all of this. This land was supposed to be what I said earlier (tennis courts, amenities, etc.). Whoever owns the property is responsible for the ditch. C: A very good use of the land compared to Drake/Lemay and Drake/Timberline -- those are going to be huge. The density and volume of traffic is a picnic compared to intersections on Drake. A nice project and a good use of the space. If you make it difficult for the developers your chances of getting high density apartments may be worse. C: There are many not against assisted living types of service, but it looks like it needs a redesign for two parts and some City commitment to address water issues. Q: Can anyone comment on how this might affect property values? A: I'm not sure I am qualified to answer. If anything, what we have seen is that people between 40-65 generally like senior housing in their neighborhoods because it allows seniors to stay home and not move out of the areas they grew up in. A: I have a mother-in-law that went into a building/facility built 7 years ago. One of the things these homes typically do is try to be in the community to have family close by and stay in the neighborhood where they've been living. Won't be a multifamily apartment where things are going on at all hours of the night; it will be a quiet community. Trying to make sure we address your needs and concerns. The residents we're proposing are your neighbors now and providing quality housing and add to the community, not detract from it. Q: What is the cost to be in one of the units per month? A: It depends on the amount of care the person needs, but run from 3,000 - 4,500 per month. 231 Q: How long until you start building? How long to finish? A: Probably about a year (next spring). Take a year to build. Q: There are many similar facilities nearby, main difference is the memory care. A: Memory fairly different. C: Without Alzheimer units, patients wouldn't get adequate care and would walk out from other assisted living facilities. Q: Where will the fences be? A: Just around the memory care area. A 6' fence for the memory care portion. Q: Will there be another meeting? A: This is up to the applicant; we require for a project of this type to have a neighborhood meeting, but only 1 is required. This may be the only neighborhood meeting. Q: What about the public hearing? A: This project is subject to a Planning & Zoning Board public hearing; they are the decision maker. You will get a notice as to the time/place of hearing -- you are able to attend and give feedback. Q: What are you taking back from this meeting, Jason? A: Taking detailed meeting minutes of questions and concerns. It sounds like the three major concerns are water and that drainage off the site are mitigated and not adding the problem, the proximity of the building to the western property boundary and traffic. A: (Applicant) in agreement on same issues, also looking at the entrance and where this should be located. Look at the traffic study and see if there is need for additional mitigation. Need information out of the title report. Q: Does the water include the pond and mosquitoes? A: Yes. Q: Can you notify us of any changes? A: Best way to keep informed is to be on the sign-up sheet and sign-up on the City's website to find out about development projects coming up. Anyone who wants more information can e-mail or call me and I’ll give you the links and latest information. Detailed plans are available for review online or at the planning department. 232 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROPOSAL: Morningstar Long Term Care Facility (northwest of Lochwood Dr. and Horsetooth Rd.) DATE: September 23, 2013 LOCATION: Shepardson Elementary School (1501 Springwood Dr.) APPLICANT: Matt Turner, MVG CITY PLANNER: Jason Holland Jason Holland opened the meeting by introducing himself, and Sarah Burnett and Amanda Nagl of Neighborhood Services, and by providing an explanation of the City development review process as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda. Matt Turner of MVG described the project and others designed by his company. He noted that the plan for this project is different from their others, and has changed since the first neighborhood meeting held earlier in the year. He noted that the original proposal was closer to the neighbors to the west, had more mass close to the neighbors, and was all two stories. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: 1. Question: (Citizen) Can you describe the typical client? Response: (Applicant) The facility will provide assisted living services; few residents will drive. The average age is 84 at our other facilities. Services include all meals, scheduled transportation, and activities. The facility will be private pay (no Medicare or Medicaid). 2. Question: (Citizen) Will there be an Alzheimer’s or secured unit? Response: (Applicant) Yes, in just under 1/3 of the facility. 3. Question: (Citizen) What is the monthly cost? Response: (Applicant) Cost varies depending on options needed. 4. Comment: (Citizen) How many residents? Response: (Applicant) 80 when fully occupied. 5. Comment: (Citizen) What traffic is expected? 233 2 Response: (Applicant) The traffic study showed that the traffic is expected to be less than some permitted uses. It will generate about 1% additional traffic on Horsetooth Rd. 6. Question: (Citizen) How much emergency vehicle traffic is expected? Response: (Applicant) At our other facilities, we have about 1-2 emergency calls per month. We will contract for ambulance services and request that sirens not be used. They will enter the area from Horsetooth Rd., and will use the north entrance. 7. Question: (Citizen) What will your staff/client ratio be? Response: (Applicant) The ratio will be higher than the industry average. Nurses will be on staff; physicians will make scheduled visits. 8. Question: (Citizen) Will there be 20 personnel? When will shifts change? Response: (Applicant) There will be approximately 20 employees. Shift changes will be at 7:45 am, 2:45 pm, and 10:45 pm. Because of the number of employees, not a lot of traffic is expected during shift changes. 9. Comment: (Citizen) How often will trash be picked up? Response: (Applicant) Trash will probably be picked up once a week, but we can follow up with more specific information later. Cathy Mathis, the site plan and landscape consultant for the developer, summarized the site plan changes that occurred since the first neighborhood meeting. These include:  The building is now further from the west property line – now about 60 feet away.  The building fits better to the shape of the site.  Parking has been shifted to the north, and designed to avoid headlights shining into windows of neighbors.  The building is closer to Horsetooth (to meet City requirements about placing buildings close to arterials).  There are still two detention ponds (one to the north and one to the south). Don Rosemann, the architect, summarized the building changes that occurred since the first neighborhood meeting. These include:  A walking path has been added along the south side; sidewalk access from the Horsetooth/Lochwood corner has been added.  The 23 memory care units are still on the north side, but now include a one-story portion of the building in response to neighborhood concerns about height/mass. 234 3 These residents will also have access to an internal courtyard and a fenced walkway on the north side of the facility.  The island in the turnaround/drop-off area has been removed, allowing a smaller diameter but better emergency access (even if a car is parked in the area).  Fire and service road access has been added along the north and west. This helped to increase the distance of the facility from neighboring homes.  Materials will be varied, including stone, horizontal siding, and shingles on the side of the building. Jason, City Planner, noted that staff asked the developer to move the building to the east and to lower the height closer to the houses to the west. 10. Question: (Citizen) Did you talk with the Collindale HOA regarding colors for the building? Response: (Applicant) We did meet with them, but this development is not in the HOA. 11. Question: (Citizen) What about the ditch to the west? Response: (Applicant) We have been working on this for months. Because we need to meet ADA requirements, we are aware of the drop of about 15 feet from east to west on the site. We will have to build up the west side, and will add a 2- tiered stepped retaining wall with a 4-foot landscaped area between. Each tier will be 3 feet high. There will also be a 6-foot fence and layered landscaping along the west side for screening. 12. Question: (Citizen) What will the grade change be on the west side? Response: (Applicant) It will be a 2-tiered stepped retaining wall, 6 feet total, with each tier will being 3 feet high. 13. Question: (Citizen) Where will emergency vehicles pick up? Response: (Applicant) At either the front, north or west doors. 14. Comment: (Citizen) Neighbors might prefer emergency pickup at the front door, while facility might prefer the west or north doors near the backyards. These locations could be problematic for neighbors. Comment: (Applicant) We could consider adding some landscape buffering to address this concern. 15. Comment: (Citizen) How will the north detention pond work? Will there be a berm to the west of the pond? 235 4 Response: (Applicant) The north detention pond will be higher than the ditch, and will drain much of the center and northern parts of the property. There will be a berm to the west of the pond. 16. Question: (Citizen) Traffic on Horsetooth makes it difficult to turn left from Waterford; I’m concerned about accidents. People use the golf course to turn around. Could the access road around the west side of the building continue on to Horsetooth and be aligned with the intersection with the traffic signal so that residents of the area can access Horsetooth Rd.? The option will disappear if this project is built as proposed. Response: (City) The traffic engineers are aware of the problems on Horsetooth, but do not have a viable solution for the intersection. Currently, there are about 15,000 cars per day on Horsetooth, and 1,100 on Lochwood. The total traffic for this project has a very minimal increase for the area and because of that major changes can’t be tied to the project. However, Jason did offer to speak with traffic engineering about mitigation strategies for the area. 17. Question: (Citizen) I’m here on behalf of the Collindale HOA, and wanted to let you know about a water issue you may not be aware of. When it rains, there is pooling in the area where you are planning the trash receptacle and service road. The land now absorbs this water; how will it work after the building and paving are added? Response: (Applicant) Rain that falls into the ditch easement will flow down the ditch as it does today. The north detention pond will collect from the north side of the site; the south detention pond will collect from the south. The service road will have curb and gutter and will drain to the north pond. 18. Question: (Citizen) Where does water from the site go now? Will this be an improvement? Response: (Applicant) Drainage from the site currently goes into the ditch. With this project, water will fill the ponds and be detained rather than going into the ditch immediately. 19. Comment: (Citizen) Another Collindale HOA concern is the trash and recycling area, which is close to the west fence. Residents on second and third floors are concerned that they will look down into it. 20. Comment: (Citizen) The final concern Collinsdale HOA concern is about overbuilding: there are already multiple Alzheimer’s/memory care units in the community, and all are accepting applications at this time. 236 5 21. Question: (Citizen) I’m concerned about the landscaping in the back, especially on the berm behind the pond. What will it look like? Response: (Applicant) We do not have all the details worked out yet, but we will consider this concern. 22. Question: (Citizen) Will the building design fit in with the design of neighboring homes? Response: (Applicant) We will be conscious of neighboring homes, but will not try to copy them. Code determines what the roof pitch must be 6:12. The project will have residential character, scale, and design. 23. Question: (Citizen) How many parking spaces will there be? Response: (Applicant) 46 proposed; 45 required. 24. Question: (Citizen) Please describe the trash area. Response: (Applicant) The enclosure will be 6 feet high and of the same materials as the building. 25. Question: (Citizen) I am concerned about raccoons getting into the trash. Could the trash be moved to another area? Response: (City) It may be possible to integrate an arbor or trellis into the fence to screen from overhead views. (Applicant) The design will depend on how trash will be picked up (rollaway vs overhead dumping into truck). 26. Comment: (Citizen) I would suggest a brick wall instead of a wood fence along west side. 27. Question: (Citizen) What type of delivery trucks will serve facility? Response: (Applicant) Box trucks, not semis. 28. Question: (Citizen) How long will construction take, how will construction traffic be handled, and when will you start? Response: (Applicant) Approximately 12-14 months. We probably will need to make right turns on and off of Horsetooth. Depending on how long it takes to get through the process, construction could start in late spring. 29. Question: (Citizen) What will the lighting be like, and what time will the lights go off? 237 6 Response: (Applicant) A lighting plan has been submitted for review; it will be 1 to 1.5 foot candles. Lights will remain on all night. (City) No light will be allowed to spill over onto adjacent property lines and the bulbs must be fully shielded. 30. Comment: (Citizen) Perhaps spruce trees could be used to shield the lights from the neighbors. 31. Question: (Citizen) Will the developer be responsible to mitigate mosquitoes in the detention ponds? Response: (Applicant) We will be very concerned and aware of mosquitoes; we will take steps to protect our residents. 32. Comment: (Citizen) I’m concerned about location of the north driveway in relation to the sidewalk that links to the northern part of the property, and the safety of those using it. I’m also concerned about traffic and parking related to the Collindale pool in the summer. Lochwood is frequently fully parked in the summer because of the pool. Response: (Applicant) The sidewalk is 10 feet from the north driveway. We have not been able to locate an easement for the sidewalk. 33. Comment: (Citizen) Whose responsibility is it to keep the ditch clear? Response: (Applicant) The Collindale HOA and the proposed site each have 25 feet from the center of the ditch. It is a shared maintenance responsibility. 34. Comment: (Citizen) Who is the architect and contractor?. Response: (Applicant) The architect is Don Rosemann; a contractor has not been selected yet. 35. Comments (Citizen)  Thank you for addressing car headlights shining to neighbors on the north.  I believe this is a good project, much better than before (resident of Tuckaway Ct.)  Another resident shared same opinion. Jason summarized the key issues raised at the meeting:  Landscaping (including focus on back as well as front, screening neighbors to the west and northwest, and providing layers of plant buffers)  Visual impact of trash area/service area (including looking at view angles from neighboring properties’ second and third story views of trash area)  Building colors, materials, materials and design of walls and fences. 238 7  Retaining wall terracing (including materials and landscaping)  Drainage (to ensure project does not add water to ditch) 239 1 Jason Holland From: Julie Charlson <j.charlson@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 1:26 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: #63 Morningstar Proposal PDP130024 Attachments: Collindale Condos East Ditch.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Jason Holland, City Planner: More negative comments have occurred from residents in and around Collindale Condominiums concerning the proposed development for field at Lochwood and Horsetooth indicating preference for a different solution: 1. Not convinced that more water would not enter the ditch and then backup toward condos and add to detention pond at the north end. Couldn't find detail drawing on-line showing side view of retaining walls and elevation of grade back to them. Unless it is flat at the easement, equal height on both sides of ditch, more will flow in due to slope as well as add to overall height making 2 3/4 stories? Reason rain water backs up now is because east side is currently about 2 ft. higher than the west side. I am attaching file presented at neighborhood meeting if ditch is not deepened and future water crosses tree line flowing back into ground level condominium units. 2. Morningstar said did not want their residents exposed to mosquito problem either, but did not commit to treating the area for insects. There is already City debate on what kind of treatment should be used with residents also concerned about pets. Does Faith Property management know Morningstar replied that monthly ditch maintenance would be a shared expense? 3. Basically the facility is also a large restaurant serving three meals a day to about 100 with resident units and staff. If couples in rooms could be more and not sure if 20 staff includes those coming in to serve meals which would probably be college students. Has been mentioned that when people in 80's have accepted assisted living or admitted into memory care they are not as active as indicated and leave much uneaten food. Disposable diapers are needed and add to the trash needs. Once a week pickup and trash location also east of ditch behind condos is not desirable. 4. More prefer this kind of facility further away from dense residential community in the center of town. Resale or rental value could be lowered and additional traffic impact children walking to the school or pool in the summer. Additional cars turning right from Lockwood onto Harmony when clear, would take away opening to turn left from Rolling Green onto Horsetooth before next string of approaching cars from lights at Lemay. Though attractive from streetscape on Lochwood, current surrounding residents would be looking at fence and service road behind taller structure due to elevated land or at the parking lot with lights. 5. There is less need for this type of large facility now, especially if not accept Medicaid as payment later from resident-patients. Rents are usually very high quickly depleting savings. The City problem is where people can go when live longer than their resources hold out. Facilities that accept or will later convert to Medicaid payment is the real need. There are currently 7 memory care facilities in Fort Collins with openings for Alzheimer's patients. Another 5 are assisted living without memory care. Other independent living facilities such as Parkwood Estates, Worthington or Winslow, and Rigden Farms promote for-life residence bringing in outside services. Agencies have also emerged for Aging in Place for many desiring to remain in their home here. Morningstar did not respond that they had certified nursing staff included for final stage of life medical needs or emergencies there. 6. Comments included that Bartran promised open land would not be developed due to flood plain or to be used for a community center for his three multifamily areas around 240 Ditch water run-off between Collindale Condos & proposed Morningstar facility Ditch backup during rains, not Sept. floods, but taken during ordinary rain last June: Tree normally 23 ft. from edge of ditch Covered sprinkler heads midstream Pine Tree normally 21 ft. from ditch edge. 241 Ordinary rains fill up ditch quickly running fast like a river stream. Water seepage otherwise builds up slime at bottom of ditch breading mosquitos. Has to be hand shoveled to clear. Last time a small plow tractor was used, but curve of concrete did not allow to clear well. Concern is that land which now absorbs water, after Morningstar facility is built, will build up more water due to additional concrete or asphalt runoff into the ditch. Raising land level, now 2ft. higher other side of ditch, to new foundation level will also add more quick drainage into ditch during rains. Once water crosses raised level of these two pictured trees, land slopes down toward garden level condo units. Twice D-18 unit needed sandbags against outer walls and patio door during longer rains. Submitted: Julie Charlson, Collindale Association Board Member (970) 646-0118 242 2 it. With condominiums and town homes accepting pets, many residents use area now for a dog park and would like that added for east side of town. Realtors will confirm a shortage of patio homes for downsizing slightly younger seniors. This would fit better into the community and Bartran could then follow-through to build himself. The one story dental office across from the Shell Station is another suggestion with less resistance as traffic limited with medical or other appointments and offices could share front parking. Please enter this for use in City development review meetings and public hearing for final plan review. Other residents have been told to submit their concerns individually, but many contributed to this as missed neighborhood meeting due to Bronco game or other commitments. Some don't know the process or believe they can still make a difference (something the City can work on). Let me know if renters are able to reply. Have heard some say they would just move when construction started. Thank you, Julie Charlson Collindale resident and Collindale Association Board member 243 1 Jason Holland From: Amy Redstone <chookela@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:39 AM To: Jason Holland Subject: Morningstar Facility Input Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Jason‐ My name is Amy Redstone, and I live at 1600 Quail Hollow Drive in Collindale. I am unable to attend the neighborhood meeting so am submitting my remarks via email. My concern about the Morningstar Long‐Term Care Facility has to do with the difficulty turning left on to Horsetooth from Lochwood. This is already a very difficult turn to make because of the volume of oncoming traffic on Horsetooth and because those left‐turning vehicles are often blocked by those cars turning left onto Lochwood from east‐bound Horsetooth. As a result of this current difficulty, cars pass through Collindale (Preston, Quail Hollow) and turn left onto Horsetooth from Carlton Rd instead (which is a slightly easier turn with a median lane available). With the addition of the new facility, I am concerned that this pass‐through traffic will increase unless a traffic solution is implemented to enable cars to more easily turn left onto Horsetooth from Lochwood toward the center of town. I realize that this intersection is very close to the light at Lemay and Horsetooth, but the city really needs to come up with a solution or I believe the traffic in neighborhood with children will increase as visitors will inevitably want to go toward the center of Fort Collins after leaving the facility. I believe that the city said it would do a traffic study of this intersection. What has been the outcome of that study? Thank you. Regards, Amy Redstone 244 1 Jason Holland From: Laabs <dennis_laabs@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:09 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: PDP130024, Assisted Living project, corner of Horsetooth and Lockwood Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mr. Holland, As residents on Rolling Green Drive, we have no objection to this proposal per se. However we are concerned about the potential flooding of the drainage channel that runs north from Horsetooth at the west border of the property. This channel is nearly always flowing, and is especially high after rains and when the reservoir to the south fills up. If/when the east elevation on the channel is significantly increased, as the proposal indicates, at high water times the channel will necessarily over flow to the west. There are several condo units and townhouses within 40-60 feet of the channel. Some of them have already had water infiltrate their lower levels in times of heavy rain. Therefore we urge the City and/or the developer to include some form of water mitigation or reduction of the eastern elevation. Without it, more severe flooding of residences and personal property is nearly inevitable. Thank you for your consideration, Dennis and Valerie Laabs 970-682-6033 245 1 Jason Holland From: Christine Cates <Tink@thejack.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:19 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Project #PDP130024 Sign #63 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Jason Holland, I am writing to you in regards to the project development plan for the area on the northwest corner of East Horsetooth Road and Lochwood Drive. I am concerned about the suggested placement for the trash and recycle receptacles. The current placement is quite close to the apartments located on Rolling Green Drive, specifically the apartments located in the D building. The upper apartments (D22 and D23) will have a direct view of the receptacles, while the second story apartments (D20 and D21) will be close enough to be in danger of the potential smells that are accompanied with the receptacles. I believe there to be more aesthetic and situationally appropriate locations that would not directly affect the occupants. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christine Cates 2500 Rolling Green Drive #D22 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (719) 221-3181 246 1 Jason Holland From: tclay57@q.com Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:03 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Proposed Morningstar Memory Care Facility PDP130024 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am writing to express my objection to this facility being built. My objection is most likely falling on deaf ears, but I believe this facility as proposed has way too big of a footprint for the size of the lot. Moreover, it's shape doesn't conform with the rather weird shape of the vacant lot. The setback just barely squeezes it in, and I feel the proposed facility backs up waaaaay to close to the ditch. With the elevation increase of 6 feet as proposed, it is going to really be an eyesore, even though know there's never a guarantee of a viewscape. I moved to these condos many years ago because of the golf course being across from me, and the intent by the greedy developer that owned the parcel that it would have different intended development. Obviously that's changed. The last thing I want to see is the ass-end of an old folks home two stories high. Even the dentist office and gas station fit nicely into the neighborhood, and as such I voted in favor for the construction of those places. This project DOES NOT fit nicely. TM Clayton 3500 Rolling Green Drive, #B-7 Fort Collins, CO 80525 247 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT MVG-MORNINGSTAR ASSISTED & MEMORY CARE PROJECT Prepared for: Max Consulting, LLC 4061 S. Clermont St. Englewood, CO 80113 (303) 482-7420 Prepared by: Interwest Consulting Group 1218 West Ash, Suite C Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970) 674-8488 October 1, 2013 Job Number 1173-105-00 248 ii October 1, 2013 Mr. Wes Lamarque City of Fort Collins Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Preliminary Drainage Report for MVG-Morningstar Assisted & Memory Care Project Dear Wes, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this Preliminary Drainage Report for the MVG-Morningstar Assisted & Memory Care Project development. I certify that this report for the drainage design was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Reviewed By: Mark Morrison, E.I.T. Robert Almirall, P.E. Colorado Professional Engineer No. 33441 249 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................ 1 1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Description of Property ................................................................................................. 1 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS .......................................................................... 1 2.1 Major Basin Description ................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Sub-basin Description .................................................................................................... 2 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ...................................................................................... 2 3.1 Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ...................................................... 2 3.3 Hydrological Criteria ..................................................................................................... 3 3.4 Hydraulic Criteria .......................................................................................................... 3 3.5 Floodplain Regulations Compliance ............................................................................. 3 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ....................................................................................... 4 4.1 General Concept ............................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Specific Flow Routing .................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Drainage Summary ........................................................................................................ 6 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Compliance with Standards .......................................................................................... 6 5.2 Drainage Concept ........................................................................................................... 7 6. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN .............................................................................. A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS .......................................................................................... B 250 1 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 Location The MVG-Morningstar Assisted & Memory Care Project development is located in southeast Fort Collins. It is located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. See the location map in Appendix A. The project is located west of Lochwood Drive, north of E. Horsetooth Road, and bounded on the west and north sides by existing residential lots. An existing drainage ditch with an existing 25 ft Drainage Easement runs along the west edge of the property, dividing it from the residential properties. 1.2 Description of Property The property consists of approximately 4.42 acres of land. The existing land currently drains from southeast to northwest at approximately a 2% grade. The land is currently vacant with mild sloping terrain and covered with natural dry-land vegetation across the entire site. The only offsite flow entering the site is through an existing concrete drainage ditch originating at the SW corner of the property and conveys runoff to the northeast. There is an existing 25’ drainage easement accompanying the existing concrete ditch, extending from the existing flowline 25’ to the west. An additional 25’ drainage easement is proposed, extending from the flowline 25’ to the east, to make the entire Drainage Easement 50’ wide up to the Tract A-Utility & Drainage Easement. The channel is not mapped by FEMA. The project is located in FEMA FIRM Panel 08069C1000F, Zone X. 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS 2.1 Major Basin Description The proposed development lies within the McClelland’s Creek Master Drainage Basin. The entire site currently drains to an existing concrete drainage ditch along the west and northwest property boundary. James H. Stewart and Associates performed a drainage study on this drainage in March of 1978 and determined the 100-year storm to produce 217.0 cfs. However, the updated 2010 SWMM model for the basin shows a 2-year storm 251 2 run-off of 20.6 cfs and a 100-year storm run-off of 150.2 cfs. See Appendix B for existing site hydrologic computations. 2.2 Sub-basin Description The existing site has a historic runoff of 1.5 cfs and 6.7 cfs for the 2-year & 100-year run- off event, respectively, with a historic 2-year release rate of 0.35 cfs/acre. The site will be divided into 2 sub-basins for proposed construction activities. Sub-basin A will consist of approximately 1.24 ac and will be collected in a small extended detention basin located southwest of the proposed building before releasing into the existing drainage ditch to the west. Sub-basin B consists of approximately 3.18 ac and drains to the northwest corner of the property where it will be collected in a second extended detention basin before releasing into the existing concrete drainage ditch bounding the property. Once the run- off enters the existing ditch, it will flow northeast eventually reaching McClelland’s Channel. 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Regulations This report was prepared to meet or exceed the “City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual” specifications. Where applicable, the criteria established in the “Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual” (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been used. 3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) recommends a Four Step Process for receiving water protection that focuses on reducing runoff volumes, treating the water quality capture volume (WQCV), stabilizing drainageways and implementing long-term source controls. The Four Step Process applies to the management of smaller, frequently occurring events. Step 1: Employ Runoff Reduction Practices To reduce runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads from urbanizing areas, implement Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, including Minimizing Directly Connected 252 3 Impervious Areas (MDCIA). See the LID Area Exhibit in Appendix B. Runoff for the site will be split around the proposed building’s SE corner to the west and north, respectively. Sub-Basin A Runoff directed to the west will be routed through a vegetated, landscaped water way to an extended detention basin, herein referred to as “Water Quality Pond A” equipped with a Water Quality Outlet Structure which will release flow into the existing concrete drainage ditch along the west edge of the property. Water Quality Pond A will also be constructed with Gravel Dry Wells along the flow line of the basin to help slow the basin’s time of concentration. Sub-Basin B Runoff directed to the north will be routed through vegetated areas, a rain garden, and a storm drain system thereby reducing runoff from impervious surfaces over permeable areas to slow runoff and increase the time of concentration and promote infiltration. Runoff from the parking lot shall drain across Pervious Pavers before entering a second extended detention basin, herein referred to as “Water Quality Pond B”. Step 2: Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume with Slow Release Sub-Basin A Water Quality Pond A utilizes a landscaped drainage way as well as equipping the Extended Detention Basin with a Water Quality Outlet Structure designed to allow sediments to settle while releasing treated flows at or less than historic rates. Sub-Basin B A Proposed Rain Garden located SE of the main entrance shall collect a majority of the down-spout runoff before conveying the water to the second water quality treatment pond. Pervious Pavers are located within Sub-basin B, placed close to the proposed Extended Detention Basin to help reduce total runoff by allow water to infiltrate. Water Quality Pond B also shall be equipped with a Water Quality Outlet Structure designed to allow sediments to settle while releasing treated flows at or less than historic rates. Step 3: Stabilize Drainageways Natural Drainageways are subject to bed and bank erosion due to increases in frequency, duration, rate and volume of runoff during and following development. Rip-Rap shall 253 4 be used at the outlet of both Water Quality Pond’s as well as the two points where a majority of water will enter Water Quality Pond B. The Rip Rap shall be stabilized in place. Step 4: Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs Proactively controlling pollutants at their source by preventing pollution rather than removing contaminants once they have entered the stormwater system or receiving waters is important when protecting storm systems and receiving waters. This can be accomplished through site specific needs such as construction site runoff control, post- construction runoff control and pollution prevention / good housekeeping. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to develop a procedural best management practice for the site. 3.3 Hydrologic Criteria Runoff computations were prepared for the 2-year and 10-year minor and 100-year major storm frequency utilizing the rational method. The Modified FAA method was used to determine preliminary detention volumes for the proposed water quality ponds. All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this report. Final water quality volumes will be presented in the final drainage report and calculated using the method recommended in the “Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual”. 3.4 Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations will be presented in the final drainage report and prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria. 3.5 Floodplain Regulations Compliance No work is proposed within the existing floodplain. 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 254 5 4.1 General Concept The proposed MVG-Morningstar site was designed to treat run-off as close to the point- source as possible, while also minimizing the length of drainage routing to the most feasible extents of the site. The proposed site shall be divided into two sub-basins based on design points A and B. The proposed drainage design follows the existing drainage pattern of southeast to northwest. The project will consist of an Assisted & Memory Care Complex building with a footprint of approximately 42,500 SF, a parking area for patients and employees, an access lane, a retaining wall, sidewalks and landscaped areas. All proposed site run- off is directed to a water quality pond at one of the two design points before being released off-site. Each water quality pond shall be equipped with a Water Quality Outlet Structure, designed specifically for that sub-basin, to treat and release the run-off into the existing concrete ditch at or below historic run-off rates. Both of the extended detention ponds serving as water quality ponds shall also act as on- site detention ponds for the proposed construction. The on-site detention shall hold the proposed 100-year run-off and release it at the historic 2-year storm release rate. 4.2 Specific Flow Routing A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following paragraphs. Sub-Basin A includes the southwest corner of the property, excluding the existing drainage ditch, and the south half of the downspouts from the proposed building, approximately 1.24 ac. From the downspouts, flow will be routed through vegetated areas carrying flow away from the building or sheet flow over-top the sidewalk. A sidewalk chase is proposed in one location to keep positive drainage through the sidewalk. Remaining Sub-basin A flow will be collected and routed through a concrete pan along the south edge of the property to Water Quality Pond A, which is located just southwest of the proposed building. Once the run-off is treated, the outlet structure discharges into the existing concrete channel to the west of the site, eventually reaching McClelland’s Channel. Sub-Basin A is calculated to have a 10-year and 100-year discharge of 1.7 & 4.5 cfs, respectively. 255 6 Sub-Basin B includes the remaining approximately 3.18 acres located northeast of Sub- basin A within the site, including the north half of the proposed building downspouts. The east side building down-spout run-off as well as that immediately adjacent to the southeast side of the proposed building will be collected in a proposed rain garden before entering the site’s storm drain system. The north side building down-spout run-off as well as that immediately adjacent to the north, northeast, and northwest sides of the building shall sheet flow to the northwest to the proposed Water Quality Pond B. Parking and access road run-off will also sheet flow to the northwest or enter the site’s storm drain system, which also drains into Water Quality Pond B. Run-off is then treated and released into the existing drainage ditch flowing northeast into McClelland’s Channel. Sub-basin B is calculated to have a 10-year and 100-year discharge of 4.8 & 12.3 cfs, respectively. 4.3 Drainage Summary The percent impervious weighted average of the entire site is 48.6%. All proposed site runoff follows existing drainage flow patterns while adding a level of water quality to the discharge. Drainage facilities located outside of the right of way (including the rain garden, water quality pond, proposed storm sewer system and the pond outlets) will be maintained by the owners of the property. The property owner shall also share maintenance of the 50’ Drainage Easement and existing drainage ditch to the west of the property with the Collindale PUD Homeowners Association. 5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins(COFC) Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, the COFC Storm water Criteria Manual, the COFC Master Drainage Plans, and the COFC floodplain regulations. All floodway information is in compliance with Chapter 10 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code and all State and Federal regulations. 256 7 5.2 Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provide for stormwater quantity and quality treatment of proposed impervious areas. Conveyance elements have been designed to pass required flows and to minimize future maintenance. If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. 6. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, “Storm Drainage Criteria Manual”, (SDCM), dated March, 1986. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, “Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual”, Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3 dated September 1999. 3. ICON Engineering, Inc., “McClelland’s Creek Master Drainage Plan Update”, dated November 20, 2000 (Revised March 2003). 257 A APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN 258 259 260 B APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS 261 262 263 264 265 ✁ ✞ ✄ ☛ ☞ ✌ ✍ ✄ ✆ ✔ ✎ ✏ ✄ ✝ ✗ ☛ ✄ ✏ ✕ ✌ ☛ ✑ ✝ ✗ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✓ ✍ ✜ ✌ ✒ ✓ ✓ ✂ ✗ ✓ ✔ ✄ ✄ ☎ ✌ ✕ ✆ ✝ ✝ ✝ ✓ ✓ ✞ ☞ ✕ ✞ ✟ ☞ ✝ ✒ ✠ ✍ ✍ ✡ ☛ ✡ ✌ ✖ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✌ ✔ ✗ ✌ ✔ ✝ ✌ ✓ ✓ ✘ ☞ ✕ ✙ ☞ ✝ ✌ ✍ ✖ ☛ ☞ ☛ ✝ ✚ ✍ ✄ ✆ ✛ ✖ ☞ ✖ ✢ ✰ ✳ ✻ ✽ ✣ ✯ ✤ ✦ ✤ ✤ ✫ ✩ ✴ ✥ ✬ ✱ ✱ ✥ ✵ ✼ ✥ ✥ ✣ ✩ ✤ ✦ ✦ ✶ ✥ ✶ ✲ ✧ ✣ ✣ ✥ ★ ✩ ✤ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✣ ✦ ✧ ✷ ✷ ✷ ✸ ✸ ✸ ✹ ✹ ✺ ✺ ✺ ✾ ✾ ✮ ❄ ✳ ✶ ✩ ✯ ✥ ✱ ✩ ❃ ✼ ✯ ✥ ✣ ❀ ✤ ✿ ✬ ❅ ✦ ✩ ✼ ✦ ❆ ✭ ✶ ✧ ✥ ❇ ✥ ✢ ❁ ❆ ✩ ✳ ✬ ✣ ✯ ❁ ✦ ✴ ❀ ❈ ✵ ✢ ❇ ✩ ✯ ✶ ✣ ✫ ✶ ✲ ✷ ✷ ✷ ✷ ✸ ✸ ✸ ✸ ✹ ✁ ❂ ✁ ✺ ✺ ✢ ✮ ❄ ✳ ✢ ✣ ✶ ✣ ✩ ✱ ✥ ✩ ✥ ❃ ✥ ✥ ✣ ✥ ✤ ✴ ✴ ✬ ❅ ✩ ✦ ❆ ✭ ❉ ❉ ✧ ❇ ✥ ❈ ❈ ❊ ❇ ❇ ❆ ✥ ✩ ✣ ✯ ✱ ❀ ❈ ❇ ✢ ✯ ✫ ✶ ✲ ✷ ✷ ✷ ✷ ✸ ✸ ✸ ✸ ❋ ❆ ❆ ❆ ✺ ✺ ● ❙ ❚ ❯ ❍ ✳ ✬ ✰ ✼ ✭ ✔ ✶ ✥ ✫ ✤ ✩ ✱ ❃ ✩ ✌ ✦ ✥ ✫ ✦ ✘ ✬ ✬ ■ ✫ ✿ ✩ ❏ ✙ ❁ ✫ ✭ ❑ ✼ ✌ ✤ ✥ ▲ ✩ ✩ ✖ ▼ ✣ ✫ ◆ ☞ ✦ ✫ ✬ ☛ ❖ ✯ ❱ ✝ ✩ ✬ ❲ ✭ P ✞ ✦ ❳ ✥ ◗ ❲ ✸ ❘ ✒ ✩ ✦ ✍ ✫ ❱ ✦ ❭ ✦ ✬ ✫ ✌ ❲ ✬ ✩ ✓ ❳ ✦ ✦ ✓ ❲ ❁ ❱ ✩ ✔ ❁ ✩ ✼ ✦ ✤ ✥ ✵ ✌ ✥ ✫ ❁ ✬ ✝ ✧ ✿ ✼ ✸ ✓ ✤ ✣ ✩ ✓ ✥ ✯ ☞ ✦ ❨ ✕ ✥ ✤ ☞ ❱ ✦ ✥ ✝ ✥ ✩ ✍ ✩ ✬ ❁ ☛ ✣ ✼ ✶ ✩ ❀ ✯ ✦ ❩ ✼ ✿ ✯ ✯ ✴ ❩ ✶ ✯ ✶ ✯ ✦ ✴ ✫ ❃ ✯ ✣ ✥ ✦ ✦ ✥ ✲ ✤ ❁ ❱ ✬ ✯ ✯ ✿ ✿ ✶ ✿ ✩ ✬ ✼ ❁ ✯ ✥ ✣ ✿ ✵ ✿ ✩ ✫ ✼ ✣ ✫ ✵ ✥ ✩ ✬ ✦ ✣ ❩ ❩ ❱ ❱ ✶ ✦ ✣ ✣ ✫ ✴ ❲ ✶ ✥ ✥ ✦ ✼ ❱ ✩ ✤ ✶ ✼ ✿ ✩ ❱ ✼ ✶ ✩ ✥ ✣ ✦ ✥ ✯ ❁ ✤ ✿ ❬ ✯ ✯ ✤ ✬ ✩ ✫ ✬ ✬ ✭ ❀ ❪ ✵ ✥ ✼ ✯ ❩ ✴ ✯ ✦ ✫ ✣ ✥ ✤ ❱ ✬ ✯ ✿ ✿ ✼ ✯ ✥ ✿ ✿ ✫ ✼ ✫ ✥ ✬ ✣ ✫ ✦ ✯ ❲ ✣ ✩ ✫ ✬ ✥ ❁ ❱ ✦ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✣ ✵ ✥ ✿ ✯ ✶ ✶ ✯ ❃ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✿ ✯ ✤ ❩ ❱ ✶ ✩ ✲ ❵ ❴ ( ❫ ) ❜  ❜ ❛ ❵ ❛ ❵ = = ❝ ❞ ● ✾ ❡ ❳ ❂ ❍ ❢ ✵ ✥ ✤ ✥ ✲ ✳ ✬ ✳ ✻ ✻ ❤ ❤ ❦ ❣ ❣ ❣ ❣ ❣ ❥ ✻ ❪ ✾ ✳ ❱ ✯ ✯ ❱ ✤ ❩ ❩ ✣ ✥ ✬ ✩ ✩ ❲ ✯ ✴ ✶ ✥ ✿ ✯ ✯ ✳ ✿ ✤ ✿ ✦ ✤ ✻ ✫ ✯ ✢ ✥ ✣ ✿ ✥ ✯ ✩ ❱ ✥ ❁ ✤ ✾ ✯ ✿ ✿ ✫ ✱ ✿ ✿ ✩ ❱ ✫ ✿ ✼ ✥ ✬ ✼ ✥ ✥ ✤ ✫ ✯ ✤ ✥ ✥ ❃ ✿ ❃ ✬ ✿ ✬ ✵ ✣ ✫ ✣ ✻ ✣ ✫ ✿ ✵ ✦ ✼ ✯ ✯ ❱ ✵ ✾ ✥ ✤ ✤ ✿ ✿ ✻ ✢ ❱ ✿ ✩ ✫ ✴ ✬ ✼ ✼ ✫ ✥ ✯ ✥ ✦ ✫ ✼ ✥ ✿ ✦ ✩ ✿ ✫ ✬ ✿ ✣ ✴ ✣ ✻ ✯ ✫ ✴ ✼ ✯ ❲ ✶ ✳ ✫ ✥ ✥ ✼ ✿ ✤ ✩ ✿ ✼ ✥ ❲ ✫ ✯ ✩ ✼ ✶ ✬ ✫ ✥ ● ✥ ✦ ✧ ✳ ✬ ✫ ✩ ❁ ✣ ❤ ✼ ❍ ✥ ✯ ✤ ✤ ✥ ✿ ✥ ✦ ❁ ✻ ✯ ❤ ✧ ✤ ✩ ✿ ✼ ✥ ✤ ✥ ✥ ✣ ✦ ✐ ✯ ✤ ✿ ✥ ✥ ✣ ✐ ● ✺ ❍ ✳ ✬ ✥ ❃ ■ ❏ ❑ ▲ ▼ ◆ ❖ P ◗ ❧ ♠ ✫ ✦ ✩ ❁ ❁ ✥ ❁ ✧ ✣ ✯ ✤ ✥ ✩ ❁ ✩ ✦ ✿ ✯ ✶ ✶ ✯ ❃ ✦ ✲ 266 ✁ ✂ ✄ ☎ ✆ ✝ ✄ ✞ ✞ ☎ ✆ ✟ ✠ ✆ ✡ ☎ ✟ ☛ ☞ ✌ ✍ ✂ ✄ ✟ ☎ ✎ ✆ ☞ ✝ ✂ ✠ ✏ ✍ ✠ ✆ ✑ ☛ ✑ ✍ ✂ ✒ ✠ ✗ ✖ ✓ ✕ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✛ ✚ ✙ ✘ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ ✢ ✓ ✜ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✕ ✓ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✖ ✓ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ ★ ✩ ✦ ✗ ✪ ✓ ✤ ✔ ✓ ✫ ✓ ✥ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴ ✵ ✘ ✓ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✙ ✓ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✚ ✓ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✾ ✹✽✼✹✸✻✻✷✺✹✸✷✶ ✿✼✸ ❋ ❀ ❇ ❁ ❄ ❄ ❊❉❈ ❃❂ ❆❅ ❤ ❨ ✐ ❥ ❦ P ❧ ◗ ♠ ❘ ♥ ♦ ❙ ♣ ❚ ❯ q ❱ r s ❲ ◗ ❛ ❳ ❨ t ✁ ❯ ❴ ❩ ❯ ◗ ❬ ❬ ❯ ❭ t ❪ ◗ ❵ ❫ P ◗ ❬ ❪ ❛ ❚ ❯ ❬ ❵ ❩ ❬ ✖ ◗ ❪ ● ❚ ❍ ❴ ❯ ■ ❴ ❬ ◗ ❏ ❭ ❵ ❑ ✉ ▲ ❛ ▼ ◆ ❱ ❑ ❖ ❜ ◗ ❵ ❫ ❜ ❴ ❴ ✕ ❝ ✓ ❵ ● ❍ ❬ ❯ ■ ❏ ❵ ❑ ❛ ▲ ◗ ▼ ❬ ◆ ❭ ❑ ❖ ❳ ❞ ❙ ❚ ❜ ❬ ◗ ✕ ❪ ✓ ✓ ❵ ● ❍ ❳ P ■ ❏ ❚ ❑ ❯ ▲ ❡ ▼ ◆ ❙ ❑ ❖ ❯ ❵ ❢ ❭ ❩ ❙ ❚ ❣ ❯ ❛ ❤ ❤ ❨ ❨ ① ✈ ✐ ✐ ❥ ❥ ❦ ❦ ❧ ❧ ♠ ♠ ♥ ♥ ♦ ♦ ♣ ♣ ✇ ② r r s s ◗ ◗ ❛ ❛ t t ❯ ❯ ❴ ❴ ❯ ❯ ❬ ❬ ❯ ❯ t t ◗ ◗ ❵ ❵ ◗ ◗ ❬ ❬ ❛ ❛ ❯ ❯ ❵ ❵ ❬ ❬ ◗ ◗ ❚ ❚ ❯ ❯ ❬ ❬ ❭ ❭ ✉ ✉ ❤ ❤ ❨ ❨ ④ ✁ ✐ ✐ ❥ ❥ ❦ ❦ ❧ ❧ ♠ ♠ ♥ ♥ ♦ ♦ ♣ ♣ ② ② r r ⑤ ③ ◗ ◗ ❛ ❛ t t ❯ ❯ ❴ ❴ ❯ ❯ ❬ ❬ ❯ ❯ t t ◗ ◗ ❵ ❵ ◗ ◗ ❬ ❬ ❛ ❛ ❯ ❯ ❵ ❵ ❬ ❬ ◗ ◗ ❚ ❚ ❯ ❯ ❬ ❬ ❭ ❭ ✉ ✉ ❤ ❤ ❨ ❨ ⑧ ⑥ ✐ ✐ ❥ ❥ ❦ ❦ ❧ ❧ ♠ ♠ ♥ ♥ ♦ ♦ ♣ ♣ ⑨ ② r r s ⑦ ◗ ◗ ❛ ❛ t t ❯ ❯ ❴ ❴ ❯ ❯ ❬ ❬ ❯ ❯ t t ◗ ◗ ❵ ❵ ◗ ◗ ❬ ❬ ❛ ❛ ❯ ❯ ❵ ❵ ❬ ❬ ◗ ◗ ❚ ❚ ❯ ❯ ❬ ❬ ❭ ❭ ✉ ✉ ❤ ⑩ ❶ ✐ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❦ ❻ ❼ ❽ ③ ◗ ❛ t ❯ ❴ ❯ ❬ ❯ t ◗ ❵ ◗ ❬ ❛ ❯ ❵ ❬ ◗ ❚ ❯ ❬ ❭ ✉ 267 SUMMARY Design Tributary Area C (2) C (10) C (100) tc (2) tc (10) tc (100) Q(2)tot Q(10)tot Q(100)tot Sub-basin Point (ac) (min) (min) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) A (SW) A (SW) 1.24 0.39 0.39 0.49 12.0 12.0 11.4 1.0 1.7 4.5 B (NW) B (NW) 3.18 0.46 0.46 0.58 14.1 14.1 14.1 2.8 4.8 12.3 DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Page 1 268 TOTAL SITE AREA: 4.42 acre NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA: 2.15 acre MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED: 1.08 acre AREA 1 - GRASS SWALE: 0.27 acre AREA 2 - RAIN GARDEN: 0.50 acre AREA 3 - GRAVEL DRY WELLS: 0.54 acre AREA 4 - PERVIOUS PAVERS 0.47 acre TOTAL AREA TREATED: 1.78 acre LID AREA EXHIBIT 269 Sheet 1 of 3 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume Ia = 38.00 % A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia / 100 ) i = 0.38 B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) Area = 1.240 acres C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV =1.0 * (0.91 * I3 - 1.19 * I2 + 0.78 * I)) D) Design Volume: Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area * 1.2 Vol = 0.0216 acre-feet 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) X Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforation (H) H = 2.00 feet C) Recommended Maximum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) Ao = 0.1 square inches D) Perforation Dimensions: i) Circular Perforation Diameter or D = 0.500 inches ii) Width of 2" High Rectangular Perforations W = inches E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 For Maximum) nc = 1 number F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (Ao) Ao = 0.2 square inches G) Number of Rows (nr) nr = 6 number H) Total Outlet Area (Aot) Aot = 1.2 square inches 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: At = 0.5 * (Figure 7 Value) * Aot At = 43 square inches B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) X < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref.: Figure 6a): i) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (Wconc) from Table 6a-1 Wconc = 3 inches ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = 54 inches Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility MM Interwest Consulting Group October 1, 2013 MVG - Morningstar Facility DETENTION BASIN A (SW) UD-BMP_v2.06.xls, EDB - SW POND 10/1/2013, 270 7:37 AM Sheet 2 of 3 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: iii) Type of Screen (Based on Depth H), Describe if "Other" S.S. #93 VEE Wire (US Filter) Other: iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if "Other" 0.139" (US Filter) Other: v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) inches Type and Size of Support Rod (Ref.: Table 6a-2) vi) Type and Size of Holding Frame (Ref.: Table 6a-2) D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): I) Width of Rectangular Opening (W) W = inches ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc = W + 12") Wconc = inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) from Table 6b-1 Wopening = inches iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = inches v) Type of Screen (based on depth H) (Describe if "Other") KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum Other: vi) Cross-bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP inches Grating). Describe if "Other" Other: vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio (L/W) 5 Pre-sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (3% to 5% of Design Volume from 1D) acre-feet (3% - 5% of Design Volume (0.0006 - 0.0011 acre-feet.) B) Surface Area acres C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yes/no Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility MM Interwest Consulting Group October 1, 2013 MVG - Morningstar Facility DETENTION BASIN A (SW) UD-BMP_v2.06.xls, EDB - SW POND 10/1/2013, 271 7:37 AM Sheet 3 of 3 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 6. Two-Stage Design - See Figure EDB-1 A) Top Stage (Depth DWQ = 2' Minimum) DWQ = feet Top Stage Storage: no less than 99.5% of Design Volume (0.0215 acre-feet.) Storage= acre-feet B) Bottom Stage Depth (DBS = 0.33' Minimum Below Trickle Channel Invert) DBS = feet Bottom Stage Storage: no less than 0.5% of Design Volume (0.0001 acre-feet.) Storage= acre-feet Storage = A * Depth Above WS To Bottom Of Top Stage Surf. Area= acres C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of Depth= feet 0.50 * Top Stage Depth or 2.5 Feet) D) Total Volume: Voltot = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Voltot = acre-feet (Must be > Design Volume in 1D, or 0.0216 acre-feet.) 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Z = (horizontal/vertical) Minimum Z = 4, Flatter Preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance) Z = (horizontal/vertical) per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 3, Flatter Preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "Other") Native Grass Irrigated Turf Grass Other: Notes: Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility MM Interwest Consulting Group October 1, 2013 MVG - Morningstar Facility DETENTION BASIN A (SW) UD-BMP_v2.06.xls, EDB - SW POND 10/1/2013, 272 7:37 AM Interwest Consulting Group DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: MVG MORNINGSTAR - EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN A (SW) PROJECT NO: 1173-105-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: MHM DATE: 10/1/2013 Equations: Area trib. to pond = 1.24 acre Developed flow = QD = CIA C (100) = 0.49 Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T QD Developed C A = 0.6 acre Vol. Out = Vo =K QPO T Release rate, QPO = 0.4 cfs storage = S = Vi - Vo K = 0.9 (from fig 2.1) Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve with updated (3.67") rainfall Storm Rainfall QD Vol. In Vol. Out Storage Storage Duration, T Intensity, I (cfs) Vi Vo S S (min) (in/hr) (ft3) (ft3) (ft3) (ac-ft) 5 9.95 6.0 1814 117 1697 0.04 10 7.77 4.7 2831 234 2597 0.06 20 5.62 3.4 4098 469 3629 0.08 30 4.47 2.7 4887 703 4184 0.10 40 3.74 2.3 5454 937 4516 0.10 50 3.23 2.0 5895 1172 4723 0.11 60 2.86 1.7 6255 1406 4849 0.11 70 2.57 1.6 6561 1641 4920 0.11 80 2.34 1.4 6826 1875 4951 0.11 90 2.15 1.3 7060 2109 4951 0.11 100 1.99 1.2 7270 2344 4927 0.11 110 1.86 1.1 7461 2578 4883 0.11 120 1.75 1.1 7636 2812 4824 0.11 130 1.65 1.0 7798 3047 4751 0.11 140 1.56 0.9 7948 3281 4667 0.11 150 1.48 0.9 8088 3515 4573 0.10 160 1.41 0.9 8220 3750 4471 0.10 170 1.35 0.8 8345 3984 4361 0.10 180 1.29 0.8 8463 4218 4245 0.10 Required Storage Volume: 4951 ft3 0.11 acre-ft detention.xls,FAA-100yr SW POND 273 EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN A (SW) Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: MVG - Morningstar PROJECT NO: 1173-105-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: MHM SUBMITTED BY: INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP DATE: 10/1/2013 V = 1/3 d ( A + B + sqrt(A*B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, ft A = surface area of contour Surface Incremental Detention Total Stage Area Storage Storage Storage (Elev) (Ft^2) (Ac-ft) (Ac-ft) (Ac-ft) 67.0 0 68.0 1319 0.01 0.010 WQ WSEL- 69.0 3696 0.06 0.00 0.065 69.25 4163 0.02 0.02 0.088 100-yr WSEL- 69.50 4868 0.03 0.03 0.114 SPILLWAY - 69.62 5120 0.01 0.04 0.128 TOP OF BERM - 70.12 0 0.02 0.05 0.147 Total Storage Req'd Storage 0.147 > 0.111 detention.xls 274 Sheet 1 of 3 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume Ia = 47.00 % A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia / 100 ) i = 0.47 B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) Area = 3.180 acres C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) WQCV = 0.20 watershed inches (WQCV =1.0 * (0.91 * I3 - 1.19 * I2 + 0.78 * I)) D) Design Volume: Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area * 1.2 Vol = 0.0630 acre-feet 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) X Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforation (H) H = 2.00 feet C) Recommended Maximum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) Ao = 0.2 square inches D) Perforation Dimensions: i) Circular Perforation Diameter or D = 0.500 inches ii) Width of 2" High Rectangular Perforations W = inches E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 For Maximum) nc = 1 number F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (Ao) Ao = 0.2 square inches G) Number of Rows (nr) nr = 6 number H) Total Outlet Area (Aot) Aot = 1.2 square inches 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: At = 0.5 * (Figure 7 Value) * Aot At = 43 square inches B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) X < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref.: Figure 6a): i) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (Wconc) from Table 6a-1 Wconc = 3 inches ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = 54 inches Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility Interwest Consulting Group MVG - Morningstar Facility DETENTION BASIN B (NW) October 1, 2013 MM UD-BMP_v2.06.xls, EDB - NW POND 10/1/2013, 275 7:39 AM Sheet 2 of 3 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: iii) Type of Screen (Based on Depth H), Describe if "Other" S.S. #93 VEE Wire (US Filter) Other: iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if "Other" 0.139" (US Filter) Other: v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) inches Type and Size of Support Rod (Ref.: Table 6a-2) vi) Type and Size of Holding Frame (Ref.: Table 6a-2) D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): I) Width of Rectangular Opening (W) W = inches ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc = W + 12") Wconc = inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) from Table 6b-1 Wopening = inches iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = inches v) Type of Screen (based on depth H) (Describe if "Other") KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum Other: vi) Cross-bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP inches Grating). Describe if "Other" Other: vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio (L/W) 5 Pre-sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (3% to 5% of Design Volume from 1D) acre-feet (3% - 5% of Design Volume (0.0019 - 0.0032 acre-feet.) B) Surface Area acres C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yes/no MM Interwest Consulting Group Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility October 1, 2013 MVG - Morningstar Facility DETENTION BASIN B (NW) UD-BMP_v2.06.xls, EDB - NW POND 10/1/2013, 276 7:39 AM Sheet 3 of 3 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 6. Two-Stage Design - See Figure EDB-1 A) Top Stage (Depth DWQ = 2' Minimum) DWQ = feet Top Stage Storage: no less than 99.5% of Design Volume (0.0627 acre-feet.) Storage= acre-feet B) Bottom Stage Depth (DBS = 0.33' Minimum Below Trickle Channel Invert) DBS = feet Bottom Stage Storage: no less than 0.5% of Design Volume (0.0003 acre-feet.) Storage= acre-feet Storage = A * Depth Above WS To Bottom Of Top Stage Surf. Area= acres C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of Depth= feet 0.50 * Top Stage Depth or 2.5 Feet) D) Total Volume: Voltot = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Voltot = acre-feet (Must be > Design Volume in 1D, or 0.063 acre-feet.) 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Z = (horizontal/vertical) Minimum Z = 4, Flatter Preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance) Z = (horizontal/vertical) per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 3, Flatter Preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "Other") Native Grass Irrigated Turf Grass Other: Notes: MM Interwest Consulting Group October 1, 2013 Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility MVG - Morningstar Facility DETENTION BASIN B (NW) UD-BMP_v2.06.xls, EDB - NW POND 10/1/2013, 277 7:39 AM Interwest Consulting Group DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: MVG MORNINGSTAR - EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN B (NW) PROJECT NO: 1173-105-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: MM DATE: 10/1/2013 Equations: Area trib. to pond = 3.18 acre Developed flow = QD = CIA C (100) = 0.59 Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T QD Developed C A = 1.9 acre Vol. Out = Vo =K QPO T Release rate, QPO = 1.1 cfs storage = S = Vi - Vo K = 0.9 (from fig 2.1) Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve with updated (3.67") rainfall Storm Rainfall QD Vol. In Vol. Out Storage Storage Duration, T Intensity, I (cfs) Vi Vo S S (min) (in/hr) (ft3) (ft3) (ft3) (ac-ft) 5 9.95 18.7 5600 301 5300 0.12 10 7.77 14.6 8743 601 8142 0.19 20 5.62 10.5 12655 1202 11453 0.26 30 4.47 8.4 15090 1803 13287 0.31 40 3.74 7.0 16840 2404 14436 0.33 50 3.23 6.1 18202 3005 15197 0.35 60 2.86 5.4 19316 3606 15709 0.36 70 2.57 4.8 20258 4207 16051 0.37 80 2.34 4.4 21077 4808 16269 0.37 90 2.15 4.0 21800 5409 16391 0.38 100 1.99 3.7 22450 6010 16440 0.38 110 1.86 3.5 23039 6611 16428 0.38 120 1.75 3.3 23579 7212 16367 0.38 130 1.65 3.1 24078 7813 16265 0.37 140 1.56 2.9 24542 8414 16128 0.37 150 1.48 2.8 24976 9015 15961 0.37 160 1.41 2.6 25384 9616 15768 0.36 170 1.35 2.5 25769 10217 15551 0.36 180 1.29 2.4 26133 10818 15315 0.35 Required Storage Volume: 16440 ft3 0.38 acre-ft detention.xls,FAA-100yr NW POND 278 EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN B (NW) Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: MVG - Morningstar PROJECT NO: 1173-105-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: MHM SUBMITTED BY: INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP DATE: 10/1/2013 V = 1/3 d ( A + B + sqrt(A*B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, ft A = surface area of contour Surface Incremental Detention Total Stage Area Storage Storage Storage (Elev) (Ft^2) (Ac-ft) (Ac-ft) (Ac-ft) 62.80 0 63.0 180 64.0 2168 0.02 0.02 WQ WSEL- 64.5 3813 0.03 0.00 0.06 65.0 5458 0.05 0.05 0.11 66.0 7535 0.15 0.20 0.26 100-yr WSEL- 67.0 9287 0.19 0.39 0.45 67.25 9822 0.05 0.45 0.51 SPILLWAY - 67.5 19298 0.08 0.53 0.59 TOP OF BERM - 68.0 0 0.07 0.60 0.66 Total Storage Req'd Storage 0.662 > 0.377 detention.xls 279 280 281 ITEM NO _____9___________ MEETING DATE November 14, 2013 STAFF __Shepard_______ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Waterfield Overall Development Plan #ODP130002 APPLICANT: Mr. Jim Dullea and Mr. Curly Risheill Parker Land Investments, LLC 9162 S. Kenwood Court Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development for a parcel of land located generally at the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road. The parcel is 116.89 acres. There are two zone districts on the parcel: L-M-N – 103.57 acres and M-M-N – 13.32 acres. Proposed land uses include residential, neighborhood center, public neighborhood park, public elementary school and open space. The project does not include Bull Run Apartments and the former Plummer School. There is a Request for Modification of Standard to address the mix of housing types. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the O.D.P., and approval of the Modification of Standard. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At one point, Waterfield was an active project and Bull Run Apartments was developed as the first phase. Except for the apartments, the project lapsed and is now considered expired. As a new project, the O.D.P. is now subject to the recommendations of the Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan as amended in 2009 and the Master Street Plan. The adoption of these policies now requires the O.D.P. to show the realigned “New Vine” Drive, an arterial roadway located parallel and about one-quarter mile north of existing East Vine Drive. This new alignment is designed to reduce congestion associated with Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 282 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 2 the railroad crossings between North College Avenue and North Timberline Road. Provisions in the O.D.P. are made for connecting to the future City Trail along the Eaton Ditch and for a trail around the wetland area. In general, the O.D.P. complies with the Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan. A Modification of Standard is requested to Section 4.5(D)(2) which requires four housing types in the L-M-N zone district and whereas the applicant is requesting three. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: L-M-N; Eaton Ditch and vacant land S: County; Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Switching Yard E: M-M-N; Bull Run Apartments E: L-M-N; Vacant E: County; Farm and ranch W: County; Existing Farm and ranch The parcel was included within the 500-acre East Vine 7 th Annexation annexed in 1983. There was no previous Overall Development Plan. Waterfield P.U.D. First Filing was approved in 1997 and included 43 single family lots and 176 multi-family dwelling units known as Bull Run Apartments on a total of 27.5 acres. Only the apartments were developed and the single family lots have lapsed. Waterfield P.U.D. Second Filing was approved in May of 2000 and consisted of 102 single family lots, a 6.17 acre park site and a 10.2 acre school site on 92.79 acres and a neighborhood center described as featuring a convenience store and child care facility. This entire project has since lapsed. The Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan was approved in 1999 and amended in 2009. During the 2009 amendment process, the existing Bull Run Apartments and Parcel B of the O.D.P. were rezoned from L-M-N to M-M-N. In addition, the re-alignment of East Vine Drive approximately one-quarter mile north of the current location was incorporated into the Plan and Master Street Plan. The O.D.P. reflects these amendments. 283 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 3 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies the criteria for reviewing O.D.P.’s. A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards This criterion requires the O.D.P. to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an O.D.P. submittal. For the L-M-N zone, the land uses depicted are: • Single family detached • Single family attached • Single family alley-load • Neighborhood center The O.D.P. also indicates a public neighborhood park containing 8.1 acres which satisfies the standard that a public or private park be provided for development plans that exceed ten acres. This park will adjoin a10.74 acre site for a public elementary school and a 15.88 acre site for the wetlands thereby creating opportunities for combing and sharing open space. All proposed uses are permitted in the L-M-N zone. For the M-M-N zone, the land use depicted is multi-family. For the L-M-N and M-M-N zone districts, the O.D.P. satisfies the criterion that the proposed land uses are consistent with the permitted uses. B. Section 2.3.2 (H) (2) - Density This criterion requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the L-M-N or M-M-N zone district. (1.) Density Ranges In March of 2011, in order to implement the vision of the amended comprehensive plan (Plan Fort Collins), the L-M-N zone was revised to require a greater diversity of housing types beginning at lower acreage thresholds. The old standard required a minimum of two housing types beginning at 30 acres and three housing types beginning at 45 acres. The new standard now requires three housing types beginning at 20 acres and four housing types beginning at 30 acres. Another key revision was to broaden the allowable density range from 5 – 8 to 4 – 9 dwelling units per acre. These changes were codified in Section 4.5(D). 284 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 4 Parcel B is13.32 acres and zoned M-M-N which requires that for parcels under 20 acres, the minimum required density is 7.00 dwelling units per acre. The O.D.P. indicates that Parcel B has a development potential ranging from 7 to 24 dwelling units per acre thus complying with the standard. Parcel A is 75.43 acres and zoned L-M-N which requires that density range from 4.00 dwelling units per net acre to 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre. The following areas are expected to be subtracted out of the gross acreage: • Wetland and buffer • Public right-of-way • Drainage tracts • Eaton Ditch easement • Electrical transmission easement With these areas being subtracted from the gross, the O.D.P. indicates that Parcel has the development potential of exceeding the required minimum of 4.00 dwelling units per net acre and well below the maximum of 9.00 dwelling units per acre. (2.) Housing Types The O.D.P. indicates the following housing types within the L-M-N area: Single Family 155 81% Single Family – Alley 22 12% Single Family – Attached 14 7% Total 191 100% As can be seen, there are only three housing types whereas in the L-M-N zone, per Section 4.5(D)(2), on parcels greater than 30 acres, four housing types are required. The applicant has requested a Modification to this standard which will be reviewed and evaluated in a following sub-section. C. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) – Master Street Plan This criterion requires the O.D.P. to conform to the Master Street Plan as required by Section 3.6.1 The following streets, and their classification, are called for on the Master Street Plan: • Timberline Road – four-lane arterial • “New Vine” Drive – four-lane arterial • Existing Vine Drive – collector – two-lane • Conifer Street – collector – two-lane 285 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 5 The O.D.P. properly indicates either the widening of or the extension of all four of these roadways in compliance with the Master Street Plan. (The Master Street Plan does not address streets below the collector classification.) In general, Waterfield O.D.P. demonstrates overall compliance with City Plan in that development is served by a network of public streets which provide a high level of both internal and external connectivity. D. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) – Street Pattern, Connectivity and Levels of Service This criterion requires the O.D.P. to conform to the street pattern and connectivity standards as required by 3.6.3 (A) through (F). In addition, the O.D.P. shall also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. Section 3.6.3(B) is the general standard that requires the local street system to provide for safety, efficiency and convenience for all modes both within the neighborhood and to destinations outside the neighborhood. The fact that “New Vine,” an arterial street, one- half mile in length, 2,640 feet, is planned to bisect the neighborhood versus running along the perimeter is significant design parameter that influences the master planning for this parcel. While this new arterial roadway has the potential of dividing the neighborhood, this is mitigated by five north-south streets that will connect the two halves. Two of these are located on the east (Turnberry) and west (Timberline) edges. Internally, one will be a full-turning intersection (Merganser) and two will be limited turning intersections (unnamed local streets). Existing Vine Drive will be down-graded to a collector street. From an overall perspective, it is noteworthy that both “New Vine” and North Timberline Road are designated by City Plan as Enhanced Travel Corridors. These Enhanced Travel Corridors are uniquely designed to incorporate high frequency transit, bicycling and walking. This transportation attribute will help link the Mountain Vista Sub-area to the rest of the community. An off-site, public bike and pedestrian trail is being planned by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department to roughly follow the Eaton Ditch alignment. Waterfield accommodates this trail and provides connections to the trail from future local streets. Section 3.6.3(C) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with a full-turning collector or local street at a maximum interval one-quarter mile, or 1,320 feet. “New Vine” is intersected by Merganser, a local street with full-turning capability, such that the distance from the east property line is 1,190 feet and the distance from the west property line is 1,450 feet. 286 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 6 The reason this intersection is not exactly at the midpoint, 1,320 feet, is because of the fixed location of the intersection of existing Vine and Merganser which is slightly shifted in order to avoid a large drainage ditch. The standard allows for such alignments due to unusual topographic features. Section 3.6.3(D) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with limited-turning collector or local street at a maximum interval of 660 feet. “New Vine” is intersected by an unnamed north-south local street with limited-turning capability that is located 750 feet from Merganser (internal local street) and 650 feet from Turnberry (perimeter local street on the west). The reason there is not a second limited-turning intersection in this segment of “New Vine” is because there are wetlands on the north side of the road and the standard allows for flexibility due to an existing natural feature. For Timberline Road, Section 3.6.3(D) is satisfied by an unnamed east-west local street with limited-turning capability that is located 550 feet north of “New Vine.” Section 3.6.3(E) requires that all development plans contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same square mile section from at least three arterial streets. In compliance, Waterfield will be connected to three arterials in the following manner: 1. Direct access to Timberline Road 2. Direct access to “New Vine” 3. Indirect access to North Lemay Avenue via future extension of Conifer Street Section 3.6.3(F) requires that the O.D.P. incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary or provide for future public street connections along each boundary that abuts potentially developable land at maximum intervals of 660 feet. The east and south boundaries adjoin existing public streets and there are no sub- arterial streets that are stubbed to either the north or west property lines. Regarding the north boundary, Conifer, a collector roadway, is designed to cross over the Eaton Ditch in compliance with the Master Street Plan. There are no other planned crossings of the Ditch. To compensate for the Ditch acting as a barrier, the parcel to the north is served by a north-south collector that intersects with Conifer and an east-west two-lane arterial that intersects with Timberline Road per the Master Street Plan. Regarding the west boundary, both Conifer and “New Vine” are designed to extend to the west in compliance with the Master Street Plan. Both the future public neighborhood park site and future public elementary school site have a combined boundary along the west perimeter of about 1,700 feet and no future street connections 287 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 7 are planned to the west. To compensate for this, there will be a north-south local street, Turnberry Road that will run along the west property line allowing future development to the west to tie into thus providing convenient access to the park and school. Section 3.6.4 requires compliance with the adopted Level of Service Standards (L.O.S.) for arterial / arterial intersections. The minimum L.O.S. is D. According to the Transportation Impact Study, the overall rating for the entire East Vine Drive / North Lemay Avenue intersection is D even though there are delays caused by the operations of the B.N.S.F. railroad switching yard. The T.I.S. estimates that the number of new the trips generated by Waterfield would be 61 in the a.m. peak and 79 in the p.m. peak. For the 79 new trips in during the p.m. peak, this represents a 3% increase over the existing condition. These new trips do not change the overall rating of the East Vine / Lemay Avenue intersection to fall below the minimum required Level of Service D. E. Compact Urban Growth - Section 2.3.2 (H) (3): This criterion requires that the O.D.P. conform to the contiguity requirements of the Levels of Service Standards per Section 3.6.4 and Compact Urban Growth Standards as per Section 3.7.2. The O.D.P. is located within the city limits. Bull Run Apartments is constructed but the balance of the original Waterfield P.U.D. has expired. The area is served by existing public improvements capable of supporting future growth with one exception. As mentioned, the Transportation Impact Study indicates that the overall intersection of East Vine Drive and North Lemay Avenue is rated D, even though, as mentioned, there are delays due to the railroad crossing. Waterfield includes the construction of one-half mile of “New Vine” which is the arterial street that the future grade-separated crossing will ultimately tie into. So although Waterfield contributes to the volume of traffic, so too does Waterfield begin to put into place the necessary alternative arterial roadway specifically designed to relieve area wide congestion in the long term. F. Section 2.3.2 (H) (4) – Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties This criterion requires an O.D.P. to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the O.D.P. from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). The O.D.P is bounded on the east and south by existing section line roads that are anticipated to be upgraded per the Master Street Plan. Connections to adjoining 288 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 8 properties to the west and north are provided by “New Vine” Drive and Conifer Street which are anticipated to be extended when and if the adjoining properties develop. Conifer Street is designed to cross over the Eaton Ditch onto the adjoining property and intersect with a planned north-south collector street. This street is designed to extend north to Richards Lake Road, a distance of about 1.5 miles and with direct access to the future Poudre School District 100-acre campus. G. 2.3.2 (H) (5) – Natural Features This criterion requires an O.D.P. to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). The O.D.P. contains a wetland area about 12 acres in size. Both the wetland and its approximate 100-foot buffer are indicated on the O.D.P. in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E). H. Section 2.3.2 (H) (6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan This criterion requires an O.D.P. to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The site is located within the Dry Creek Master Drainage Basin. Development is anticipated to comply with the stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards of both this particular basin and city-wide best management practices. I. Section 2.3.2 (H) (7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire O.D.P. and not on each individual P.D.P. Waterfield O.D.P. is addressing these issues at the O.D.P. stage. The standards relating to housing density are satisfied as described in Section 2.3.2(H)(1) and (2). The standard requiring four housing types is the subject of a Request for Modification and is discussed in a separate sub-section. 3. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on March 19, 2012 and a summary is attached. In general, there were concerns about traffic and about the gaps in public improvements in the northeast area. Further, there remains a concern about how new development will 289 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 9 blend in and become compatible with existing surrounding areas which have a semi- rural character. (1.)Traffic Chief among the neighborhood concerns are the traffic problems caused by the B.N.S.F. railroad switching yard and its proximity to East Vine Drive. North-south traffic on both North Lemay Avenue and North Timberline Road are congested causing traffic delays within the region. The ultimate improvement is identified on the Master Street Plan as two overpasses at North Lemay Avenue and North Timberline Road that would tie into realigned “New Vine.” This comprehensive solution remains, at this time, an unfunded public capital improvement. Although generating additional trips, Waterfield is also contributing to the long range solution by dedicating and constructing their share of “New Vine”. This segment is about one-half mile in length and will connect Timberline Road on the east to the future Turnberry Road on the west in fulfillment of both the Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan and the Master Street Plan. (2.) Gaps in Public Improvements Along those same lines, attendees at the neighborhood meeting expressed frustration with the general lack of public improvements in the northeast area especially when compared to the rest of the City. There is concern that there is a lag time between when new subdivisions are improved versus timely construction of necessary facilities to serve the new growth. These growing pains are evidenced particularly when there are gaps in the public improvements. Since parcels in the northeast quadrant of the City are not developing in a sequential manner, there are always issues of balancing the need for regional streets, sidewalks, turn lanes and the like with the impact of the new subdivisions. While each new development is required to pay its own way, there will remain regional improvements that require participation from both subsequent development and a broader regional solution such as a City capital project or formation of a special improvement district. (3.) Urban / Rural Conflicts The other issue of concern is the interface between existing semi-rural homes, small farms and other agricultural activities and their relationship to new development at urban densities. There is a concern that there is built-in conflict between existing residents and future residents living within a subdivision at urban densities. These issues are not unique to any one area of the City. Managing growth on the fringe of the City has been addressed on the macro level by the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County. At the micro level, however, such issues are best addressed at the Project Development Plan stage by strategic use of buffer yards, fencing, 290 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 10 landscaping and other provisions of the Land Use Code that address compatibility. Waterfield is in a position to mitigate, to a certain degree, the rural – urban conflict by virtue of the relatively large contiguous open space provided by the combination of the future public park, future public school and wetland area. These areas contain approximately 35 acres and are located along the west property line which is the area needing the most sensitivity. MODIFICATION – MIX OF HOUSING TYPES L-M-N Zone – Four Housing Types Required on Parcels of 30 Acres or More SECTION 4.5(D)(2)(a) 1. The Standard at Issue: The L-M-N standard at issue reads as follows: (2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met: (a) A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on any project development plan containing twenty (20) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall development; and a minimum of four (4) housing types shall be required on any such project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more. 2. Description of the Modification: Waterfield O.D.P. is divided into two zone districts. The L-M-N portion contains 75.43 net acres and the M-M-N portion contains 13.32 acres. Since the L-M-N exceeds 30 acres, it is required to have four housing types. The applicant is proposing three housing types. These three housing types are: • Single Family Detached • Single Family Alley-Loaded • Single Family Attached. 291 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 11 3. Summary of the Applicant’s Justification: The applicant contends that three housing types within the L-M-N portion of the O.D.P. is sufficient when combined with the existing Bull Run Apartments, which was developed previously under different ownership and is not a part of the O.D.P., and the proposed 13 vacant acres on Parcel B that are now zoned M-M-N. At one point in the project’s history, the entire O.D.P. was zoned L-M-N. Then in 2009, Bull Run Apartments and Parcel B were rezoned to M-M-N as part of the amended Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan. This rezoning was initiated by the City, not the landowner at the time. Then in March of 2011, in conjunction with update to City Plan, the City initiated a revision to the Land Use Code that required a more diverse mix of housing types that were triggered at lower acreage thresholds. Pre March 2011 Post March 2011 2 housing types on 30 acres or more 3 housing types on 20 acres or more 3 housing types on 45 acres or more 4 housing types on 30 acres or more 90% maximum of one type 80% maximum of one type No minimum of one type 5% minimum of one type The current applicant states that while under previous ownership, Waterfield was impacted by an amended Sub-area Plan and a Land Use Code revision. Essentially, the applicant contends that four housing types will be provided when the O.D.P. is viewed as a whole rather than by individual zone district. Bull Run Apartments contains 176 units on 15.56 acres for a density of 11.31dwelling units per acre. Parcel B, at 13 acres in size, would be required to provide no less than 91 units per the M-M-N minimum density requirement of seven units per acre. Combined, the Waterfield neighborhood could contain a conservative estimate of 267 multi-family dwelling units as the fourth housing type. Finally, if the L-M-N portion of the O.D.P. were required to feature the fourth housing type, and since no one housing type could be less than 5% of the total of proposed units (191), this would result in a required minimum of only ten units. Ten units of a fourth housing type appear to be a relatively insignificant number when compared to the estimated 267 multi-family units that are locked in on the M-M-N portion of the neighborhood. 292 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 12 4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis: The purpose of the standard, as revised in March of 2011, is to mitigate the impact of large neighborhoods that have a monotonous and repetitious character due to over reliance on a single housing type. The fact that Bull Run Apartments preceded the single family development guarantees that the neighborhood will feature a diverse mix of housing. Usually, the multi-family portion of a neighborhood remains the last the parcel to be developed causing the neighborhood mix to be delayed oftentimes by years or minimized over time by market pressure, economic conditions or changes in ownership. Parcel B, at 13 acres, is well-positioned at the intersection of two arterial streets, both of which are designated as Enhanced Travel Corridors, to attract future multi-family development in fulfillment of the Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan. The potential of 267 multi-family dwellings within a single neighborhood is laudable and more significant than simply adding ten more units of fourth housing type within the L-M-N which could be construed as being merely a token effort. The loss of ten dwelling units comprising a fourth housing type would be nominal and inconsequential when viewed from the perspective of the whole neighborhood. Allowing Bull Run Apartments and Parcel B, both zoned M-M-N, to contribute to the overall neighborhood mix of housing is a practical solution that is equal to or better than a plan that would require 10 dwelling units of a different housing type within the L-M-N zoned portion of the O.D.P. The housing mix envisioned by the standard is being accomplished not by Section 4.5(D)(2)(a) but rather by zoning. Waterfield has the potential to be diverse neighborhood as envisioned by City Plan: “Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area.” The combination of the public elementary school and public neighborhood park allows for greater contiguous open space and opportunities for maintenance efficiencies. Such a combination is found in several other neighborhoods and has been found to be advantageous for residents. The wetland, and its buffer, is another feature that will create interest. The present and future multi-family housing, while outside the L-M-N zone, will be effectively experienced as a component of the entire neighborhood and contribute the diversity of the neighborhood in fulfillment of the standard. In summary, the mix of housing types and other features allows Waterfield to demonstrate a comparable level of quality relative to other existing L-M-N neighborhoods in the northeast quadrant of the City such as Maple Hill, Lind Property (Brightwater Landing), Dry Creek, Richards Lake, Trailhead and Waterglen. 293 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 13 5. Staff Recommendation and Finding of Fact: Staff recommends approval of the Modification. In evaluating the request and in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4), Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. This is because at full build-out, Waterfield will demonstrate a mix of housing types envisioned by the standard but accomplished by zoning resulting in a neighborhood that fulfills the vision stated in City Plan Principle LIV 7. B. The benefit of the M-M-N zoned areas being capable of providing at least 267 multi-family dwelling units is equal to or better than the loss of ten dwelling units of a fourth housing type within the L-M-N portion of the site. The O.D.P., as proposed, would significantly contribute to the mix of housing types in the neighborhood in a meaningful way. C. The O.D.P., 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. The benefit of the M-M-N zoned areas being capable of providing at least 267 multi-family dwelling units is equal to or better than the loss of ten dwelling units of a fourth housing type within the L-M-N portion of the site. The O.D.P., as proposed, would significantly contribute to the mix of housing types in the neighborhood in a meaningful way. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Waterfield O.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The O.D.P. represents the revitalization of the expired Waterfield P.U.D. which, with the exception of Bull Run Apartments, lapsed in 2000. B. The O.D.P. continues to comply with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H) with one exception. 294 Waterfield O.D.P. #ODP130002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 11/14/13 Page 14 C. A Request for Modification of to Section 2.3.2(H)(2)(d) – L-M-N housing types has been received and evaluated. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. This is because at full build-out, Waterfield will demonstrate a mix of housing types envisioned by the standard but accomplished by zoning districts resulting in a neighborhood that fulfills the vision stated in City Plan Principle LIV 7. D. The O.D.P., 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. This is because the Modification results in a loss of only ten dwelling units of a fourth housing type while the M-M-N zoned areas have a potential of providing 267 dwelling units thus significantly contributing to the mix of housing types in the neighborhood in a meaningful way. E. The O.D.P., 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 the Modification is requested. This is because general purpose of the standard, ensuring that neighborhoods over 30 acres have a diverse mix of housing types, will be accomplished primarily by the use of two zone districts (L-M-N and M-M-N) versus a development standard in one zone district (L-M-N). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification to Section 2.3.2(H)(2)(d) and Waterfield Overall Development Plan #ODP130002, subject to the following condition: Attachments: Aerial Vicinity Map Zoning Vicinity Map Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan Framework Map Master Street Plan Applicant’s Statement of Planning Objectives Statement of City Plan Principles and Policies Modification Request - Mix of Housing Types Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary Transportation Impact Study 295 Lindenmeier Lake Zurich Dr Yeager St Bannock St L i n d e n L a ke Rd C o n q u e s t S t Toronto St Ze p p elin Way Marquise S t Adriel D r Mackinac St Winamac Dr Barnstormer St Vicot Way Crusader St S V iew D r Navion Ln Yeager St K e dr o n Dr Adri e l Cir S V i e LMN E LMN LMN E MMN MMN CC Lindenmeier Lake Zurich Dr Yeager St Bannock St L i n d e n L a ke Rd C o n q u e s t S t Toronto St Ze p p elin Way Marquise S t Adriel D r Mackinac St Winamac Dr Barnstormer St Vicot Way Crusader St S V iew D r Navion Ln Yeager St K e dr o n Dr Adri e MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN CHAPTER 4 – FRAMEWORK PLAN 29 Figure 11 – 2009 Framework Plan For a larger version of this map, please see the Plan Summary, a separate document, at fcgov.com/advanceplanning. 298 > > > > > > > R ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ôZYXW ÉZYXW !"`$ SHIELDS COLLEGE VINE DRAKE TRILBY MULBERRY TAFT HILL OVERLAND HARMONY LEMAY DOUGLAS TIMBERLINE HORSETOOTH LAPORTE PROSPECT ZIEGLER WILLOX C O U N T Y R OAD 5 4 G CARPENTER COU NTY R O A D 3 8 E LINCOLN MOUNTAIN VISTA TIMBERLINE TAFT HILL LEMAY LEMAY VINE City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement September 26, 2013 Waterfield OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Planning Objectives The Waterfield development was initially planned in 1997 and at that time the entire site was zoned LMN. The Project Development Plan included a variety of housing types, a school site, a park site, a neighborhood center and a natural area around the wetland. In 2003, the Waterfield development plan was modified to eliminate lots proposed north and west of the wetland area to allow the City’s Natural Resource Division to purchase the natural area. While the vesting for the 1997 and 2003 Project Development Plans have lapsed, many decisions regarding future development of the property have been made. A school site, a park site, and future street right-of-ways were dedicated in anticipation of developing a residential community in the future. Since 2003 several changes have occurred that affect the future development of the site. The most significant changes are:  The alignment of Vine Drive on the Master Street Plan has shifted to the north, dividing the development plan with a four-lane arterial street with a 115-foot right-of-way and designated as an enhanced travel corridor.  The City’s Natural Resource Department is no longer interested in acquiring the existing wetland/natural area on the site.  In 2009 the City changed the zoning on the existing Bull Run apartment site and approximately 11 acres north of it, to encourage multi-family housing at the intersection of the two enhanced travel corridors (Timberline and New Vine). The zoning was changed from LMN to MMN as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea planning process. Despite these challenges, the current developers of the site are excited about the opportunities that exist and have worked to create an Overall Development Plan (ODP) that satisfies the land use objectives contained in City Plan, as well as the development objectives of the Poudre School District (PSD) and the City’s Parks Department. The 10-acre school site that had been dedicated with the 1997 development plan is now situated adjacent to the proposed New Vine Drive, a four-lane arterial street. This made the school site unacceptable to PSD. In a similar fashion the New Vine Drive cut through the previously dedicated park site reducing it’s’ size and eliminating the synergy that existed with the school and park sites being adjacent to each other. The Applicant worked with the Parks Department and with PSD to change the location of their sites. The ODP proposes to trade the existing school site for a similar size parcel located to the north along future Turnberry Road. This site is located on a local street and is adjacent to both the wetland/natural area and the park site, restoring the synergy that was envisioned by the original developers. The current developers plan to dedicate additional property to the City’s Parks Department resulting in an 8.1-acre park site. Both PSD and the Parks Department are in agreement with the proposed changes. In addition, 300 Waterfield ODP - Planning Objectives September 26, 2013 Page 2 of 2 a ten foot wide, east-west, community bike trail is proposed adjacent to Timberline Road and along the northern border of the site. The alignment of this trail will be coordinated with the Parks Department during the PDP process. The original development plan for the Waterfield site included the now existing Bull Run apartments, and another smaller scale multi-family project, as well as single family houses. The current ODP without the Bull Run Apartment project included will provide four housing types including multi-family housing on the 11 acres re-zoned to MMN in 2009, paired housing, alley-loaded houses and traditional single family lots. The Land Use Code requires sites over thirty acres in size in the LMN district to include four housing types. A Modification Request to allow three housing types instead of four in the LMN portion of the site is attached. As a result of Vine Drive shifting to the north, part of Merganser Drive will be removed and straightened to allow a full movement intersection with New Vine Drive. This also allows the streets to intersect at 90 degrees. Turnberry Road will be constructed between New Vine Drive and Conifer Street to service the school and park sites as well as to provide access to the proposed neighborhood center. Access points into the southern portion of the site include the existing Merganser Drive and a second point of access from existing Vine Drive further to the west. In addition, there will be a new local street connecting to Timberline Road approximately 530 feet north of New Vine Drive. The ODP proposes to enhance the existing wetland/natural area so that it can be a valuable shared resource for the residential neighborhood, the park and the school. Observation wells drilled at the site in June of this year revealed that the depth to ground water ranged from 3.5 to 15.5 feet. Cedar Creek, environmental consultants hand drilled additional holes within the wetland area and found ground water closer to the surface but still at least 12 inches below grade. Cedar Creek concluded that the existing wetland is not being fed from ground water, but exists because of surface flows, from rainfall and irrigation of adjacent agricultural fields. The wetland is a low spot on the property with no existing outfall. The ODP proposes to direct storm water flows to the wetland area through a series of bio-swales. This strategy will provide water quality treatment of storm flows and help maintain the wetland. Along with the bio-swales and wetland an existing detention pond along the southern portion of the site will also be renovated and utilized. A neighborhood center is proposed in the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to the future Conifer Street. We believe this location for a neighborhood center will not only serve this property but is also centrally located to serve future projects to the west and to the north. Anticipated uses within the neighborhood center could potentially include a limited indoor recreational use (yoga, dance, Pilates, etc.) daycare center, offices, a church, a public facility like a fire station or mixed-use dwelling units. The first phase Project Development Plan will be submitted upon approval of this ODP and construction will begin in the spring of 2014. The future phases of the ODP shall be planned and constructed as the market demand allows. 301 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com July 31, 2012 Waterfield Overall Development Plan (ODP) is supported by the following Principles and Policies found in City Plan Fort Collins Adopted February 15, 2011 STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATE CITY PLAN PRICIPLES AND POLICIES ECONOMIC HEALTH Principle EH 1: The City will pursue development of a vibrant and resilient economy that reflects the values of our unique community in a changing world. Policy EH 1.1 – Support Job Creation Support the enhancement of the community’s economic base and job creation by focusing on retention, expansion, incubation, and recruitment efforts that bring jobs and import income or dollars to the community, particularly businesses in the adopted Target Industry Clusters. Within the Waterfield Overall Development Plan, a Neighborhood Center is planned which will add jobs to north Fort Collins. It is anticipated that within the neighborhood center there will be an elementary school, a day-care center and possible other commercial development. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Principle ENV 1: Within the developed landscape of Fort Collins, natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced. Policy ENV 1.1 – Protect and Enhance Natural Features Use regulatory powers to conserve, protect, and enhance the resources and values of high value biological resources such as wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat by directing development away from sensitive natural areas. When it is not possible to direct development away from sensitive natural resources the development will be integrated into these areas to minimize impacts and mitigate any losses. 302 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 2 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Within this development there is an irrigation fed wetland. It is non-jurisdictional however we intend to maintain and enhance the area. The grading within the development will direct storm water flows into this wetland. The project will incorporate several water quality features to remove suspended solids from the water while allowing the water to flow into the wetland. The wetland/natural area will be enhanced through weed removal, diverse native plantings and long term maintenance. Policy ENV 1.2 –Regulate Development along Waterways Use development regulations, such as setbacks from natural features and performance standards, to conserve and protect natural resources along the Poudre River, Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, Boxelder Creek and other waterways. An average of a 100 foot buffer shall be enhanced along the perimeter of the wetland. Any impacts or encroachments by the development shall be mitigated above and beyond the baseline vegetation enhancement. Principle ENV 4: The City will pursue new opportunities to provide multifunctional open lands. Policy ENV 4.1 – Improve Connectivity Explore opportunities for land conservation partnerships between Stormwater, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and Natural Areas departments to provide and enhance trail corridors to connect open lands, to enhance wildlife habitat and corridors, and to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, parks, natural areas, rivers, shopping areas, and neighborhoods. A multi-use recreation trail is planned adjacent to Timberline Road and along the northern boundary of the site, eventually connecting to the community/regional trail system. Within the site, there will be many smaller corridors to move people from the neighborhood into the park, school site and opens space surrounding the wetland. Policy ENV 4.3 – Improve Water Quality and Detention Explore opportunities for Stormwater, Parks and Recreation and Natural Areas departments to partner on acquiring lands to incorporate stormwater systems that improve water quality and contribute to the ecological functioning of urban watersheds. A focus of this development will be stormwater quality. The northeast portion of the site will drain into a ten foot wide planted median which will filter out the suspended solids from the water. Storm flows will then travel west through a series of open space areas into the wetland. The intent is to clean the water but not to infiltrate until it reaches the wetland. The south portion of the site will drain into a planted detention pond to the south. The MMN District area shall have a series of grass swales to convey the water to the wetland. Policy ENV 4.6 – Utilize Corridors Provide public access, promote wildlife movement, and link neighborhoods, parks, and activity centers, commercial centers, and streets through a network of open lands and trails along streams, drainageways, and irrigation ditch corridors, where compatible with natural habitats, utilizing environmentally sensitive trail design. A multi-use recreation trail is planned adjacent to Timberline Road and along the northern boundary of the site, eventually connecting to the community/regional trail system. Within the site, there will be many smaller corridors to move people from the neighborhood into the park, school site and opens space surrounding the wetland. 303 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 3 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Principle ENV 18: The City will minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, recognize and manage for the preservation of floodplain values, adhere to all City mandated codes, policies, and goals, and comply with all State and Federally mandated laws and regulations related to the management of activities in floodprone areas. Policy ENV 18.2 – Manage Risks Seek to minimize risk to life and property by structural and non-structural design or modification of actions in the floodplain where it is not otherwise practical to place structures and human activities outside of the floodplain. Discourage new development in the 100-year floodplain to avoid additional modifications and structural controls. This project is not within the floodplain. Principle ENV 19: The City will pursue opportunities to protect and restore the natural function of the community’s urban watersheds and streams as a key component of minimizing flood risk, reducing urban runoff pollution, and improving the ecological health of urban streams. Policy ENV 19.1 – Employ a Watershed Approach to Stormwater Management Design stormwater systems to minimize the introduction of human caused pollutants. Pursue educational programs and demonstration projects to enhance public understanding of pollution prevention efforts. Design tributary systems for water quality control with appropriate use of buffer areas, grass swales, detention ponds, etc. Include receiving water habitat restoration and protection in stormwater master plans in conjunction with habitat mapping efforts. Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Principle ENV 20: The City will develop an integrated stormwater management program that addresses the impacts of urbanization on the City’s urban watershed. As part of that program, the City will implement requirements and strategies for multi-functional stormwater facilities that support density goals for development and redevelopment at a sub-watershed level. Policy ENV 20.4 – Develop Public/Private Partnerships Employ public/private partnerships to optimize the balance between stormwater management and compact development. Take advantage of opportunities to combine stormwater management needs from both public and private lands. A focus of this development will be stormwater quality. The northeast portion of the site will drain into a ten foot wide planted median which will filter out the suspended solids from the water. It will then travel west through a series of open space areas into the wetland. The intent is to clean the water but not to infiltrate until it reaches the wetland. The south portion of the site will drain into a planted detention pond to the south. The MMN district area shall have a series of grass swales to convey the water to the wetland. COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods 304 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 4 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. This project includes a mixture of MMN and LMN zoning districts. The ODP is consistent with the City’s Structure Plan in terms of residential densities proposed for the future. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well- served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. This project proposes several different housing types. The development is proposed to include three housing types in the LMN area: paired homes, alley-loaded lots and single family lots. In addition, the ODP includes a multi-family site adjacent to the existing Bull Run apartments. With the proposed neighborhood center, residents of the project will be within a quarter of a mile of shopping, a school, park, and employment areas. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Ensure all new public streets are designed in accordance with the City street standards and design all new streets to be functional, safe, and visually appealing, with flexibility to serve the context and purpose of the street corridor. Provide a layout that is simple, interconnected, and direct, avoiding circuitous routes. Include elements such as shade trees, landscaped medians and parkways, public art, lighting, and other amenities in the streetscape. Approve alternative street designs where they are needed to accommodate unique situations, such as “green” stormwater functions, important landscape features, or distinctive characteristics of a neighborhood or district, provided that they meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. A ten foot wide median is planned for a street running east and west. The curb shall be cut at regular intervals so that stormwater may enter the median freely. The median will be functional as well as visually appealing. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Street trees will line all of the local roads and additional plant material shall be located along open space corridors. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community. Policy LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features 305 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 5 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com In addition to protecting existing natural features, encourage integration of unique landscape features into the design and architecture of development and capital projects. These unique features may range from informal and naturalized to highly structured and maintained features. Some examples include tree groves within a project, stormwater facilities that become naturalized over time, walls with vines, drainageway enhancements, and other small, uniquely landscaped spaces. Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape Incorporate practical solutions to ensure a landscape design is functional in providing such elements as natural setting, visual appeal, shade, foundation edge to buildings, screening, edible landscapes, buffers, safety, and enhancement of built environment. Consider and address practical details such as sight distance requirements and long-term maintenance in landscape design. Policy LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Design new landscaping projects based on maintainability over the life cycle of the project using proper soil amendment and ground preparation practices, as well as the appropriate use of hardscape elements, trees, mulches, turf grass, other plant materials, and irrigation systems. Low maintenance practices can be achieved in both turf and non-turf planting areas, provided these areas are designed and installed to minimize weeds, erosion and repairs. Plant material will be selected based on water requirements, hardiness and ease of maintenance. Plants will consist of trees that the City forester approves, evergreen and deciduous shrubs and high performing grasses and perennials that require only seasonal maintenance. Turf areas are minimized. Xeriscape principles of utilizing soil amendments, mulches and efficient irrigation will be followed to ensure that the landscape is both attractive and sustainable. Principle LIV 19: The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations Utilize the City Structure Plan Map to set forth a basic framework, representing a guide for future land use and transportation decisions. The Waterfield Overall Development Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Structure Plan. The Neighborhood Center provides employment, retail and commercial opportunities within one-third mile of the housing. The proposed school site and park site also contribute to the desired Land Uses within the low density zone district. PRINCIPLE LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities, and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or Community Commercial District. Policy LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network Establish an interconnected network of neighborhood streets and sidewalks, including automobile, bicycle and pedestrian routes within a neighborhood and between neighborhoods, knitting neighborhoods together and not forming barriers between them. Provide convenient routes to destinations within the neighborhood: Avoid or minimize dead ends and cul-de-sacs. The streets proposed within the Waterfield ODP all connect to the larger street network. Utilize multiple streets, sidewalks, and trails to connect into and out of a neighborhood. This project will construct a portion of the 4-lane arterial New Vine Street, plan for the future Timberline Road and connect Turnberry Road from New Vine to Conifer. Along with streets there will be a 10’ wide community trail along the north side of the property. Design neighborhoods streets to converge upon or lead directly to the common areas in the neighborhood, avoiding routes onto arterial streets. Where ever possible streets have a direct view into common open space. 306 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 6 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Prohibit gated-street entryways into residential developments to keep all parts of the community accessible by all citizens. This development will not have any gated entryways. On long blocks, provide intermediate connections in the pedestrian network. There are intermediate connections for pedestrians mid block through a landscaped open space. These connections are also made between the development and school and wetland. Provide direct walkway and bikeway routes to schools. There is a mid-block open space to allow students direct access to the school and park. Continue and extend established street patterns where they are already established. In the case of previously unplanned areas, establish a new pattern that can be continued and extended in the future. This Overall Development Plan follows the City’s Master Street Plan to build portions of road within the site which will extend and connect the desired street pattern. Policy LIV 21.2 – Design Walkable Blocks While blocks should generally be rectilinear or otherwise distinctly geometric in shape, they may vary in size and shape to avoid a monotonous repetition of a basic grid pattern or to follow topography. In order to be conducive to walking, determine block size by frequent street connections within a maximum length of about 300 to 700 feet. When the blocks become large due to site layout there are intermediate connections for pedestrians mid block through a landscaped open space. These connections are also made between the development and school and wetland. Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types Provide variation in house models and types in large developments, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of a standardized subdivision. The housing models and types will be discussed in more detail as the Project Development Plans are submitted. Principle LIV 23: Neighborhoods will feature a wide range of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens, play fields, natural areas, orchards and community gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces to provide linkages and recreational opportunities both for neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Policy LIV 23.1 – Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces Locate neighborhood parks or other public outdoor spaces within walking distance of homes. Design outdoor spaces in conjunction with streets and walkways to be attractive, formative, purposeful parts of any land development and not merely residual areas left over from site planning for other purposes. Aim to mostly surround public outdoor spaces with streets or house fronts in order to provide public visibility and monitoring of the area and promote safety. The developers propose to dedicate property to the City’s Parks Department for the development of a City owned neighborhood park. Principle LIV 24: School facilities will remain integral parts of neighborhoods and the community. Policy LIV 24.1 – Coordinate Design, Planning and Siting of Schools Work with the Poudre and Thompson School Districts and private and charter schools to ensure that planning and siting of new schools and community facilities, such as libraries, parks, day care facilities, recreation facilities and programs, adult education facilities, and cultural facilities, are coordinated. Collaborate with the School Districts in the design, planning, and siting of new schools, and the operation, retention, and repurposing of existing schools, in accordance with the following: a. An elementary school should be located to serve every two to four neighborhoods and be situated so students can easily walk or bike to school along safe routes with low traffic and with direct walking connections from the neighborhoods served by the school. Forcing a child to walk along an arterial street to reach a new elementary or middle school should be avoided. 307 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 7 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com b. Middle schools should be located to serve four to eight neighborhoods. Students of these schools should be able to walk or bike to school along safe streets and bikeways. c. Where appropriate, schools should be located in conjunction with Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood Commercial Districts, and/or small neighborhood parks. d. Schools should be placed at important visual focal points, such as where street or open space vistas terminate. e. Develop a process to be used when school facilities are considered for closing or repurposing, taking into consideration such factors as the following: neighborhood and community impacts; uses that will provide a positive community benefit; retaining the facility for public purposes; and neighborhood and community input. The Applicant has worked extensively with the Poudre School District to locate an elementary school site within the proposed development. The school site will take access from a local street and be located adjacent to a neighborhood park site in order to share parking and recreation areas. Principle LIV 28: Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will provide opportunities for a mix of low density housing types in a setting that is conducive to walking and in close proximity to a range of neighborhood serving uses. Policy LIV 28.1 – Density Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. This minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be three (3) dwelling units per acre. The LMN portion of the ODP will have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Policy LIV 28.2 – Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood-serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods may include the following: Principal uses: Predominantly detached single-family homes; however, may include a range of duplexes, townhomes, and small scale multi-family dwellings (twelve or less units per building). Supporting uses: Places of worship, day care (adult and child), parks and recreation facilities, schools, and small civic facilities. In addition to these uses, a mix of other complementary uses is permitted within designated Neighborhood Center, including the following: neighborhood-serving market, shops, small professional offices or live-work units, clinics, or other small businesses in addition to the list of secondary uses listed above. Retail uses will be permitted only in a designated Neighborhood Center. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. The ODP will provide an appropriate mix of housing types including paired homes, alley-loaded lots, single family and multi-family residential projects. The Waterfield neighborhood will also include a neighborhood center, a school, a park and a natural area for residents to enjoy. Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium-density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1 – Density Housing in new Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. The minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be seven (7) dwelling units per acre. 308 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 8 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com The MMN area in the ODP proposes a minimum density of 7 dwelling units per acre as required by the Land Use Code. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide high frequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. A multi-family project is planned near the intersection of two enhanced travel corridors (Timberline and Vine). Policy LIV 44.5 – Interconnect Trails/Paths Integrate a trail/path system that connects open lands, parks, and water corridor areas, excluding motorized vehicles (except emergency and maintenance vehicle access). Pay special attention to environmentally sensitive trail design, location, and construction. The developer is working with the City Parks Department to locate an east-west community recreation trail through the ODP along the east and north. TRANSPORTATION Principle T 2: Investments in Enhanced Travel Corridors and within Activity Centers will encourage infill and redevelopment. Policy T 2.1 – Economic Opportunity and Development Enhanced Travel Corridors will support expanded economic opportunity and development generally, as well as particularly in targeted redevelopment areas and activity centers within the city. Development of the Waterfield ODP will include the New Vine Drive enhanced travel corridor helping the City meet its transportation objectives. Principle T 3: Land use planning decisions, management strategies, and incentives will support and be coordinated with the City's transportation vision. Policy T 3.1 – Pedestrian Mobility Promote a mix of land uses and activities that will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community and minimize the distance traveled. Policy T 3.2 – Bicycle Facilities Encourage bicycling for transportation through an urban development pattern that places major activity centers and neighborhood destinations within a comfortable bicycling distance. The Waterfield ODP is designed to be pedestrian friendly with street sidewalks, mid-block connections and recreation trails provided to encourage walking and bicycling between the various land uses in the neighborhood. Policy T 4.3 – Interconnected Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood streets will be interconnected, but designed to protect the neighborhood from excessive cut-through traffic. Policy T 4.4 – Attractive and Safe Neighborhood Streets 309 Waterfield ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 9 of 9 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Neighborhood streets will provide an attractive environment and be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers as well as having a well-designed streetscape, including detached sidewalks, parkways, and well- defined crosswalks. Proposed streets are all interconnected. 310 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com October 30, 2013 Modification Request DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (D) Land Use Standards. (2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met: (a) A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on any project development plan containing twenty (20) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall development; and a minimum of four (4) housing types shall be required on any such project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more. (b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions, garage placement, lot sizes and lot dimensions shall be significantly and substantially varied to avoid repetitive rows of housing and monotonous streetscapes. For example, providing distinct single-family detached dwellings or two-family dwellings on larger lots and on corners and providing small lot single- family dwellings on smaller lots abutting common open spaces fronting on streets are methods that accomplish this requirement. (c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement: 1. Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages. 2. Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages. 3. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than four thousand [4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty [40] feet or less) if there is a difference of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet between the average lot size for small lot single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages. 4. Two-family dwellings. 5. Single-family attached dwellings. 6. Mixed-use dwelling units. 7. Multi-family dwellings (limited to twelve [12] dwelling units per building); 8. Mobile home parks. 311 Waterfield ODP Modification Request – Housing Types Page 2 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com (d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than eighty (80) percent or less than five (5) percent of the total number of dwelling units. Reason for the Request The Waterfield development was initially planned in 1997 and at that time the entire site was zoned LMN. The Project Development Plan included a variety of housing types, a school site, a park site, a neighborhood center and a natural area around the wetland. In 2009 the City changed the zoning on the existing Bull Run apartment site and approximately 13 acres north of it, to encourage multi-family housing at the intersection of the two enhanced travel corridors (Timberline and New Vine). The zoning was changed from LMN to MMN as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea planning process. The owner of the property at the time did not participate in the process that resulted in the property being rezoned. The Applicant does not have an issue with providing multi- family housing near the intersection of the enhanced travel corridors (Timberline and New Vine). However, the result of 13 acres being rezoned to MMN along with the City’s new requirement for four housing types in the LMN District has resulted in a serious hardship for the remaining Waterfield property. There is currently 103 acres of land zoned LMN. After removing the school site, the park site, the neighborhood center, the natural area and the right-of-way for New Vine Drive there is approximately 47 acres left for residential development within the area zoned LMN. Given that Bull Run apartments exists and that another 13 acres adjacent to New Vine Drive is planned for multi-family development, a fourth housing type in the remaining LMN area isn’t needed to accomplish the City’s goal of providing a variety of housing types. The Applicant believes that the Waterfield site is an excellent location for single family homes on smaller lots, affordable for young families. The proximity to a park, an elementary school and a natural area support this view. The ODP as a whole incorporates four housing types excluding the existing Bull Run apartments. Three housing types are proposed in the LMN area including paired housing, alley-loaded houses and traditional single family lots. The developer proposes to meet the City’s density requirements in both the LMN and MMN portions of the project. The proposed development plan is supported by many City Plan policies and we believe achieves the intent of the City’s Land Use Code in regard to housing types and densities. It exemplifies the City’s principles and policies in regard to neighborhoods in the following ways:  Interconnected street and pedestrian network  Walkable blocks  Varied housing types and models  Multi-family design variation  Interesting streetscapes  Integrates natural features  Provides neighborhood parks, open space and trails 312 Waterfield ODP Modification Request – Housing Types Page 3 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com  Coordinates planning with schools  Fosters a sense of community with school  Provides a neighborhood center The Applicant is requesting to be allowed to develop three housing types in the LMN portion of the ODP, rather than four as the Land Use Code would normally require. Justifications The Land Use Code states that 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 the decision-maker must also find that the Modification meets one of the following four criteria described in the LUC. (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; We believe the Waterfield Overall Development Plan (ODP) will promote the general purpose of the standard which is to provide a variety of housing choices equally well or better than a plan that would comply with the standard. For example, we could remove a portion of single family homes and add another multi- family project and meet the requirement for a fourth housing type in the LMN. Given that 176 multi-family units already exist (Bull Run apartments) and more are planned for the future immediately adjacent to the LMN site, we don’t believe adding more multi- family units serves the market or the community very well. Generally speaking, growing families prefer to live in a single family home with a back yard for kids to play, where pets can be accommodated and the family can grow a garden if they choose to. Proximity to a future park and elementary school makes the site ideal for the kind of housing young families typically try to find. We believe that the proposed single family lots, alley-loaded lots and paired homes provide the appropriate housing choices for this emerging neighborhood. (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 313 Waterfield ODP Modification Request – Housing Types Page 4 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com 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 as proposed would provide housing types that are most sought after by young families in a price range that is affordable for the average family. (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; Requiring a fourth housing type in the LMN area creates hardship in the following ways: 1. The fourth housing type (multi-family, townhomes, mixed-use dwellings, lots under 4,000 SF or mobile homes) would not be as desirable for the target market which is young families. Adding one of these other housing types reduces the number of lots that are intended to serve the target market. Forcing a developer/builder to provide housing without a market demand for that housing will increase the cost of development and ultimately the housing cost to the consumer. 2. The Waterfield property was originally planned in 1997 and amended in 2003. While the planning approvals have lapsed, we believe the City should give some consideration to the development challenges that exist because of circumstances out of the Applicants control. Although all of these issues are not directly related to a fourth housing type, they do contribute to the cost of development and have an impact on the ultimate success of the project. Adding a fourth housing type that is less marketable just increases the hardship. The following changes have occurred since 2003:  The alignment of Vine Drive on the Master Street Plan has shifted to the north, dividing the development plan with a four-lane arterial street with a 115-foot right-of- way and designated as an enhanced travel corridor. The new street adds additional cost burden without adding value to the project. Typically, four-lane arterials are section line roads that are located on the edge of the property where the developer is required to dedicate only one-half, or 57.5 feet, of the full dedication. In the case of New Vine, however, this developer will be required to dedicate the full 115 feet since New Vine bisects the property. 314 Waterfield ODP Modification Request – Housing Types Page 5 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com  The new Vine Drive separates the existing school site from the existing park site and reduces the size of the park by 1.6 acres.  The 10-acre school site is now situated along a 4-lane arterial, which the school district finds unacceptable. The developer must now re-negotiate with the school district and parks department to change location in order to gain back the synergy gained from having the school site next to the park.  The natural resource value of the wetland/pond has declined. The City’s Natural Resource Division is no longer interested in purchasing the area partially because it is no longer combined with a park and school site as originally envisioned.  Since the Waterfield development was originally planned in 1997 City Plan was adopted creating another layer of requirements that did not exist before. In 1997 the entire site was zoned LMN. In 2009 the City changed the zoning on the Bull Run apartment site and approximately 13 acres north of it, to encourage multi-family housing at the intersection of the two enhanced travel corridors (Timberline and New Vine). The zoning was changed from LMN to MMN as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea planning process. In a different planning process, the City’s Land Use Code was changed to add requirements for additional housing types in the LMN District, such that parcels containing more than 20 acres are required to include 4 housing types. The effect of these two changes on the Waterfield property is significant. The project as a whole is proposing four housing types; however, because of the changes to the zoning, the proposed development plan requires a Modification to allow just three housing types in the LMN portion of the property. The re-zoning of the land north of Bull Run effectively locked in the fourth housing type for the Waterfield development when viewed as a whole project (versus as individual and separate zone districts). Given all these constraints and City imposed change, we believe the Waterfield development should be allowed some flexibility in how four housing types are viewed. The changes have resulted in significant hardships for the developers of the property.  A school site was dedicated and now the proposed alignment of New Vine makes it unacceptable as a school site. The land does not automatically revert back to the owner, nor is the developer automatically exempted from impact fees that the City collects for the school district. (fees that were not required in 1997 when the school site was dedicated)  The ROW of New Vine will absorb approximately one third of the dedicated park site, so additional land is needed for a viable park site.  The New Vine alignment separates the park site and the school site, effectively eliminating the synergy created when the two uses are adjacent to each other. This separation also affected the Natural Resource Division‘s decision to not purchase the natural area.  The New Vine Drive increases the burden of land dedication, financing and construction of streets. 315 Waterfield ODP Modification Request – Housing Types Page 6 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com  The wetland/pond area that had been planned as a City owned and maintained natural area now will have to be maintained by the future HOA and the developer is required to provide a 100-foot buffer around the wetland.  When the zoning of the southeast portion of the property was changed to MMN it generated a requirement for increased density on Parcel B (13-acre site north of Bull Run) and on the LMN portion remaining by virtue of still requiring 4 housing types. It’s very difficult to build a fourth product with only ten units (5% of the total in L-M- N). The cost of designing the product would make it difficult without spreading that cost over many more units. It would also be difficult to market because of the inability to have model units that prospective buyers could view. (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. The request for three housing types in the remaining LMN zone is inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan that originally included the existing Bull Run apartments. Consider the following:  The Bull Run apartments and an additional 13 acres to the north of Bull Run were rezoned to MMN in 2009 without the owner’s participation.  The area was zoned MMN to encourage multi-family housing at the intersection of two enhanced travel corridors (Timberline and New Vine). This ODP does propose multi-family development at the intersection.  If the rezoning had not occurred, and the 13 acres were still in the LMN zone, no Modification would be required, because four housing types are proposed. It appears that the ODP as proposed provides the kind of housing choices that City Plan envisioned. In order to meet the requirement, approximately ten dwelling units would need to fall into one of the following housing type categories: multi- family, townhomes, mixed-use dwellings, lots under 4,000 SF or mobile homes. We don’t believe that 10 units of an additional housing type would advance the purposes of the Land Use Code better than the plan as proposed. 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 1 Neighborhood Meeting Summary Project: Waterfield Overall Development Plan and Phase One P.D.P. Date: May 30, 2013 Applicant: Curly Rishell, Parker Land Investments Jim Dullea, Parker Land Investments Consultant: Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Matt Delich, Delich and Associates Cody Snowden, Northern Engineering Planner: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, C.D.N.S. The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. This is a request to subdivide the 117 acres located generally on the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and Timberline Road. The project would wrap around the north and west sides of the existing Bull Run Apartments. The project does not include the Plummer School. The site contains two zone districts. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone contains approximately 38 acres and is proposed for 178 single family detached homes and 16 single family attached homes. The Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood contains approximately 13 acres and is planned for multi-family housing with an estimated number of 216 dwelling units. The overall site also contains land area for a future public elementary school (approximately ten acres) and a future public neighborhood park (approximately six acres). There are existing wetlands on the parcel. Waterfield was originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2003. Both of these plans have expired. The project would be developed in phases. Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. What about the wetlands? I have lived in the area and seen the wetlands range in size from small to large depending on whether it’s a dry year or a wet year. During the wet years, the wetlands provide a wildlife benefit. The size of the wetlands should be indicated on your plans. A. We will have the wetland boundary delineated by a professional ecologist, Cedar Creek and Associates, using the most sound scientific criteria. The size of the wetland will indeed be indicated because its size forms the basis for establishing 324 2 the extent of the 100-foot buffer. Please note that we do not intend to fill the wetland but rather enhance the quality with additional plants to promote wildlife habitat. 2. Traffic is an issue in this part of town primarily due to the congestion caused by the railroad crossings at Lemay/Vine and Timberline/Vine. You can’t count on the future easterly extension of Conifer to relieve this congestion because Conifer would have to cross the Weiss’s property and the horse pasture and the Weiss’s are not planning on developing their land anytime soon. A. You are correct. The two north – south streets that you mention are impacted by the train crossings. And, there is no definite timeframe for the extension of Conifer. These conditions will be factored into the Transportation Impact Study that will be required to be submitted to the City for evaluation. Part of the solution to the train crossings is to construct “New Vine” about one-quarter mile north of existing Vine Drive which will have the effect of pulling the intersections further away from the railroad tracks. 3. The Timberline crossing of the railroad tracks is very rough and needs to be improved. Its present condition is unacceptable and in no shape to handle the new Waterfield traffic. A. That is correct, the crossing is very rough. The City has made the railroad aware of the problem and the railroad indicated they would make the necessary improvements. 4. Will there by a traffic study? A. Response from Matt Delich: Yes, the traffic study will begin with obtaining traffic counts on the affected roads. The counts will be taken while school is in session. The City requires a study to include two projections – one for the short term (2018) and one for the long term (2035). The study will analyze the impact at the following intersections: • East Vine and Timberline • East Vine and Lemay • East Vine and Merganser 5. Until “New Vine” is constructed and Conifer is extended, what are the access points for this project: A. Regardless of the timing of these future roads, there will be four points of access; two on East Vine and two on Timberline. 6. How far west will Waterfield extend “New Vine”? 325 3 A. “New Vine would be extended to the west property line. 7. Obviously traffic will increase due to this project. Are there any plans to install a traffic signal at East Vine and Timberline? It seems as if the congestion level calls for a new signal. A. Part of our Transportation Impact Analysis will be to estimate the number of trips generated by this project and the direction these trips will go and the impact on the roadways at the peak times of day. We will evaluate whether or not a signal is warranted at this intersection and make a finding accordingly. 8. Will there be turn lanes on Timberline north of East Vine Drive? A. The necessity of turn lanes will be a part of our analysis. Just like traffic signals, turn lanes need to meet established criteria in order to be recommended for installation. 9. What is the significance of the year 2018 in terms of the traffic study? A. This is a design year specified by the City Traffic Operations Department and considered to be a short term analysis. For each of the five years, the background traffic is adjusted based on projected increase in surrounding area. 10. When will “New Vine” be fully constructed? A. Since this road is planned to be built by developers as growth occurs instead of one, single, City-funded capital project, there really is no time table. 11. As to growth in general and new residential subdivisions in particular, I’m very concerned about the shifting of water from agriculture to domestic water taps. This area is part of Northern Colorado that benefits from a reliable water supply and an existing network of irrigation ditches. Not all of our region enjoys these attributes. It seems like a misallocation of resources, therefore, to remove irrigated crop land and replace with a subdivision. Water is needed for agriculture which produces food. Houses, on the other hand, simply consume water for the life of the house. We should be building up our urban area and not out into the farm land. 12. What about the vacant land to the west? It seems we are leap-frogging over vacant land as growth approaches the fringe of the city. 13. What about design? Are the multi-family buildings designed? A. No, these buildings will be designed by the multi-family developer at a future phase. The maximum height is three stories. 326 4 14. What is the maximum height of the single family houses? A. These houses can be up to 2.5 stories in height. 15. When do you plan on beginning the project? A. We anticipate that it will take about 9 – 12 months to complete the City’s entitlement process and then we would begin with earth work. 16. What is the average lot size? A. We are looking at lots that would be around 7,000 (plus or minus) square feet. There would be some variety due to the lots where the streets curve. Lot widths would be around 60 feet and lot depth would vary. We are seeking to provide a versatile lot size that is desired by the area builders that would accommodate most of the popular house models. 17. What about average selling price? A. The selling price has not been determined yet. 18. What about drainage? Where does the water go? A. Originally, with the previously approved plan, most of the stormwater drained to the southwest into the wetlands. This may still be the case but now, water quality measures must be installed to pre-treat the runoff before entering the wetlands. 19. What about the existing ditch on the west side of Merganser? A. This ditch is not needed and we plan on filling it. 20. What do you estimate the build-out period to be? A. We think a project of this size would take two to three years to complete. 21. Can we object to the number of proposed houses? A. We are required by the L-M-N zoning to provide a minimum of four dwelling units per acre. We are required by the M-M-N zoning to provide a minimum of seven units per acre. 22. We farm the property to the west and we are very concerned about having a residential subdivision next to our farming operation. We are concerned that there may be complaints about use of our tractors, dust, aerial spraying, use of pesticides and other aspects of farming. We are concerned about trespassing onto our property. We are concerned about loose dogs. We would like the 327 5 developer to provide a fence along our east property line so these issues can be addressed. We agree with the previous comment about desiring fewer homes. A. We are willing to discuss providing a fence. 23. Will there be any type of subsidy for low income persons or families? A. No. the homes will be priced at the prevailing market rate. 24. Remind me again why “New Vine” is shifted about one-quarter mile north from then present alignment? A. This proposed alignment is to pull the road away from the railroad tracks. And, if overpasses are constructed for Lemay and Tmberline to go over the tracks, the new alignment is far enough north for these roads to come back down to grade level. 328 329 330 331 332 333 02013 0.5 1 1.5 2 Printed: October 10, Miles Scale 1:100,000 © Note: in accordance Other collector with adopted and local sub-streets area, corridor, not shown and will neighborhood be developed plans of the city. Streets and are and not part Arterials of the outside Master of Street GMA Plan. are shown for contextual purposes only The City of Fort Collins is not fiscally responsible for these improvements. > Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing R Potential Interchange Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes City Limits Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA INTERSTATE Streets Railroads Unincorporated Land in GMA Outside GMA Amended:1981 Adopted: September March 17, 3, 2013 CITY GEOGRAPHICCOLLINS OF FORT INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These and were map not products designed and or all intended underlying for general data are use developed by members for use of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in labeling thereon. or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or may not be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. 299 l Cir S V i e w C i r Adriel Way Oswego Dr V i c o t W a y Mer g a n s e r Dr E Vine Dr N Timberline Rd © Waterfield ODP 1 inch = 800 feet Site 297 w C i r Adriel Way Oswego Dr V i c o t W a y Mer g a n s e r Dr E Vine Dr N Timberline Rd © Waterfield ODP 1 inch = 800 feet Site 296 nning and Zo an Enterpri ent. We beli stimulating a additional e Collins conti eas for new area. With it AX system as d attractions n Flats also ooking for. cation, upsca vides a lifest tant factor t our time an t of Fort Col Estate erprises NC | 416 W. nner pment oning Board ses would l ieve this pro additional d conomic act nues to gro w developme ts urban sty s well as pro s. exemplifies Professiona ale design, u tyle that our that aids in nd considera lins. . Oak St. | Fo d, ike to provi oject holds t developmen tivity for loc w, it is impo ent that mai yle and atten ovide walka s the type of als will be d urban living r employees the success ation on this ort Collins, C ide our supp the potentia nt in the nor cal business ortant to en intains the i ntion to tra ability to th f housing th drawn to the g and attrac s desire to b s of our com s matter. I l CO 80521 | 9 port for the al to impact rthern part ses. ncourage cre integrity an ansit, this pr e Old Town hat many of e project as ctive amenit be a part of mpany. look forwar 970.494.5413 e Old Town t Downtown of Old Town eative nd style of roject will n area stores our it possesse ties. Old and we feel rd to seeing n n s, es l 174 EYEBROW BEYOND EYEBROW BEYOND WATER TABLE 1'-0" "JULIET" BALCONY T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE BALCONY BEYOND- TYPICAL ENTRY CANOPY 5" T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE BALCONY - TYPICAL ROOF ELEMENT ENTRY CANOPY T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE PORCH BALCONY 5'-5" 11" 2'-6" EYEBROW T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE PORCH BEYOND BALCONY BEYOND 5" 3'-3" ROOF CORNICE 10" T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PROPERTY LINE BALCONY - TYPICAL PORCH EYEBROW CORNICE 1'-7" T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING ROOM SINGLE BIKE RACK PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 10/30/2013 3:03:31 PM C:\Revit Local Files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_pschultz.rvt As indicated OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 SECTIONS & TYPICAL UNIT PLANS PDP 3 OLD TOWN FLATS REVISIONS: 8/25/2013 1 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 1 2 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 2 3 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 3 4 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 4 5 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 5 6 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 6 7 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 7 8 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 8 9 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 9 10 PDP 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 10 11 TYPICAL 1/4" = 1'-0" UNIT PLAN NOTE: EACH UNIT TO RECIEIVE (1) BIKE RACK - 118 TOTAL. 10/24/2013 10/31/2013 139 CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 10/30/2013 3:12:31 PM C:\revit local files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_janastasi.rvt 3/32" = 1'-0" OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP 2.2 OLD TOWN FLATS 1 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 2 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 0' 4' 8' 16' 32' REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 10/24/2013 10/31/2013 138 T.O. ROOF PARAPET @ STAIR 162'-8" 159'-8" -18" +18" +3" +29" +16" +11" +0" 10 7 +12" +23" +0" +18" +35" +46" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 8" LEVEL 3 123' - 0" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 5 143' - 8" 12' - 8" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 10' - 4" 8 PDP 3 9 PDP 3 10 PDP 3 4 12 12 ROOFTOP 3 4 MECHANICAL UNITS EYEBROW CORNICE 3 10 11 1 4 1 7 11 1 10 4 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ENTRY CANOPY/TRELLIS FITNESS ROOM ENTRY UNIT ENTRIES UNIT ENTRY UNIT ENTRY 4 PDP 3 Sim 6 PDP 3 Sim 1 PDP 3 Sim 12 4 T.O. PARAPET 157' - 4" PARAPET @ STAIR 159'-8" +36" 13' - 8" +0" +0" +0" +41" +36" +41" +53" +36" +0" +41" +30" +5" +36" +41" +53" -8" +0" +21" -19" +41" +41" +53" 12 5 PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/31/2013 PS EI OZ 10/30/2013 3:12:16 PM C:\revit local files\113026_B_Block23_A13\113026_B_Block23_A13_janastasi.rvt As indicated OLD TOWN FLATS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 113026.00 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP 2.1 OLD TOWN FLATS 1 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 2 PDP 3/32" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 0' 4' 8' 16' 32' 1. BRICK, COLOR: ORANGE 2. STUCCO W/ REVEALS, COLOR: MEDIUM TAN 11. METAL GUARDRAIL, COLOR: BLACK 6. CEMENT LAP SIDING, COLOR: GRAY 7. METAL SHINGLE, COLOR: ZINC 3. STUCCO W/ REVEALS, COLOR: MEDIUM RED 8. CEMENT PANEL, COLOR: OFF-WHITE 9. CEMENT PANEL, COLOR: MEDIUM TAN 4. STUCCO W/ REVEALS, COLOR: OFF-WHITE MATERIAL LEGEND 10. VINYL WINDOW, COLOR: WHITE 5. GROUND-FACE MASONRY, COLOR: BROWN/GRAY MIX WITH ACCENT BANDS NOTES 1. ALL ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED FROM STREET LEVEL VIEW WITHIN 550' OF SITE. 2. SIGNAGE IS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SIGNAGE TO BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE PERMIT PROCESS. REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 12. SPLIT-FACE MASONRY, COLOR: BROWN/GRAY MIX 10/31/2013 +36" WALL PLANE DIMENSION (RELATIVE TO BASE WALL) 137 VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE OLD TOWN FLATS MASON & MAPLE STREETS SHEET INDEX FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SHEET # SHEET NAME NORTH REVISIONS: 9/25/2013 10/31/2013 134 1/0 27/14 156/148 52/6 37/67 6/108 3/45 7/170 34/8 1560/2310 105/129 169/15 1993/1995 82/118 8/4 24/13 2/9 0/2 7/27 3/13 29/15 3/13 4/7 12/5 15/6 11/6 2244/2128 1585/2496 19/51 101/68 132/246 15/58 232/173 1/6 35/20 6/3 NOM 65/33 1/4 10/42 25/13 NOM AM/PM 91 10/5 2/1 10/39 1/3 12/6 33/17 90 Rock Creek Lady Moon HP East Cinquefoil LeFever Presidio Access 22/8 0/1 5/19 8/33 19/10 20/10 126/221 NOM 213/164 NOM NOM NOM NOM 55/28 NOM 10/41 NOM NOM AM/PM 88