HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final Agenda PacketRevised
AGENDA
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, December 12, 2013
TIME: 6:00 P.M.
PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West,
300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO
A. Roll Call
B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, December 12, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00
p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 6:00
p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West.
C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application
topics)
D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or
concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning
Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board,
staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda.
1. Minutes from the November 14, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
2. Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning #ANX130002
This is a request for annexation of 88.21 acres located north of Fossil Creek
Reservoir, approximately 1,320 feet south of Kechter Road, 2,640 feet east of South
Timberline Road, just west of Ziegler Road, and southwest of Kinard Middle School.
The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN - Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood and UE - Urban Estate.
Applicant: Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc.
401 W Mountain Avenue, #100, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Staff: Lindsay Ex
Link for Attachments: Item Attachments
3. Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan #PDP130014
This is a request to subdivide 15.23 acres into 76 lots for single-family detached
homes. The site is located along the west side of Joseph Allen Drive and is
approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of Joseph Allen Drive and East Drake
Road. A Union Pacific/Southern Pacific rail line is located approximately 75 feet west
of the parcel. The project contains approximately 13 acres in the L-M-N, Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district and 2 acres in the E, Employment zone district.
Applicant: Terence Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, P.O. Box 1889
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1889
Staff: Jason Holland
Link for Attachments: Item Attachments
4. “Link-N-Greens” Community Commercial-Poudre River Zone District
This is a request to consider an Amendment to the Community Commercial-Poudre
River (CCR) District permitting Campus Employment uses.
Applicant: City of Fort Collins
Staff: Laurie Kadrich
E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on
the following items:
5. Front Range Community College Integrated Technology Building Site Plan
Advisory Review, #SPA130006
This is a request to construct a 29,000 square foot Integrated Technology Building on
the Front Range Community College’s (FRCC) Larimer Campus. The new building
includes lab space for instruction and training, multiple support classrooms and staff
offices that support the Integrated Technology Program, which provides instruction in
welding, automotive and clean technology trades. The new building is proposed to be
located over an existing surface parking lot on the east side of the campus. FRCC
proposes a minimum of a 70 foot setback from the Coventry Subdivision to the east,
and that will include a landscaped bufferyard and pedestrian trail.
Applicant: Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526
Staff: Cameron Gloss
Link for Attachments: Item Attachments
6. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment, #MJA130006
This is a request for a major amendment to the existing Foothills Mall Redevelopment
Project Development Plan. As proposed, the Phase Two major amendment generally
consists of changes to the project's commercial component resulting in a 10%
decrease of commercial building square footage from the previously approved plan.
The site is 60.82 acres in size and is zoned General Commercial (C-G) as well as
located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District.
Applicant: Mr. Bryan McFarland, Alberta Development Partners
5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210, Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Staff: Courtney Levingston
Link to related files: Foothills Redevelopment Additional Attachments
ATTACHMENT KEY:
1. Site Plan Set
2. Landscape Plan Set
3. Tree Mitigation Plans
4. Building Elevations
5. Parking Structure Elevations
6. Lighting Plan Set
7. Preliminary Plat
8. Updated Traffic Study (2013)
9. Memo to updated Traffic Study
10. Previously approved PDP set (February 2013)
a. PDP Site Plans
b. PDP Landscape Plans
c. PDP Commercial Elevations
11. Phase Two Major Amendment Rendering Set
F. Other Business
G. Adjourn
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 14, 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 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Vidergar, Wray, Shepard, Ex, Levingston, Gloss, Virata,
Holland, Stanford, Olson, Gingerich, and Sanchez-Sprague
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Kadrich reviewed the agenda.
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.
Citizen participation:
None
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the October 10, 2013 Hearing
2. 3 Mile Plan Update
4. Mail Creek Annexation & Zoning, #ANX130001
5. Foothills Redevelopment Overall Development Plan, # ODP130004
6. Provincetown Filing 3, 1 Year Extension of Vested Rights, #73-82X/Y
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 2
Chair Smith asked if staff or any member of the audience or board wished to pull any items from the
Consent Agenda. A member of the audience requested Terra Vida II Apartments PDP to be moved to
discussion.
Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consisted of the Minutes of
the October 10, 2013 Hearing, 3 Mile Plan Update, Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning, Foothills
Redevelopment ODP, and Provincetown File 3 One Year Extension of Vested Rights. Member
Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
3 Terra Vida II Apartments PDP, #PDP130028
7. Old Town Flats – Block 23 PDP, # PDP130022
8. Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care PDP, #PDP130024
9. Waterfield ODP, # ODP130002
_______
Project: Terra Vida II Apartments Project Development Plan, # PDP130028
Project Description: 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.
Recommendation: Approval of the Modification of Standard and the PDP
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said 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.)
He said multi-family and mixed-use dwelling units are permitted within the Basic Industrial Non-Retail
Employment Activity Center of the Harmony Corridor. The PDP complies with the applicable standards
of both the Harmony Corridor Plan and the H-C zone. Further, the PDP complies with the applicable
General Development Standards with two exceptions. Two Modifications of Standards have been
requested. The 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. The 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. Staff recommends approval.
Applicant Presentation
Paul Campbell of Campbell Architects said they met criteria in all respects for the project – they are not
asking for any waivers. He’s available for questions.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 3
Public Input
Brinda Choquette, 3802 Eclipse Lane, said there is not enough parking in her Observatory Village
neighborhood. She thinks the project, like its predecessor Presidio I, did not plan for the parking needs
of their residents especially after 6 p.m. She thinks the parking needs, especially with Fossil Ridge High
School and Banner Health coming in the near future will only add to the demand for spaces. She thinks
plowing snow will be difficult and that the buildings are too close to the sidewalks and streets. She thinks
they should have more landscaping.
John Zak, 5038 Brookfield Dr, said he has similar concerns in terms of the parking. Another issue is the
entrance to Lady Moon from Harmony. He believes there is a safety issue. Lady Moon is very narrow so
when traveling east on Harmony, you have to slow down in a 55 mph zone to make a right turn. He
thinks the estimated 500 people who will be added to that area will only exacerbate the problems. He
does like the architecture of Presidio I and would hate to see more ‘military like barracks’.
Susan Epstein, 3915 Rock Creek Dr, said she’d like to second the comments made by Zak related to the
need for a right turn lane from Harmony to Lady Moon and the aesthetics of the building. She hopes
they do something better with Phase II.
End of Public Input
Applicant’s Response
Campbell said Terra Vida II (Phase II) is not a clone of Terra Vida I (aka Presidio I). There will be more
variety and color. It’ll have a different color palette. He said the architectural elements meet the criteria
of the Land Use Code (LUC) for architectural variety.
Staff Response
Shepard said both projects will comply with minimum parking requirement on a per bedroom/per unit
basis. The standards are time tested and result in a ‘tight’ parking lot with the intent not to over build
parking lots. Overbuilt parking lots have aesthetic issues such as storm water and water quality issues.
He said there should be a sufficient amount of parking within each of the apartment projects and the
garages are sized to accommodate a typical automobile.
Shepard said in terms of the buildings being close to the street, yes they are. It’s a part of a new
urbanism design principle. The principle welcomes people to walk or bike into them and through them.
Terra Vida I (aka Presidio I) and II allow for that. Shepard said there should be enough room in the travel
lanes of Precision Drive for two cars to pass with parked cars on both sides. He reviewed the aesthetics
of the Terra Vida II project using elevation graphics.
Engineering Department staff member Marc Virata said with relation to the street width, Precision is a 30
foot wide flow-line to flow-line street. It’s the same as most streets in that area. With relation to
eastbound traffic on Harmony turning south onto Lady Moon, the Banner development will be building a
right turn lane on eastbound Harmony to southbound Lady Moon.
Board questions
Chair Smith asked what type of changes have been made to the design guidelines since Presidio I was
approved. Shepard referred to LUC 3.8.30 and page 9 of the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick said she
thought those changes were made to improve the architecture of multi-family structures. Shepard said
the standards refer to setbacks minimum setbacks along arterial streets, variation among repeated
buildings, variation in color, entrances, roofs, facades and walls.
Member Kirkpatrick asked about landscaping requirements. Shepard said there will be a street tree
located at least every 40 feet in the parkway. Areas between the sidewalks and buildings will have
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 4
foundation shrubs and earthen berms. In the area by the garage there will be earthen berms and
landscape materials. He indicated areas where there are opportunities for enhanced landscaping.
Member Kirkpatrick referred to neighborhood meeting notes and said there was some reference to not
being in compliance with the terms of your lease if you parked outside the development. Will that be
different for Terra Vida II? How is that enforced? Campbell said he’s afraid he does not have first-hand
knowledge of the language that’s in the lease.
Member Kirkpatrick asked staff asked what would be the appropriate department to contact if there are
parking issues. Shepard suggested contacting Planning Services at 221-6750 and they will sit down with
the appropriate Transportation Planning, Parking or Engineering staff and start to put together a game
plan.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if a snow plow fits on the street if cars are parked on either side. Shepard
said yes, a plow is as wide as a travel lane.
Board Discussion
Member Hart moved the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard for
Section 3.5.2(D)(1) to allow Buildings 5 and 9 to have entrances that do not face the street or
highway and are slightly further than 200 feet from a public sidewalk. This Modification complies
with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H) in that the granting of the Modification would not be
detrimental to the public good and the PDP 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 because of the findings, facts and
conclusions contained in the amended staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 7:0.
Member Hart moved the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard for
Section 3.5.2(G) (1) to allow Garages 17, 19, and 20 to have rear elevations along Precision Drive
that exceed 55 feet. This Modification complies with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H) in that the
granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the PDP as
proposed will promote the overall purpose of the standard in a manner that is equal or better than
a plan that would comply with the standard. This is because in an alternative design, apartment
buildings could be place on the perimeter with garages within the interior but his would not have
the negative effect of providing pedestrian access to the clubhouse and open space area. And,
the PDP, 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. This is
based on the findings, facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the
motion. The motion was passed 7:0.
Member Hart moved the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Terra Vida II Project
Development Plan, # PDP130028 based on the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report.
Member Hatfield seconded the motion.
Chair Smith thanked the citizens that spoke to the issue.
The motion was approved 7:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 5
_______
Project: Old Town Flats – Block 23 Project Development Plan, # PDP130022
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. The site is zoned D, Downtown, Civic Center Sub-district.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Member Carpenter recused herself.
Staff Presentation
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said 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.
Shepard said 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.
Shepard stated the PDP 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. Staff
recommends approval.
Applicant Presentation
Kevin Brinkman and Dave Derbes of Brinkman Partners as well as and Eduardo Llanes of Oz
Architecture made the applicant’s presentation. Brinkman said Block 23, except for the proposed project,
is owned by a bank. They will develop the southwest quadrant—or lots 17-20. He provided an overview
of the surrounding area and stated he thinks the development would provide a catalyst for the
development the land remaining in Block 23. Derbes stated the building will be a for-rent building for
active professionals who want to avail themselves of downtown amenities. From their experience with
other Mason Corridor projects, they’ve seen a significant demand for this type of project with staff from
Woodward and Otter Box potential tenants. It’ll be a high end product with high quality finishes and will
have a strong presence at the corner of Mason and Maple.
Derbes reviewed the site plan and the streetscape and indicated the project will have 84 private parking
spaces and 132 bike parking spaces –34 will be in the units. He said the streetscape will enhance the
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 6
pedestrian experience along Mason and provide great connectivity between the North Transit Center and
the Discovery Museum. He said the Downtown Development Authority was on board as evidenced by
their letter dated November 14.
Eduardo Llanes of Oz Architecture reviewed the architectural elements and stated their goal was to
anchor the building in the downtown area and to create an environment with inviting iconic elements. He
said there will be distinct differences between Mason (western side) and Maple (southern side).
In closing, Brinkman said he believed the project is compatible with the surrounding properties, meets
LUC standards, and has received full support from the DDA.
Public input
None
Board Questions
Member Kirkpatrick asked if they had considered expanding the alleyway to an intentional thoroughfare
for automobiles for this project and others. She said at a work session discussion there was some
concern on how the remainder of that site might be difficult to accommodate access because it is fairly
constrained. Traffic Operations Ward Stanford said the alleyway is somewhat constrained by the quiet
zone study that is taking place. The Cherry Street access will be impacted by that study. The Traffic
Department would not want to enhance access as it could cause backups to the Cherry and College
intersection. He said it could be a possibility on the Maple side and future development would be more
of a ‘player’ on what happens with that alley than this project.
Member Hart said his question came more from neighborhood comments than board purview. Hart
asked what type of ownership will the residents have? Brinkman said it’s a ‘for rent’ project. Brinkman
said ownership is always a possibility but nothing they’re considering right now.
Member Hart asked how issues on the north side of that building would be affected in the winter time.
Shepard said staff is expecting that at some point there we be a building on the northwest quarter of
Block 23 that would shield/mitigate/screen that wall.
Member Kirkpatrick said in the notes from the neighborhood meeting were comments related to
screening to block headlights. She asked how that’ll be addressed. Derbes said it will be addressed by
a retaining wall, earthwork, and landscaping. In total it will bring the elevation up by 6 feet.
Board Discussion
Member Kirkpatrick moved to approve Old Town Flats – Block 23, Project Development Plan
#PDP130022 based on the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Heinz
seconded the motion.
Member Kirkpatrick said she thinks it’s a beautiful project and has done a remarkable job of tying into
history. She thinks they were very clever about meeting the market where it is now and building a
building that meets the hopes of City Plan by having the potential for mix of uses if the market allows.
Kirkpatrick said she thinks they took something really challenging and made it into an asset.
Chair Smith agreed. He said in the past there has been concern about the bookends that were the
Discovery Museum and the North Transit Center and the pedestrian experience coming from old town
north along Mason. What they’ve done with the linear park enhances that pedestrian experience by
encouraging people to walk north.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 7
The motion passed 6:0.
Member Carpenter returned to Chambers.
_______
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman recused himself.
Project: Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care Project Development Plan,
PDP130024
Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (PDP) 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.
Recommendation: Approval of Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Applicant Presentation
Matt Turner said Morningstar was founded in Colorado in 2003 with the following foundational principals:
honor God in our business practices and relationships, value all seniors as gifted and contributing
individuals, and invest generously in our employee’s ability to serve. He said the project goals are:
1. Provide a high-quality option for aging residents to stay in Fort Collins when their care needs
increase
2. Enhance and compliment the neighborhood
3. Create low-impact economic engine:
• 60+ new jobs; $1.6mm+ annual payroll
• Millions in new fees and taxes to City
• Facilitate gentrification of older homes
• Low traffic, minimal use of city resources/infrastructure
He said in direct response to neighborhood feedback, they spent six months redesigning a Fort Collins
site specific project that considered:
1. Drainage and flooding issues
2. Traffic
3. Building proximity to homes
4. Building Height
5. Noise and trash
Don Rossman of Rossman and Associates (Architects) said this irregular shaped infill site provides a
place for residents who have lived in the community to remain. Rossman described the site location, the
proposed project, and the challenges with regard to grade and addressing the concerns of the neighbors.
He provided an aerial view looking west of the project fully built out. He noted how the building had been
stepped down to a single story closest to affected neighbors to mitigate massing. He described
elevations and connectivity to the community. He said a lot of effort had been made to make this project
work not only for the neighbors but for the community.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 8
Staff Presentation
Jason Holland said he had nothing to add at this point but that he was available for questions.
Public Input
Joseph Campesino, 3413 Rolling Green Drive, said he’d like to speak to the traffic problem. He said
there are really three rush hours a day (morning, noon, and evening). If one tries to exit Rolling Green
Drive onto Horsetooth heading east, it’s impossible. If you’re traveling east on Horsetooth and try to
make a left onto Rolling Green Drive, it’s literally impossible. The reason is the volume of traffic and the
two traffic lights that split the Lemay lights. The flow of additional traffic might be fine if we weren’t within
2,000 feet of the split Lemays. It’ll only compound the situation.
Abbye Silverstein, 3413 Rolling Green Dr, said she lives at the Collindale Condominiums-- the property
to the north of the proposed project. She reiterated the challenges of getting onto Horsetooth from
Rolling Green. She said for 30 years this piece of land has not been developed. To date there’ve been
single family, patio homes and condominiums. She’d like to know why others have not built. Is it difficult
because it’s a flood zone? She’d prefer patio homes. She thinks they’d blend better into the
neighborhood.
Warren Snyder, 1630 Collindale Drive, said his concerns are where the detention pond will be located
and traffic. He has concerns about drainage (there’s water there even though there hadn’t been any rain
since September). He also had concerns about traffic and the 42,000 square foot footprint when only
20,000 is allowed for that zone. He’d prefer an alternate facility.
Julie Charlson, 3500 Rolling Green Drive, said she’s a resident of Collindale Condominiums and a board
member of Collindale HOA (Homeowners Association). Charlson said she believes the board’s received
a summary sheet of Collindale’s concerns. It’s her wording but represents input from residents of
Collindale, and single family homes in the area. She thinks there’s been a lag in time of keep people
informed. She’d like to address two areas: the land issues and the building need. People think
Morningstar will contribute to problems in the area. She spoke of grade issues—higher on the east and
constructed two retaining walls and a fence. From the condo’s perspective, you’re looking at the walls
and fence even though they’ve tried to make it attractive. She’s concerned the third story units will look
down on the service road and the trash container. She said the parking lots are on the side where kids
walk to school and families go to the pool.
Charlson said it’s been rezoned for commercial. She doesn’t think we need any more private pay
facilities. She said engineering does not acknowledge their existing drainage issues. There is long term
standing water, mosquitoes, and slime. She thinks there should be a complete maintenance plan
between Morningstar and Faith (Property Management). She thinks we have over built apartments in
east Fort Collins. If people are holding back (in their input), they’re probably thinking it’s the lesser of two
evils. Will this project come by default? People are hoping it’ll remain residential with patio homes which
she thinks fit better in that area.
Valorie Laabs, 3500 Rolling Green, said she resides in the Collindale Condominiums. She said she’s
written two letters. In that letter she said she had no concerns about the project per se but they were
concerned about the drainage issues. She appreciates their stated values and how lovely the front
looks. She’d like to see back-side elevations and get some assurance that the landscaping will be okay
and that the water issues will be addressed. If she had a magic wand, she’d like to see patio homes. If
they can’t have patio homes, she’s glad to see this group is doing it. They seem to be sincere and
wanting to take care of the neighborhood.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 9
Applicant Response
Turner said he’ll respond to a couple of the comments and then he’ll refer to their engineer and to staff as
it relates to drainage. Turner said they are aware that there are multiple rush hour times during the day.
He was simply citing the highest traffic volumes that would result due to the project would be in the late
afternoon and early evening. Turner said with regard to the 20,000 max square foot limit is per footprint
and not a maximum for the site. That is the one modification they are requesting. He said he’s submitted
two letters—one from the daughter of the original landowner. She stated this use fits perfectly the
original owner’s concept for the community. Turner said with regard to taking the sign down and being
misled by the process, they didn’t remove any signs.
Bob Almirall, Civil Engineer with Interwest Consulting Group, said the site generally drains from east to
west in a concrete drain pan. There are two proposed extended detention ponds for the project. They
both provide water quality capture volume in addition to water quantity controls. The main pond is in the
northwest corner and treats ¾ of the site runoff. There is also a smaller pond in the southwest corner for
areas in the south portion of the site. Once the water enters the ditch and flows north, there was no
other way to treat or control the runoff. The site also needs to comply with recently adopted LID
standards with permeable pavers, rain gardens, and a grass swale along East Horsetooth. The
combination will help treat and slow the water runoff as well. He said City Code requires for this
particular site that they detain the water and release it at the 2 year historic rate. That is irrespective of
what is currently happening in the ditch. There are flows from Warren Lake (south of the site) and there
is a nuisance flow that does flow through there that is not being contributed from the Morningstar project
itself.
Rossman said the water that is in the ditch is primarily seepage from Warren Lake’s dam. The overflow
on that side comes through the culvert underneath East Horsetooth and continues in that ditch. There
was a comment made by one of the individuals that we’re grading and doing ‘worst’ things on their
property. Rossman said they cannot go past their property line so the grade that exists at the ditch today
is what the grades will be when they’re finished with their construction.
Rossman said with regard to what the landscaping would be, it is included in the board’s packet. He said
they still need to go the final approval process which will substantiate and reaffirm what the plans shows
today.
Staff Response
Chair Smith asked traffic staff to speak to the city’s view of current conditions and how this project
impacts it. Are there any future city plans for improvements? Traffic Operations Ward Stanford said the
gentlemen who described the situation between the two Lemays certainly has a very valid point. It’s a
difficult stretch of Horsetooth. The traffic east of that location is running about 21,000 per day and the
traffic that runs the western leg of Horsetooth is running about 26,000 per day and the in between is
running 31,000 per day due to the transition to Lemay. He said the traffic this project is going to place on
the roadway is negligible -- 15-25 vehicles a day during the peak hours/ 200 vehicles during a 24 hour
period. That’s about 9 vehicles per hour. He said those kinds of numbers being adding to 20,000 to
30,000 vehicles a day are ‘invisible’. The neighbors will continue to have trouble making left turns but
they won’t feel the increase. Stanford said the only real solutions are expensive signals which will
degrade the system (making worse congestion/the ability to move around town).
City Planner Holland said the shift changes associated with this project are off-peak. They have a shift
change at 7:45 a.m., 12:45 p.m., and 10:45 p.m.
Holland said with regard to the water questions, they will re-grade the eastern portion of the ditch. The
western side of the ditch (Collindale) is a little bit more even because it’s been consistently maintained
over the past 20 years. There was a question about the slime that’s in the 4 foot side drain pan. Holland
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 10
said once Morningstar completes the re-grading and terracing the site, they will clean the drain pan
surface and take it back to a fairly clean state as a part of getting their certification of the detention
ponds.
Holland said because of all the concerns expressed stormwater staff have checked the site closely to
make sure the ponds are functioning properly and that they meet stormwater criteria. With regard to
mosquitoes, Holland spoke with Jessica Church of Colorado Mosquito Control (CMC is the city
contractor for the mosquito monitoring program). Church said CMC monitors the ditch once a month and
to date have not seen any mosquito larvae. They will incorporate the detention ponds into their
monitoring system once they’re built. If there is any evidence of mosquito larvae, they’ll treat with
larvaecide.
Holland said the trash enclosure has been a concern. With the outcome of the 2nd neighborhood
meeting, they added an arbor over the top of the trash enclosure. There are still concerns by the
neighbors of the noise of the trash operations. Holland said there is some separation there. The nearest
point to the Collindale homes is 60 feet from the property line and then there’s another 20-25 feet to the
trash enclosure.
Holland said the majority of the water is coming from outflow from Lake Warren. That is intentional.
Stormwater staff explained when you build a dam, you have to have some hydrostatic pressure release
so the water flows year round.
Board Questions
Chair Smith asked who is responsible for maintenance of the concrete pan. Holland said it’s a private
drainage easement 50 feet wide. Twenty-five feet is on the Collindale property and 25 feet is on the
Morningstar property. It will be maintained by those entities.
Member Kirkpatrick said the materials provided the board gives her some degree of confidence that the
Morningstar project will not be contributing. Neighbors however are frustrated by existing conditions.
What would be their recourse? Holland said city stormwater staff could meet with the Collindale HOA to
talk more about the area. Its possible stormwater staff can give them a better understanding of their
options and recommendations on how they could potentially improve their portion of the ditch.
Member Kirkpatrick asked with a culvert was not selected as an option. The applicant’s project engineer
Bob Almirall said they did evaluate the possibility of putting it into a pipe. There are a couple of issues. If
there was a 100 storm event, 150 cfs (cubic feet per section) of water can be handled by the ditch. It
would take some very large (40-48”) pipes to carry that water. Once a pipe goes underground it would
pop out of the ground until well north of the property at the existing ditch and a lot of off-site construction
would be required. It would be a significant capital project.
Member Hart said he had the impression that the two detention ponds were actually going to reduce the
flow. Almirall said the rate of flow would be less than what is currently generated. He said the water will
eventually get there (they’re not holding it permanently based on Colorado law). It’ll be a slow percolation
rate into the ditch. It will be significantly lower than the current conditions.
Member Carpenter asked about the 43,000 square foot print versus the 20,000 square foot print. She
asked what would be required to make it not have to have a modification. Holland said they could have
two 20,000 square foot print buildings and separate them by 10-20 feet. Holland said they’ve basically
broken it up into three separate masses. Holland said the building footprint is recessed so that three
distinct masses are formed that work to obscure the view of the overall building footprint from many
vantage points. The rotated angle of the northern portion of the building further helps. Holland said a
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 11
significant portion of the building is one-story which further reduces the overall mass. Holland described
how they responded from a code perspective.
Member Schneider asked if a 42,000 square foot structure uncommon in the LMN zone. Holland said his
experience is you typically see a 10,000 square feet building footprint per acre. This project is in line with
that. It’s about a five acre site and you’ve got a little more than 40,000 square feet on site.
Member Carpenter asked for a graphic that would show what the arbor over the trash container will look
like. Will you be able to look down into it? Will its view be blocked? Holland said the condominiums are
100+ feet back from the enclosure. He’s not sure how much you’ll see from a third story vantage point.
Rossman said sheet 2 of the 3 in the board packet has a detail of the trash enclosure elevation. There is
an 8 foot high masonry and stone enclosure. The lower portion of the arbor is 10 feet about the finished
concrete slab at that area. There are two 2’x8’ cedars on center and those are positioned to run in a
north/south direction so that when you view them from the west you are not looking at the side of the
enclosure. Holland displayed the graphic.
Member Hart asked how often trash would be picked up. Turner said on average two times a week
between 8 am and 5 pm week days and a shorter window on Saturdays.
Member Hart asked why the parcel might not have been previously developed. Holland said it was hard
to speculate why the property has sat vacant for so long. There is no reason why this or any other LMN
use hasn’t been proposed. Rossman said they have had soils investigation reports done on the project.
Rossman said why it has not previously been developed is an economic reason by the current land
owners. From Morningstar’s perspective there is nothing adverse that would prevent them from going
forward with the project.
Member Kirkpatrick asked staff to outline the allowable uses for the LMN zone. Holland reviewed
allowable uses and said basically its low density housing combined with complimentary and supporting
land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed in harmony with residential characteristics.
Member Carpenter said another comment was made about landscaping on the rear elevation. Holland
showed the landscape plans and described the elements.
Holland said the project complies with the city’s lighting standards. There will be zero light spill-off at the
edge of the property to the west. All fixtures are full cut-off and fully shielded so you will not see the light
source. Holland said the parking area is setback pretty far. They also ‘beefed up’ the landscaping along
the drive aisle so as people drive around the lights will be shining towards the landscaping shrub bed.
No parking stalls will face directly west. The existing sidewalk will be placed in a public access easement.
Holland said he just received a note from a neighbor asking that they speak to their concern for odor
containment. Holland said there is a good separation from the property line to the trash enclosure itself,
the trash enclosures are typically covered, and trash will be bagged.
Board Discussion
Member Hart said he spent a lot of time looking at the input of the neighbors. Their concerns were about
building location – they moved it. He said if it had been developed the area into townhomes, you’d have
a lot more ground coverage (streets, etc.). They’ve done a pretty good job with drainage – they will not
substantially impact the drainage. He said with regard to the location of the trash, they’ve got it covered
and they will be meeting the Department of Health standards. He thinks, from his perspective, that most
of the concerns by the neighbors have been pretty well addressed.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 12
Member Hart moved the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard for
Section 4.5(E) (2) (b) regarding height and mass as proposed with this PDP in that it would not be
detrimental to the public good and the modification meets the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H) 1 because the plan reduces the visual impact of the large footprint by providing multiple
recesses and projections from the building and the building is one story. It only differs from the
standard in a nominal and inconsequential and is based on the findings of fact and conclusion in
the staff report. Member Hatfield seconded the motion.
Member Kirkpatrick said with a standard of 20,000 square feet, 42,000 seems like a lot but the reason
we have a modification process is because we recognize that we have a really prescriptive Land Use
Code and that it isn’t the best for all scenarios. Given the unique needs of a long term care facility and
their unique needs from a licensing/State Health Department standpoint; she thinks it makes a lot of
sense. She thinks the applicant has gone above and beyond to meet our code and to reconcile that in
the upgrades they’ve done in aesthetics, massing, and scale to enhance the experience for the
residents.
Member Carpenter complimented staff on a job well done. She thinks it was a difficult project and the
way they approached it by basically taking care of the objections of the neighborhood. It is exemplary.
Member Heinz complimented the applicant for the way they worked with the neighborhood. She looks
forward to seeing the project.
Member Hart said the neighbors by joining in the process made a significant difference in what this
project looks like. He thinks the developer’s gone a long way towards trying to accommodate the needs
of the neighborhood.
The motion passed 7:0.
Member Hatfield made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Morningstar
Assisted Living & Memory Care Project Development Plan, PDP130024 based on the findings,
facts and conclusion as stated in the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7:0.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman returned to Chambers.
_______
Project: Waterfield Overall Development Plan, #ODP130002
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 the existing 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 ODP and the Modification of Standard
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 13
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Staff Presentation
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said 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 ODP 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 ODP 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 the railroad crossings between North College Avenue and North Timberline Road.
Provisions in the ODP are made for connecting to the future City Trail along the Eaton Ditch and for a
trail around the wetland area. In general, the ODP complies with the Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan.
Shepard said 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.
Applicant Presentation
Jim Dullea is a Principle with Parker Land Investments. They believe the staff report does a very good
job of not only describing their application but goes through all the required LUC approval criteria. Their
plan is to do a short presentation which focuses on elements and highlights the staff report. Their team
is available to answer questions. That team includes his partner Curley Risheill; Linda Ripley of Ripley
Design (planning consultant), Bud Curtis of Northern Engineering (civil engineer) and Matt Delich of
Delich and Associates (transportation consultant).
Dullea said they became involved with this project over a year ago. They found the project had sat
dormant for a number of years -- the land use approvals had lapsed since the building of the Bull Run
Apartments. He said both the Transportation Master Plan and zoning had changed. They knew it was
going to be important to understand the priorities of the city as it relates to this property. Their goals were
to work in partnership with staff to address all the relevant issues, to finish what was started, and to
establish what this project can do that benefit the community at large, especially their neighbors.
Dullea said a goal of the Transportation Master Plan was the building of “new” Vine is going to be an
important component of improving traffic circulation at the Timberline Intersection. Because it’s a part of
a network of larger improvements, ultimately it’s going to be a large part of enhancing traffic along Vine.
He said realistically, it’s not until individual projects are approved and built that the goals within those
master plans are implemented. The Waterfield ODP is one of the first steps in reaching those goals. He
said they will bring back the synergy of the park, the school and the open space by putting them all
together again. It was important for everybody to get that synergy back.
Linda Ripley provided a history of the ODP from 1997 forward. She said the biggest changes were the
realignment of Vine Drive and an update the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. As a part of that process the
Bull Run Apartment area and 12-13 acres north of that was rezoned to MMN. With that all the approvals
of the original PDP lapsed. Despite all those changes, the current developers are really excited about
the possibilities for the property and getting it back on track. Ripley said the ODP before the board
tonight recreates the original vision of getting the park, the school and the natural area all together so it
can be enjoyed by the community and the neighborhood. She said there is a letter from Poudre School
District in the board’s packet that addresses their commitment to changing sites. The details on how that
will work will happen later.
Ripley said the applicant has agreed to dedicate additional property to the city park department so they
can build an 8 acre park. The wetland area will remain a natural area that will be owned and maintained
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 14
by the HOA (homeowners association). Buffering will be planned not only for the wetlands but for the
Larimer/Weld Ditch on the north property line. A neighborhood center is planned in the northwest corner
along where Conifer Drive will eventually go through. The ODP, as proposed, incorporates 4 housing
types. The project includes 3 housing types in the LMN area and a multi-family project in the MMN
portion. They submitted a modification request to be allowed to do just three housing types instead 3 in
the LMN because the ODP already provides at least 4 housing types when you look at Bull Run (which
has 176 units). She said there will be another multi-family project in addition to that.
Ripley said the street alignments and classifications are consistent with the city’s Master Street Plan and
Connectivity Standards. She outlined how. Ripley reviewed the purpose of an ODP and the criteria for
approving a Modification of Standard.
Staff Response
Ted Shepard said with regard to a question about the regional trail at work session, the regional trail will
follow the power line easements.
Public input
None
Board Questions
Member Hart said one of the major concerns voiced by the public was the urban/rural conflict. He asked
staff for some background. Shepard said it’s characteristic of the whole northeast quadrant of the city
because of the irrigation ditches. He said for decades the senior water rights have allowed a lot of
cultivation. What works to mitigate the conflict is on the west side of this project you have the benefit of
open space provided by the school, the park and the wetlands which combined are about 35 acres.
There is also an Xcel Public Service gas easement that is approximately 50 feet wide that allows for
some separation. There is a ditch easement for the Eaton Ditch that contributes to open space. That
makes for opportunities for co-existence. Shepard said it’s an issue on the growing fringe of our city.
This one happens to have some unique attributes that both contribute to the mitigation.
Member Schneider asked if a wild life impact study was done. Shepard said the primary ecological
attribute in this area is in the wetland. The wetland is unique in it’s not an intermittent stream (an
estuary). It is a land depression. Shepard said wildlife will be protected by the protection of the wetland
and its buffer.
Member Schneider said his other concerns are traffic. He understands that development pays its way.
What the impact to existing roadways. Traffic Operation staff member Ward Stanford said the real study
will come with the PDP. Schneider asked if that would also address overall connectivity with trails.
Stanford said trail connections are outside his purview. Transportation Planning would better speak to
how that will grow. Schneider asked about multi-modal plans for connectivity. Director Kadrich those
are the kinds of issues that will be looked at during the PDP. She said directors of the various disciplines
have been working together to make sure we get the board that information at the time of PDP review.
Member Heinz asked about the ‘stub’s and connectivity. Shepard said at the ODP level we look at
collectors and arterials. It just so happens we know where the local streets will be as well. The ODP
complies with the Master Street Plan as it’s showing Conifer coming in from the west and sweeping in a
45 degree arc and crossing the Eaton Ditch to serve that area of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. That
will tie into a north-south collector street probably called Bar Harbor Drive if it’s extended due south from
Mountain Vista Drive. “New” Vine is shown in its proper alignment. It will be stubbed to the west
property line as required by Section 3.6.3. Heinz asked if the project will have cul-de-sacs or will they be
required to connect to other developments. Shepard said at the PDP stage we will be looking at that.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 15
Member Schneider asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan for an annexation of any county properties.
Shepard said annexations are voluntary unless they are enclaves. Shepard said properties have to be
enclaves for no less than 3 years before they can be contemplated for annexation.
Board Discussion
Member Hart moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approved a request for Modification to
Standard Section 2.3.2(H)(2)(d) – L-M-N housing types because the granting of the modification is
not detrimental to the public good and 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. Also as
submitted, it 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) and included in the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member
Hatfield seconded the motion.
Member Hatfield said he’s happy to see development moving to the northeast. He thinks it’ll be a good
development.
Member Schneider said he’s not opposed to the ODP. He just wants to express the concerns of the
area. He likes the way things were moved around in order to get the school back out there.
Member Heinz said she’s happy to see the involvement of the original planning team as it maintains the
integrity of the original project. She thinks it’ll be great.
Member Hart said he’d like to thank staff and the applicant for starting to take care of development in that
part of town.
Chair Smith said the board has expressed to staff their concern about development patterns in the
southeast. He said if we’re trying to do a really good job with bike and pedestrian connections and how
convenient and safe they are, we’re going to have to be deliberate in that review at the PDP level. He
said it’s a good plan and it’ll start to move the city in that direction.
Motion was approved 7:0.
Member Hart moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Waterfield Overall
Development Plan, #ODP130002 based on the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff
report. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2014
Page 16
Other
Member Kirkpatrick requested a review of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan at an upcoming work
session.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair
ITEM NO _________2________
MEETING DATE ___12/12/13________
STAFF ___Lindsay Ex_____
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: Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning ANX #130002
APPLICANT: Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc.
401 W Mountain Avenue, #100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
OWNER: A.W. Kechter LLC
5024 Harvest Moon Circle
Fort Collins, Colorado 80528
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A written petition has been submitted requesting annexation of 88.21 acres located
north of Fossil Creek Reservoir, approximately 1,320 feet south of Kechter Road, 2,640
feet east of South Timberline Road, just west of Ziegler Road, and southwest of Kinard
Middle School. 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.
Kechter Farm has a General Development Plan (comparable to the City’s Overall
Development Plan) that encompasses 286 acres. The first phase of the project is 88.21
acres and is currently in the County’s development review process. Within the first
phase, there is a 2.85 acre commercial area, 1.45 acre recreation center with a
neighborhood park, and the remaining land is dedicated to residential development. The
requested zoning for this annexation is LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood
and UE - Urban Estate.
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.
The annexation of this property will create an enclave, which will affect approximately
180 acres of land to the north and west of the subject annexation.
Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning ANX #130002
Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – December 12, 2013
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends
that the property be placed in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning
District and UE – Urban Estate Zoning District in accordance with Attachment 6.
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a request to annex and zone 88.21 acres, located north of Fossil Creek
Reservoir, approximately 1,320 feet south of Kechter Road, 2,640 feet east of South
Timberline Road, just west of Ziegler Road, and southwest of Kinard Middle School.
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. The City has been involved in the
County’s development review process by providing comments on the proposals through
the County’s referral process.
Kechter Farm has a General Development Plan (comparable to the City’s Overall
Development Plan) that encompasses 286 acres (see Attachment 5). The first phase of
the project is 88.21 acres and is currently being approved in the County (see
Attachment 6). Within the first phase, there is a 2.85 acre commercial area, 1.45 acre
recreation center with a neighborhood park, and the remaining land is dedicated to
residential development. The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN - Low Density
Mixed Use Neighborhood and UE - Urban Estate.
The surrounding properties are currently zoned LMN and UE, see page 3 for a detailed
description of surrounding zoning.
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:
Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning ANX #130002
Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – December 12, 2013
Page 3
“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 IGAs are available online at www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/iga-doc.pdf.
Kechter Farm is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and contains 286
acres (see Attachment 5). The parcel contains land that is both within the sending area
(area to be conserved) and receiving area (area to be developed). In 2012, the Board of
County Commissioners approved the project’s General Development Plan which
permanently protected over 116 of the 286 acres on the parcel, making the
conservation of this land the last major piece of the Fossil Creek Reservoir conservation
effort outlined in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. This annexation is for 88.21 of
the 170 acres that is designated for land development in the Kechter Farm General
Development Plan.
Kechter Farm has 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits through Kinard Middle School to
the northeast (annexed in May of 2007), Fossil Lake Third Annexation to the east
(March 2002), Westchase Second Annexation (December 2001), and the Poudre
School District and Timbers PUD Annexation (July 2002), thus satisfying the
requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the
existing City boundary.
The annexation of this first phase of the Kechter Farm GDP will create an enclave to the
north and west of the subject property, see Attachment 4. According to State Statutes,
the creation of an enclave allows the municipality to annex the enclave areas after it has
been an enclave for three years without a petition.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: LMN in the City of Fort Collins; Homestead Subdivision
E: LMN in the City of Fort Collins; Kinard Middle School
Fossil Lake PUD
S: FA1 – Farming in Larimer County; Fossil Creek Reservoir
W: UE in the City of Fort Collins; Westchase PUD
LMN in the City of Fort Collins; Westchase PUD
Mail Creek Crossing (proposed)
Timbers Development
ANALYSIS:
Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning ANX #130002
Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – December 12, 2013
Page 4
The requested zoning for this annexation is the LMN – Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood and UE – Urban Estate Zoning Districts. The City’s Structure Plan Map
and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan provide guidance that the subject 88.21acres
should be zoned L-M-N and U-E. 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 and U-E, in accordance with Attachment 6.
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.
There was significant public outreach during the land use approval process for the
General Development Plan (GDP) through Larimer County, including a neighborhood
meeting, and public hearings before the Planning Commission (June 20, 2012) and
Board of County Commissioners (December 10, 2012). The GDP was approved by the
Board of County Commissioners by a vote of 3-0. The preliminary plat is scheduled to
be heard before the Planning Commission on December 18, 2013 and Board of County
Commissioners on January 13, 2014.
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 December 3, 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
Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning ANX #130002
Planning & Zoning Hearing Date – December 12, 2013
Page 5
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 and UE – Urban
Estate Zoning Districts 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 and UE – Urban Estate Zoning Districts.
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. Enclave Area Created
5. Kechter Farm General Development Plan
6. Annexation Map
ITEM NO ________3_______
MEETING DATE December 12, 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: Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan,
PDP #130014
and Modifications of Standard to Sections:
3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented Residential Lots,
4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses in E Zone,
4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity in E Zone and,
4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-Family lot size.
APPLICANT: Terence Hoaglund
Vignette Studios
P.O. Box 1889
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1889
OWNER: SC Residential, LLC
6300 S. Syracuse Way #293
Centennial, CO 80111
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to subdivide 15.23 acres into 76 lots for single-family detached homes.
The site is located along the west side of Joseph Allen Drive and is approximately 250
feet north of the intersection of Joseph Allen Drive and East Drake Road. A Union
Pacific/Southern Pacific rail line is located approximately 75 feet west of the parcel. The
project contains approximately 13 acres in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zone district and 2 acres in the E, Employment zone district.
The PDP includes a request for four modifications of standard associated with minimum
density, secondary use requirements and maximum lot size in the Employment zone
district as well as a modification to the minimum standard for solar oriented lots.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan, PDP
#130014, and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented Residential
Lots, 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses, 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity and 4.27(B)(3)(a)(1)
Single-Family maximum lot size in the Employment zone.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The approval of Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan
complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
(LUC), more specifically:
• The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 –
Administration.
• The four Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented
Residential Lots, 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses, 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity
and 4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-Family maximum lot size in the Employment zone
meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), and the granting of
these Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good.
• The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) of Article 4 – Districts.
• The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27,
Employment (E) of Article 4 – Districts, subject to approval of the three
Modifications of Standard to Sections 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses, 4.27(D)(5)
Density/Intensity and 4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-Family maximum lot size in the
Employment zone.
• The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards, subject to approval of the Modification of Standard
to Section 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented Residential Lots.
• The P.D.P. continues to comply with the Spring Creek Farms North Overall
Development Plan (O.D.P.).
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Industrial (I) Timberline Center Storage Units, Light
Industrial
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 3
South Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N)
Outlot A vacant parcel, Spring Creek Farms
North
East Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (M-M-N)
Spring Creek Farms North Second Filing,
multi-family
West Low Density Residential
R-L)
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroad;
Power Line Open Space Trail; Parkwood
East neighborhood
• The property was annexed in November 1997 as part of the Timberline
Annexation and was originally zoned T – Transition.
• A request to amend the Structure Plan and rezone the property to L-M-N, M-M-N,
and E was approved on 2
nd
reading by City Council on January 16, 2001.
• The parcel is part of the 55 acre Spring Creek Farms North Overall Development
Plan (O.D.P.), first approved in February of 2001. In 2004, there was a minor
amendment that added a plan note to the M-M-N portion of the O.D.P. allowing
additional permitted M-M-N uses. The 2004 O.D.P. minor amendment also
removed the plan note that described a potential bicycle and pedestrian
connection across the railroad corridor.
• In April 2011, the L-M-N portion of the O.D.P. (where the subject parcel is
located) was amended to allow all Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone
District (L-M-N) uses. The previous O.D.P. (2001) specifically called out single
family residential: attached and detached, as well as two family dwellings, as the
L-M-N uses for the subject property. The Spring Creek Farms North Overall
Development Plan is attached with this staff report.
2. Compliance with Applicable L-M-N Standards:
The project complies with all applicable L-M-N standards with the following
relevant comments provided:
A. Section 4.5(A) – Purpose
The proposed single-family land use is consistent with the purpose of the L-M-N
district by proposing a predominance of low density housing with a fully
integrated small park providing a focal point within the pattern of streets and
blocks. Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods are clustered around and integral
with a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and in this case the project is
adjacent to the “Trails at Timberline” multi-family development (Spring Creek
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 4
Farms North Filing Two), located adjacent to the project, east of Joseph Allen
Drive.
B. Section 4.5(B)(2)(a)(1) – Permitted Uses
Single family detached dwellings are a permitted use in the L-M-N District subject
to administrative review.
C. Section 4.5(D)(1) – Density
This standard requires that residential density on parcels less than 20 acres have
a density not less than 3.00 dwelling units per gross acre and not greater than
9.00 per net acre. The P.D.P. provides 69 units in the L-M-N zone district for a
density of 5.29 dwelling units per gross acre.
D. Section 4.5(D)(6) – Small Neighborhood Park
A small neighborhood was approved to satisfy this standard under a separate
Type 1 P.D.P. (Spring Creek Farms North Third Filing), which provided one acre
of additional functional open space for the project and the surrounding
neighborhoods. This park was planned to satisfy the park requirement for the M-
M-N zoned multi-family project to the east (Spring Creek farms North Second
Filing) as well as the park requirement for this project.
3. Compliance with Applicable Employment District Standards:
A. Section 4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) – Permitted Uses
Single family detached dwellings located on lots containing no more than 6,000
square feet are a permitted use in the Employment zone district subject to review
by the Planning and Zoning Board. One of the six lots (Block 2, Lot 2) located in
the E zone exceeds the 6,000 square foot maximum and a modification of this
standard is proposed for this lot. Of the total 76 lots proposed, 70 lots are
approximately 6,000 square feet or less. The remaining five lots in the L-M-N
zone are approximately 7,000 square feet each. A summary of the typical lot
dimensions and area is included in the following table. Areas for some of the lots
vary due to the street layout.
Typical Lot
Dimensions
Typical Lot area
(square feet)
Quantity Percentage of Total
Lots
47 x 100 4,700 8 10%
50 x 100 5,000 28 37%
52 x 100 5,200 10 13%
60 x 100 6,000 24 32%
70 x 100 7,000 6 8%
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 5
B. Section 4.27(D)(2) – Secondary Uses
The proposed residential use is considered a secondary use in the Employment
zone district, and this standard requires that secondary uses be limited to 25% of
the total gross area within the portion of the development plan in the Employment
zone. The applicant is requesting a modification for 35% secondary residential
use area in the Employment zone district portion of the plan.
C. Section 4.27(D)(5) – Density / Intensity
This standard requires that all residential development within the Employment
District have an overall minimum average density of seven dwelling units per net
acre of residential land. The applicant is requesting a modification from 7 units
per net acre to 3.21 units per net acre in the Employment zone district portion of
the plan.
4. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General
Development Standards
The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the
following relevant comments provided:
A. Section – 3.2.1 Landscaping
Street trees are provided at approximately 40-foot intervals along portions of the
streets that are not fronted by lots. Additionally, along the front setbacks of lots,
one street tree per lot is provided in substitution for 40-foot tree spacing. The
project also meets the minimum tree species diversity requirement of this
section.
B. Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking
In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard, and Development
Standards described in this section, the parking and circulation system provided
with the project is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience
for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to
and from surrounding areas.
C. Section 3.2.2(C)(6) – Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle
Connections
The proposed street sidewalk system is designed with block lengths that are
spaced at intervals less than the 660 feet maximum permitted. The development
was planned to incorporate the small neighborhood park as an integrated feature
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 6
which provides additional convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections through
the center of the project on routes not associated with a street.
D. Section 3.2.3(C) – Solar-Oriented Residential Lots
This standard requires that 65% of the lots be solar-oriented. The project can
provide only 25 solar-oriented lots, or 33%, due to the predominate north / south
orientation of the overall boundaries of the site. A modification request is
provided with this P.D.P.
E. Section 3.3.1 – Plat Standards
All lots have direct access to a public street. The layout of roads, driveways,
utilities, drainage facilities, and other services are designed in a way that
enhances an interconnected system within and between developments to the
east and south. The plat demonstrates proper dedication of public rights-of-way,
drainage easements and utility easements that are needed to serve the area
being developed.
F. Section 3.5.2(E) Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size
The project is in compliance with this section, which requires a minimum lot width
of 50 feet for single-family detached dwellings if the garage is served by access
from the abutting street. Eight of the lots are 42 feet in width and permitted to be
less than 50 feet in width because the garages will be accessed by an alley.
Additionally, the proposed project provides the following setbacks in
conformance with the standards:
• 15-feet Front Yard
• 20-feet Garage
• 5-Interior Side Yard
• 15-feet Corner Side
• 8-feet Rear Yard
G. Section 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements
The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the
Transportation Impact Study that was submitted to the City for review and have
determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with this
P.D.P are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort
Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 7
H. Section 3.8.26 Residential Buffering
This buffer requirement applies to all proposed residential developments that are
located adjacent Industrial uses. The existing self-storage facility located to the
north of the project is considered a light industrial use. In accordance with this
standard, the applicant is providing a buffer yard with evergreen, ornamental and
shade trees planted along the length of the residential lots. The self-storage
facility also provided landscaped open space with their development plan, which
adds to the buffer and augments the separation of uses.
MODIFICATIONS OF STANDARD:
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 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
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 8
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).
5. Modification of Standard Request to Section 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented
Residential Lots
A. The standard:
Section 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented Residential Lots
At least sixty-five (65) percent of the lots less than fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet in area in single- and two-family residential developments must
conform to the definition of a "solar-oriented lot" in order to preserve the potential
for solar energy usage.
Solar-oriented lot shall mean:
(1) a lot with a front lot line oriented to within thirty (30) degrees of a true east-
west line. When the lot line abutting a street is curved, the "front lot line" shall
mean the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a flag lot,
the "front lot line" shall mean the lot line that is most parallel to the closest street,
excluding the "pole portion of the flag lot"; or
(2) a lot which, when a straight line is drawn from a point midway between the
side lot lines at the required front yard setback to a point midway between the
side lot lines at the required rear yard setback, is oriented to within thirty (30)
degrees of true north along said line; or
(3) a corner lot with a south lot line oriented to within thirty (30) degrees of a true
east-west line, which south lot line adjoins a public street or permanently
reserved open space; provided, however, that the abutting street right-of-way or
open space has a minimum north-south dimension of at least fifty (50) feet. For
the purposes of this definition, "permanently reserved open space" shall include,
without limitation, parks, cemeteries, golf courses and other similar outdoor
recreation areas, drainage ditches and ponds, irrigation ditches and reservoirs,
lakes, ponds, wetlands, open spaces reserved on plats for neighborhood use and
other like and similar permanent open space.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 9
B. Description of the Modification:
The applicant has submitted a request for approval of a Modification of Standard
to Section 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented Residential Lots requesting that the project
provide 33 percent solar-oriented defined lots.
C. Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant contends that the parcel of land is unique in that it is relatively
narrow (360+’ feet east to west) and long (1940+- feet north to south). With this
shape, there is limited ability for lot and street placement within the parcel to
create a functional and economical development, taking into consideration all the
dynamics of development, including, but not limited to solar orientation, utilities,
drainage patterns, and the existing park (Spring Creek Farms Third Filing).
While various layout options were considered, the current site plan was
determined to be the best solution to meet all the various criteria. This site plan
has one north south street (Adobe Drive) towards the west side, with three east -
west streets for connectivity to Joseph Allen Drive. With this, lots were oriented to
these east-west streets to provide as many solar oriented lots as possible. In
addition, the lots on the Southern cul-de-sac of Adobe Drive were also oriented
as much as possible to meet the solar orientation standards.
Due to the unique property shape, being relatively thin and long, it is not practical
to meet the strict interpretation of the solar orientation standards. We have
included as many solar oriented lots as reasonably practical with the property
shape, with 33% of the lots meeting the solar orientation requirement.
D. Staff Finding for the Modification:
Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.3(C)
Solar-Oriented Residential Lots is justified by the applicable standards in
2.8.2(H). The granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public
good and:
The request satisfies Criteria (2.8.2(H)(3):
By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to,
physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography,
or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy
system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result
in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship
upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are
not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 10
This is because the project boundary has an exceptionally long north-to-south
orientation and narrow width, which is an exceptional physical condition not
caused by the applicant, that creates a logical arrangement of streets and lots
with an orientation that limits the provision of solar oriented lots.
6. Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses in E Zone
A. The standard:
Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and
appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or
Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.27(B).
The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone
district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
total gross area of the development plan.
(d) Residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are
stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor).
B. Description of the Modification:
The applicant is requesting a modification to increase the secondary residential
use area to 35% in the Employment zone district portion of the plan.
C. Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant contends that within the entire ODP, the overall E zone is 6.2
acres. This 6.2 acres of E zoned land was bisected by the construction of
Joseph Allen Drive, creating a smaller portion of E zone land which is part of this
P.D.P. with a gross acreage of 2.18 acres. Due to an irrigation easement along
the southern portion of the 2.18 acres, the area has a usable acreage of about
1.85 acres. The applicant contends that remaining 1.85 acre E zone area within
the project boundary is not feasible as a primary use, such as a office building or
industrial use, due to the small usable size of the area and its less visible, less
desirable location set back from Timberline Road.
Additionally, the applicant contends that in compliance with the standard, 1.5
acres of the 2.18 E zone area could be developed as a residential use in
conformance with the 25% limit, and if this was proposed, only 0.68 acres would
remain of the total E zone project area. The designation of Joseph Allen Drive as
the logical boundary between primary and secondary uses, by adding the
remaining 0.68 acres as additional secondary use, is equal to or better than a
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 11
plan which divides the primary and secondary use areas based on the required
percentage.
D. Staff Finding for the Modification:
Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to 4.27(D)(2) to
increase the allowable residential secondary use in Employment District to 35%
is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). The granting of the
Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and:
The request satisfies Criteria (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 Joseph Allen Drive provides a more logical boundary separating
the primary and secondary uses in the 6.2 acre Employment District area that is
applicable to this P.D.P., and the land use pattern resulting from the increased
percentage is equal to or better than a plan which divides the primary and
secondary use areas based on the required percentage.
7. Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity in E Zone
A. The standard:
Density/Intensity. All residential development in the E Employment District shall
have an overall minimum average density of seven (7) dwelling units per net acre
of residential land.
B. Description of the Modification:
The applicant is requesting a modification to decrease the density in the
Employment zoned portion of the plan to 3.21 dwelling units per acre.
C. Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant contends that with the relatively small size of the E zone parcel, it
is desirable to simply continue the single family use and lot pattern of the L-M-N
portion of the site. While the applicant would like to have more density in the E
zone area, the location of the existing underground irrigation ditch also impacts
the layout for the single family units. Seven lots are proposed on the E zone
portion of the project resulting in 3.21 units per acre. If the irrigation ditch did not
exist, three additional lots could easily be added. At 7 units per acre, the required
density on this site would be 16 units.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 12
If both the LMN and E parcels are taken into consideration, the decrease in
density becomes nominal and inconsequential. As shown in the table below, if
both parcels were to be developed at the minimum densities, then a total of 55
units would be required. However, since we are proposing to develope the L-M-N
portion at a higher density than required, overall we are providing a total of 76
units -- this is 21 more units than the minimum density would require.
Parcel
Min Density
(unit/acre)
Min Units
Density
Shown
(unit/acre)
Total Units
LMN
(13.05 acres)
3 39 5.29 69
E
(2.18 acres)
7 16 3.2 7
Total
(15.23 acres)
55 4.99 76
(21 units more
than the
minimum
required
overall)
As can be seen, the reduction in density in the E zone becomes nominal and
inconsequential if the project is looked at as a whole. Therefore, the proposed
use would be equal to or better than what would be required under the Land Use
Code.
D. Staff Finding for the Modification:
Staff finds that the modification is justified based on several factors:
• The E zone area of the project represents only a small portion of the
project overall.
• The standard density range permitted in L-M-N is 3 units/acre minimum,
and 9 units/acre maximum. The density in the E zone has a nominal
effect on the reduction of density over the entire development plan with
the overall L-M-N density dropping from 5.29 units/acres to 4.99
units/acre.
• The overall 4.99 units/acre is in the mid-range of density permitted in the
L-M-N zone where the majority of the project is located, with the
development plan providing an additional 21 dwelling units more than the
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 13
minimum required overall, resulting in a density that is over the minimum
required.
• The overall density achieved continues to advance the purposes of the
Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, specifically: 1.2.2(K) –
fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential,
business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.
Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to section 4.27(D)(5)
Density/Intensity in E Zone is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H).
The granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good
and:
The request satisfies Criteria (2.8.2(H)(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.
This is because the E zone parcel is a small portion of the entire development
area, and the reduced density in the E zone has a nominal effect on the
reduction of density over the entire development plan, with the development plan
providing an additional 21 dwelling units more than the minimum required overall,
resulting in a density that is over the minimum required. The overall density
achieved continues to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained
in Section 1.2.2, specifically: 1.2.2(K) – fostering a more rational pattern of
relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual
benefit of all.
8. Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-Family lot size
A. The standard:
(3) The following uses are permitted in the E District, subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings located on lots containing no more than six
thousand (6,000) square feet.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 14
B. Description of the Modification:
The modification request is to allow one single-family lot (Lot 2 Block 2) to be
larger than the 6,000 square feet maximum permitted in the E zone, for a total
area of approximately 6,255 square feet for the lot.
C. Applicant’s Justification:
The last modification request is to allow one lot (Lot 2 Block 2) to be slightly
larger than 6,000 square feet. This is due to the configuration of the site rather
than any specific desire to have the lot be larger than allowed. It is also desirable
to continue the lot mix in the L-M-N parcel with a variety of lot widths to
accommodate different products.
Lot 2, Block 2: The typical lot size for this type C lot is 60 feet wide by 100 feet
deep, for a 6,000 square foot lot. However, as is true in many locations, the
public street is not 100% parallel with the rear lot line, therefore this particular lot
is about 103 feet deep, for a lot area of 6,255 square feet.
The average lot size for the seven lots is 5,874 square feet. The applicant
contends that the increase in lot area for the one lot is fairly minor, and would not
be noticeable by the general public, therefore the proposed modification would
be equal to or better than what would be required by code.
D. Staff Finding for the Modification:
Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section
4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-Family lot size is justified by the applicable standards in
2.8.2(H). The granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public
good and:
1) The request satisfies Criteria (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 increase in lot area for the one lot is minimal, and the
proposed lot size promotes the general purpose of the standard in a manner
that is equal to the purpose of the standard; and
2) The request satisfies Criteria (2.8.2(H)(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
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 15
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 increase in lot area for the one lot is nominal, with the
overall development area in the E zone maintaining an average lot size of
5,874 square feet, in conformance with the standard. The overall average lot
size achieved continues to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as
contained in Section 1.2.2, specifically: 1.2.2(K) – fostering a more rational
pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the
mutual benefit of all.
9. Neighborhood Meeting
A City neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project. A neighborhood
meeting summary and letters from the neighbors are attached with this staff report.
10. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan, Staff
makes the following findings of fact:
A. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented
Residential Lots is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). The
granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good,
and:
The request satisfies Criteria (2.8.2(H)(3):
By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited
to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to
install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought
to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties,
or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property,
provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or
omission of the applicant.
This is because the project boundary has an exceptionally long north-to-
south orientation and narrow width, which is an exceptional physical
condition not caused by the applicant, that creates a logical arrangement
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 16
of streets and lots with an orientation that limits the provision of solar
oriented lots.
B. The Modification of Standard to 4.27(D)(2) to increase the allowable
residential secondary use in the Employment District from 25% to 35% is
justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). The granting of the
Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good, and:
The request satisfies Criteria (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 Joseph Allen Drive provides a more logical boundary
separating the primary and secondary uses in the 6.2 acre Employment
District area that is applicable to this PDP, and the land use pattern
resulting from the increased percentage is equal to or better than a plan
which divides the primary and secondary use areas based on the required
percentage.
C. The Modification of Standard to section 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity in E
Zone is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). The granting of
the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and:
The request satisfies Criteria (2.8.2(H)(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.
This is because the E zone parcel is a small portion of the entire
development, and the reduced density in the E zone has a nominal effect
on the reduction of density over the entire development plan, with the
development plan providing an additional 21 dwelling units more than the
minimum required overall, with a resulting density that is over the
minimum required. The overall density achieved continues to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, specifically:
1.2.2(K) – fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among
residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 17
D. The Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section
4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-Family lot size is justified by the applicable
standards in 2.8.2(H). The granting of the Modifications would not be
detrimental to the public good, and:
1) The request satisfies Criteria (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 increase in lot area for the one lot is minimal, and the
proposed lot size promotes the general purpose of the standard in a
manner that is equal to the purpose of the standard; and
2) The request satisfies Criteria (2.8.2(H)(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.
This is because the increase in lot area for the one lot is nominal, with the
overall development area in the E zone maintaining an average lot size of
5,874 square feet, in conformance with the standard. The overall average
lot size achieved continues to advance the purposes of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, specifically: 1.2.2(K) – fostering a
more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and
industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.
E. The P.D.P. complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article
2 – Administration.
F. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards.
G. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) of Article 4 – Districts.
H. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27,
Employment (E) of Article 4.
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, PDP #130014
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 18
I. The P.D.P. continues to comply with the Spring Creek Farms North
Overall Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan, PDP
#130014, and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.2.3(C) Solar-Oriented Residential
Lots, 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses, 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity, 4.27(B)(3)(a)(1) Single-
Family maximum lot size in the Employment zone.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Statement of Planning Objectives
2. Applicant’s Modification Requests
3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
4. Letter from Union Pacific Railroad
5. Site and Landscape Plan
6. Plat
7. Utility Plans
8. Approved O.D.P.
9. Transportation Impact Study - summary
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
ITEM # 4
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
Date: December 2, 2013
To: Planning & Zoning Board
From: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director
Re: Item 4 -“Link-N-Greens” Community Commercial-Poudre River Zone District
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On September 4, 2012 in accordance with the authority pursuant to Section 1.3.4(A) of the Fort
Collins Land Use Code (LUC) and in conjunction with the application filed by NewMark Merrill
Mountain States for approval of an overall development plan for the site (101.637 acres in size)
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln and Lemay Avenues, commonly
known as “Link-N-Greens,” the following use was added to the Community Commercial-Poudre
River Zone District (C-C-R):
Campus employment shall mean a use that combines and permits two (2)
or more of the following uses: office, light industrial, heavy industrial,
commercial or retail in a unified master planned development site
containing at least thirty (30) acres.
The criteria contained in Section 1.3.4(A)(1) through (5) of the Land Use Code was followed and
a determination made that this use conforms to all of the following conditions:
(1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added;
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses
in the zone district to which it is added;
(3) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor,
glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or
attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public
facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics,
or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the
other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
Whenever any use has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone
district in accordance with subsection (A) above, such use shall be considered for an
amendment to the text of the LUC under Division 2.9 (B).
“Link-N-Greens” Community Commercial-Poudre River Zone District
Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013
Page 2
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that no amendment to the LUC be made in conjunction with this added use for
the following reasons:
The main purpose of the District is to foster a healthy and compatible relationship between the
River, the Downtown and surrounding urban uses. Any significant redevelopment shall be
designed as part of a master plan for the applicable group of contiguous properties. The Link-N-
Greens site was large enough to be able to foster a healthy and compatible relationship between
the River, Downtown and surrounding urban uses however there are only three other areas
currently zoned CCR all of which are significantly smaller than the “Link-N-Greens” site and
therefore not likely suitable for a Campus Employment use with at least 30 acres. The largest of
the remaining parcels is 23.5 acres.
.
ITEM NO _________5_______
MEETING DATE _December 12, 2013
STAFF _Cameron Gloss __
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: Front Range Community College Integrated Technology Building -
Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130006
APPLICANT: Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526
OWNER: Same
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to construct a 29,000 square foot Integrated Technology Building on
the Front Range Community College’s (FRCC) Larimer Campus. The new building
includes lab space for instruction and training, multiple classrooms and staff offices that
support the existing Integrated Technology Program, which provides instruction in
welding, automotive and clean technology trades. The new building is proposed to be
located over an existing surface parking lot on the east side of the campus. FRCC
proposes a 70 foot minimum setback from the Coventry Subdivision to the east, and
that will include a landscaped bufferyard and pedestrian trail.
The FRCC Larimer Campus is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-L).
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes as to the location,
character and extent of the project.
FRCC Integrated Technology Building, SPAR #130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing 12-12-2013
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (M-M-N) and
Low Density Residential (R-
L)
Multi-family residential and Single-family
residential.
South Low Density Residential (R-
L)
Single-family residential (Clarendon Hills)
East Low Density Residential (R-
L)
Single-family residential (Coventry)
West Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N) and
Low Density Residential (R-
L)
Single-family residential
2. Right of Advisory Review:
Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to
review the planning and location of public facilities:
A. Section 22-32-124, C.R.S., as amended, addresses the right of a public school to
construct facilities within a municipality and the location or manner of
construction of such schools. The statutes specifically limit the municipalities’
participation in the process to a limited right of review and appeal to the charter
school governing body, the State Board for Community Colleges and
Occupational Education.
B. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed
or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has
been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of
disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the
Community College. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be
overruled by the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational
Education by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership.
Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a
finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the
adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the
proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins.
FRCC Integrated Technology Building, SPAR #130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing 12-12-2013
Page 3
3. Analysis:
A. Location
The FRCC Larimer Campus is located on the southeast corner of the intersection
of South Shields Street and West Harmony Road and zoned in its entirety Low
Density Residential (R-L). The proposed Integrated Technology Building has
been sited on an existing surface parking lot approximately 400 feet south of
Harmony Road, immediately west of the Coventry neighborhood and northwest
of the Clarendon Hills neighborhood. The closest residence lies approximately
120 feet east of the proposed building.
All classes associated with the Integrated Technology Program exist today; the
proposal calls for the program to be relocated from a building on the north side of
the campus to the proposed location. The vacated building will be used to
expand the art program, which is currently underserved. FRCC had considered a
renovation of the existing auto/welding building but found that their classroom
needs could not be completed within the existing building footprint, and the
surrounding site area is constrained.
Uses within the Integrated Technology Building and the adjacent outdoor area
have been located to minimize impact on nearby properties. Offices and
classrooms have been placed nearest to the neighborhood, along the east wall of
the building, with potentially more impactful automotive and welding work spaces
further away. Garage bay doors which access the auto and welding yard have
been placed within the interior of the ‘L’ shaped building to help visually screen
these uses from neighbors. Further, exhaust systems for the welding area are
more than 150 feet west of the property line and also oriented to the west.
B. Character
The proposed Integrated Technology Building has been designed to blend into
the existing campus and be complementary to adjacent residences. The building
proposes similar height, massing, fenestration and materials as recently-
constructed FRCC buildings. Landscaped areas provide buffering and separation
of the project from the Coventry neighborhood. Lastly, light patterns generated
from the project will not produce significant glare or allow light trespass onto
adjacent properties.
1. Architecture
Significant attention is given to the variation in patterns and textures used in the
building materials. Colored concrete masonry units (cmu) provide a strong base
treatment and help to provide a human scale. In addition to the base treatment,
brick veneer, with alternating bands of color, have been used to break up the
FRCC Integrated Technology Building, SPAR #130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing 12-12-2013
Page 4
primary building mass and provide a rich variation to the facades. Metal panels
provide a “top” treatment that is visually lighter than the lower portions of the
building. The use of varied building heights, sidelights, transoms and canopies
help to define and enhance entry points. The use of materials and patterns is
balanced, with colors and textures helping to emphasize and articulate overall
building forms.
2. Site Design
Parking serving the new building is fully screened from the adjacent public street
(Harmony Road) by plant material and berming.
The auto and welding yard, which provides for vehicle and material loading and
service, is incorporated toward the interior of the ‘L’-shaped building, thus using
the building to screen these service uses from adjacent residential properties. An
8-foot high masonry wall will fully screen the welding material storage area.
3. Landscaping
A densely-planted landscape buffer area, which includes a landscape berm and
a soft surface trail has been included north and east of the parking area serving
the building. The buffer varies in width from a minimum of 7 feet to over 75 feet
and includes a range of coniferous, deciduous and ornamental tree species,
evergreen shrubs and ornamental grasses. Existing landscape islands interior to
the north and east portions of the parking area serving the building will be
irrigated and planted with deciduous shade trees and shrub beds.
4. Lighting
A photometric plan was submitted for the project. Parking lot and building
lighting is provided by down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures directional to
ensure there will not be light spillover into the adjacent Coventry or Clarendon
Hills neighborhoods. Security lighting facing the auto and welding yard will be
screened by the building when viewed from properties to the east/southeast.
C. Extent
The extent of impacts generated by the building to the City’s storm drainage, and
transportation systems, and Fort Collins-Loveland Water/South Fort Collins
Sanitation facilities, can be accommodated through existing utility infrastructure.
FRCC Integrated Technology Building, SPAR #130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing 12-12-2013
Page 5
1. Transportation System
Since the proposed ITB building results in the relocation of an existing
program, no student enrollment increases are anticipated as a result of the
project.
Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the
applicant’s letter summarizing traffic impacts and are satisfied that the
proposal will not measurably impact the transportation system for the range of
transportation modes. Walkways will connect from the existing FRCC
pedestrian walkway system to the Integrated Technology Building and the
soft-surface trail connecting to Harmony Road will be extended continuously
though the new buffer space along the east edge of the site. Bicycle racks will
be conveniently located next to the primary building entry.
2. Storm Drainage
The drainage swale running north of the proposed ITB building will remain
unchanged and drainage patterns will be similar to today. FRCC will be
revising its drainage master plans to incorporate any changes to drainage
patterns as a result of the project.
3. Public Utilities
Fort Collins-Loveland Water/South Fort Collins Sanitation facilities have noted
that satisfactory water and sanitary sewer facilities are available to serve the
new building, including the water volume and pressure needed to satisfy
Poudre Fire Authority standards for water supply.
4. Air Quality
Welding exhaust mitigation has been designed in compliance with applicable
air quality standards. Individual exhaust hoods are provided at each welding
station and the welding waste air is cleaned and blown back into the building.
Additionally, exhaust vents have been oriented to the west and away from
neighboring properties.
4. Public Outreach:
Two neighborhood information meetings were held. The first meeting was held
on October 2, 2013 and included discussion of the Integrated Technology
Building as well as FRCC’s Southwest Parking Lot SPAR application that was
FRCC Integrated Technology Building, SPAR #130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing 12-12-2013
Page 6
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board at its November 21, 2013 hearing.
Detailed neighborhood meeting minutes and letters from neighbors are attached
to this staff report. At the first neighborhood meeting, members of the community
expressed concerns about the orientation of the building and specific program
elements adjacent to the east property line of the campus. Some residents
specifically asked that FRCC consider relocation of the automotive technology
uses off-site. Further, a second neighborhood meeting was held on December 3,
2013 which provided an overview of building and site design changes made in
direct response to comments made at the first neighborhood meeting.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusions:
A. The proposed Integrated Technology Building is subject to evaluation by the City
of Fort Collins as a Site Plan Advisory Review. The construction of a new
building for a public community college complies with State Statute Section 31-
23-209, C.R.S., in that the location, character, and extent of the proposed
building conforms to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort
Collins.
B. The location of the proposed Integrated Technology Building over an existing
parking lot on the east edge of the FRCC campus provides for an efficient use of
land and is the logical area to expand campus facilities.
C. The character of the proposed Integrated Technology Building architecture is
consistent in its mass, bulk, scale, height, materials and overall character to the
existing buildings within the Front Range Community College Larimer Campus. A
landscape buffer along the east and north edges of the parking area serving the
building is of a design character that will protect views from the adjacent
neighborhood and Harmony Road.
D. The extent of the proposed Integrated Technology Building is limited to a portion
of the existing parking lot on the east side of the campus. The extent of impacts
generated by the building to the City’s storm drainage, and transportation
systems, and Fort Collins-Loveland Water/South Fort Collins Sanitation facilities,
can be accommodated through existing utility infrastructure. Further, the building
orientation, floor plan configuration, venting, location of building deliveries and
storage, and lighting and landscape buffering have reduced the extent of impacts
to the surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Front Range Community College Integrated
Technology Building - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130006
FRCC Integrated Technology Building, SPAR #130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing 12-12-2013
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Development Plans: Site Plan, Building Floor Plans and Elevations, Lighting,
Landscaping, and Architectural Renderings
2. Project Narrative and Planning Objectives
3. Letter dated October 7, 2013 summarizing projected traffic impacts
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes, October 2, 2013
5. Public Comments
6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes, December 3, 2013 (when available)
ITEM NO ______6_________
MEETING DATE December 12, 2013
STAFF C. Levingston
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: Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two, Major Amendment–
#MJA130006
APPLICANT: Mr. Bryan McFarland
Alberta Development Partners
5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
OWNER: Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC
c/o Mr. Don Provost
5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a major amendment to the existing Foothills Mall Redevelopment
Project Development Plan. As proposed, the Phase Two Major Amendment generally
consists of changes to the project's commercial component resulting in a 10% decrease
of commercial building square footage from the previously approved plan. The Phase
Two Major Amendment is 60.82 acres in size and is located in the General Commercial
(C-G) zone as well as located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
District.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two, Major Amendment #MJA130006, with
conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Major Amendment proposes site and architectural changes to the Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Project Development Plan (approved, February, 2013). The changes
proposed by the Phase Two Major Amendment to the previously approved Project
Development Plan can be summarized as follows:
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 2
• The elimination of a vehicular access off of College Avenue, north of Foothills
Parkway.
• Two additional buildings (Block 18 and 19) located on the northwest portion of
the site as well as reconfiguring of the associated parking fields.
• The elimination of the building formerly located on Block 10A that framed the
west green, replacing it with additional parking.
• The previously approved PDP featured a 86,754 square foot
theater/entertainment building on Block 7. The size is now reduced to a 43,655
square foot theater in the same location.
• A new 15 space parking lot is proposed north of the 38,125 square foot retail
building located on Block 12 where a water quality area was proposed with the
previous PDP.
• The parking structure located on Block 8 has decreased in size from a 6-
supported level structure containing 1,477 parking spaces down to a 4-level, 978
parking spaces parking structure. Additionally, the number of surface parking
spaces distributed throughout the site has increased by 26 parking spaces.
• The Major Amendment proposes a 18,190 square foot Foothills Activity Center
(FAC) as part of the main mall to replace the Youth Activity Center that will be
deconstructed as part of the project. The FAC is proposed to have a skywalk
over a drive aisle connecting it to the parking structure. The previously approved
PDP proposed a 22,863 square foot space located above a retail tenant.
• Architecturally speaking, the Phase Two Major Amendment shows changes to
the freestanding commercial buildings architecture as well as changes to the
main mall architecture. Generally, building and parapet heights are lower than
previously proposed, although no buildings are lower than 20' in height and
continue to meet the minimum Land Use Code standards.
• Building exterior materials wise, the Major Amendment proposes a mix of
materials such as Dryvit (synthetic stucco), stone and brick veneer, ceramic tile,
an interlocking metal panel system with a wood appearance and textured
concrete masonry blocks (CMU). The PDP featured similar materials, however
proposed Trespa panels (high-pressure laminate) as well as pre-cast concrete.
The previously approved PDP did not propose any textured CMU blocks. The
Major Amendment continues to meet the minimum Land Use Code requirements
in terms of mix of materials.
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 3
• In terms of glazing, a curtain wall system was previously proposed with windows
sometimes spanning multiple floors, allowing natural light to penetrate deeper
within the building. The Phase Two Major Amendment is now proposing a small
store-front system instead, with window heights typically at 10' feet maximum.
That said, the Major Amendment continues to meet the Land Use Code minimum
glazing standards.
• Overall, the previously approved PDP proposed 734,790 square feet of
commercial uses whereas the Phase One and Two Major Amendment
commercial area has decreased by 75,659 square feet down to 659,131 square
feet total, resulting in a 10 percent decrease.
• Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to expand the development boundary of
the previously approved Project Development Plan to include a 0.7 acre property
along the northern edge of the site. The property is located at 3120 Remington
Street and is a single family home converted to a chiropractic office just north of
the existing ARC store. This existing structure would be removed and replaced
with additional parking serving the new building located on Block 19.
It should be noted that a Final Plan was not approved for the Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Project Development Plan. As such, the Code still requires the
Applicant to submit a Phase Two Final Plan as well as a Phase Three Final Plan which
are administratively approved by the Community Development and Neighborhood
Services Director once the associated Development Agreements are finalized.
Staff is recommending two conditions of approval for the Foothills Redevelopment
Phase Two Major Amendment. Similar conditions were also recommended with the
previously approved Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan. The
recommended conditions of approval can be summarized as follows:
• In order for the Major Amendment to the PDP to meet Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards (LCUASS) as well as the Land Use Code, a west bound
right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road is required and
recommended as a condition of approval.
• Wetlands have been identified around the base of the existing Larimer Canal No.
2 and the Code requires the lost ecological value of these wetlands to be
mitigated. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure the completion of a
separate agreement with the City’s Natural Areas department regarding off-site
wetland mitigation for this project.
Staff finds that the approval of the Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two, Major
Amendment (MJA) generally complies with the applicable requirements of the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 4
• The Phase Two Major Amendment complies with the process located in Division
2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications
of Article 2 – Administration.
• The Phase Two Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in
Article 3 – General Development Standards.
• The Phase Two Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in
Division 4.21, General Commercial (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North
Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (M-M-N), Low
Density Residential (R-L)
Single Family and Two-Family
Residential
South General Commercial (C-G) Various commercial uses
East General Commercial (C-G) Multi-family Residential
West
Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (M-M-N), Low
Density Residential (R-L)
Various commercial uses
A portion of the Phase Two Major Amendment was part of the Spencer First Annexation
in July, 1969. The southern portion of the Major Amendment was part of the Strachan
Second Annexation on August 26, 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.
In 2007, the City obtained the services of a private consultant to develop an Existing
Conditions Survey for the Foothills Mall area. The Existing Conditions Study was
updated by the Urban Renewal Authority staff in 2011 with the Midtown Commercial
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 5
Corridor Existing Conditions Survey. In September 2011, a Midtown Urban Renewal
Plan was adopted by City Council, which included the Foothills Mall area.
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project
Development Plan on February 7, 2013. In October 2013, a minor amendment to the
existing Foothills Mall P.U.D. for deconstruction of the 1980's mall addition was
approved.
2. The Midtown Plan:
The Foothills Redevelopment is centrally located within the Midtown Plan area
boundaries (adopted, October, 2013). The Midtown Plan serves as a policy guide
that assists in articulating a vision for the area and recommends urban design
guidelines for redevelopment. The vision of Midtown consists of a vibrant mix of
uses, areas of distinctive character, active outdoor areas and an interconnected
multi-modal transportation network. The Foothills Redevelopment achieves this
vision via its inclusion of multi-family housing, a coordinated design of pedestrian
amenities, fixtures and architecture, the east green outdoor feature and the future
pedestrian underpass under College Avenue.
3. Compliance with Overall Development Plan:
The proposed Phase Two Major Amendment is consistent with the Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Overall Development Plan in terms of land use, access,
circulation, connectivity, and the Foothills Drainage Basin Master Plan. It should
be noted that the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Overall Development Plan has
not yet been signed by the City or the Applicant.
4. Compliance with Applicable General Commercial (C-G) Land Use and
Development Standards:
The Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two is in compliance with the
applicable land use and development standards of the General Commercial (C-
G) District, including the following:
A. Section 4.21(A) – Purpose
• The purpose of the General Commercial District is to be a setting for
development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and
regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. While some
General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-
related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City’s intent that the General
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 6
Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in
many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians.
B. Section 4.21(B)(2) – Permitted Uses
• The Phase Two Major Amendment consists of large retail
establishments, retail establishments under 25,000 square feet in size,
a theater, a parking garage and an indoor recreational use (Foothills
Activity Center). The proposed uses of the site are all permitted in this
zone district as either a Type 1 (administrative) or a Type 2 (Planning
and Zoning Board) public hearing. With the previously approved
Project Development Plan, the more stringent hearing type governed,
as a Type 2. However, the proposed changes are considered a Major
Amendment to the previously approved Foothills Mall Redevelopment
Project Development Plan, which was approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board on February 7, 2013. The Land Use Code requires Major
Amendments to be reviewed and processed in the same manner as
the original Project Development Plan.
C. Section 4.21(D) – Land Use Standards
• There are no buildings over the 4 story maximum height in the
Phase Two Major Amendment.
D. Section 4.21(E) - Site Design
• This section requires the project to provide pedestrian-oriented
outdoor spaces creating lively, inviting areas. The Major
Amendment continues to meet this standard with the east and west
lawn areas. The west lawn features a large fountain as a focal
point; the east lawn provides a central outdoor gathering space with
seating.
5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards:
The project complies with the applicable General Development Standards, with
the exception of the conditions noted the following relevant comments provided:
A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards
1) Section 3.2.1– Landscaping and Tree Protection:
• Bur Oak, Chinkapin Oak, Skyline Honeylocust canopy shade trees are
provided in the parkway along the South College Avenue frontage on
35-40 foot centers, meeting the LUC requirements. The trees are
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 7
grouped in rows, each containing of three of a single species, meeting
the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards (adopted, February
2013).
Elm trees are provided in the parkway along the public portion of East
Monroe Drive as required.
• The project provides "full tree stocking" in landscape areas around the
building as required in Section 3.2.1(D).
• The loading dock areas are screened by a thru-brick wall, meeting the
requirements of Section 3.2.1(E)(6). The loading docks located on
Block 16 (Phase One) and Block 11 are screened by a thru-brick wall
in tandem with evergreen plantings.
• The buildings along the South College Avenue frontage have large
planting areas meeting the foundation planting requirements. The
buildings internal to the site also feature adequate foundation plantings
utilizing "green walls" and planter pots when standard foundation
plantings are not feasible.
• Section 3.2.1(E)(3) is complied with as the overall water budget
average of 4.17 gallons per square foot, which is less than the 15
gallons per square feet allowed.
• Generally, the buildings along South College Avenue provide parking
lot screening. The new 15 space parking lot serving the retail building
on Block 12 will be screened from South College Avenue with 6
Austrian Pine trees and an evergreen shrubs, meeting the standard.
The parking fields located on the southern portion of the site, adjacent
to East Monroe Drive will continue to be screened with evergreen
shrubs ranging from 3 feet to 5 feet in width.
• Parking lot areas are required to devote at least 10 percent to
landscaped areas. There are no rows of parking that exceed 15
spaces. As illustrated on the landscape plan, the proposed parking lot
area provides adequate landscape islands featuring canopy trees.
• The Applicant contracted a private consulting arborist to conduct an
inventory of the 640 existing trees on the Phase Two site and
determined a mitigation schedule and an average mitigation ratio of 1.3
mitigation trees for each removal.
Of the 640 trees within the Phase Two Major Amendment area:
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 8
o 135 are currently shown to remain in place
o 11 are shown to be transplanted
o 494 are proposed to be removed
Phase Two has a mitigation requirement of 615 trees. The Phase Two
Major Amendment proposes 865 trees and 775 of those trees will be
upsized.
• Irrigation plans that comply with Section 3.2.1(J) will be submitted at
the time of the Phase Two building permits.
2) Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking:
• Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires general retail uses to provide 1 bicycle
parking space per 4,000 square feet of retail, 1 bicycle space per 1,000
square feet of restaurant use, 1 space for every 30 theater seats and 1
space for every 2,000 square feet of commercial recreational uses.
Phase Two proposes 562,899 square feet of retail, 34,391 square feet
of restaurant uses, a 1,884 seat theater and an 18,190 square foot
recreational center. The project is required to provide 248 bicycle
parking spaces for Phase One and Phase Two (combined) with 38 of
those spaces required to be enclosed. The Major Amendment
proposes to provide 300 bicycle parking spaces total with 160 of those
spaces as fixed exterior racks distributed throughout the site and 140
bicycle parking spaces adjacent to and in the structure. There is no
change in the number of bicycle parking spaces shown on the previous
PDP and the number of spaces proposed with the Major Amendment.
• Parking lots are required to be setback from arterial streets by 15 feet
and 5 feet from lot lines. The parking area is over 180 feet from South
College Avenue, exceeding the required setback (Section 3.2.2(J) of
the Land Use Code).
• Nonresidential uses are limited to a maximum number of parking
spaces under the Land Use Code. For shopping centers, 5 parking
spaces are allowed per 1,000 square feet. The Phase One and Phase
Two Major Amendments propose 659,131 square feet of commercial
space and the projects are allowed 3,295 parking spaces total. Phase
Two and Phase One combined show 3,082 parking spaces total with
2,130 surface spaces distributed throughout the larger site and 978
spaces proposed in the parking structure on Block 8.
With the larger (734,790 square foot) previously approved PDP, a total
of 3,581parking spaces were proposed with 2,104 surface spaces and
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 9
1,477 parking spaces located in the parking structure. The Major
Amendment shows a decrease of 499 structured parking spaces and
an increase of 26 surface spaces.
• The number of handicap parking spaces has increased with the Major
Amendment from the previously approved PDP by 12 paces. For the
Major Amendment, the code requires 41 handicap parking spaces,
which includes one van-accessible parking space. The Major
Amendment complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(5) by providing 88
handicapped parking spaces with 25 located within the parking
structure and 63 surface spaces.
3) Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting
• There are no illumination levels that exceed 10 foot-candles on-site, as
measured 20 feet beyond the property line. The parking lot area is
unobtrusively lit, while the Phase Two area as a whole meets, the
functional needs and safety requirements.
• The previously approved PDP proposed an Alternative Compliance
method for lighting the site, as the lighting plan employs some fixtures
that are not fully shielded and down directional pursuant to the
requirements of this Section.
Taken as a whole, the commercial component (Phase One and Two)
features soft, decorative lighting that will not negatively impact
surrounding neighborhoods. The up-casting fixtures softly glow on
commercial buildings, producing ambient light that does not seem to
diffuse onto adjacent properties.
With the previously approved PDP, staff found that the alternative
compliance accomplished the purposes of Section 3.2.4 equally well
as lighting plan which complies with the standards of the section. It
complied (and continues to comply) review criteria, in that the lighting
plan protects natural areas from light intrusion because there are no
natural areas near the site, enhances neighborhood continuity and
connectivity, and fosters non-vehicular access by providing softly lit
sidewalks and plaza space for pedestrians, and demonstrates
innovative design by the quantity and design of fixtures as well as the
means in which it softly reflected off of commercial building walls.
B. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural
Resource Protection Standards
1) Section 3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 10
• The Foothills Mall project site contains a portion of the Larimer Canal
No. 2 on the western boundary of the project. While the irrigation canal
does not serve as a wildlife corridor, 0.15 acres of wetlands have
formed at the base of the canal, as confirmed by the Ecological
Characterization Study. As the Larimer Canal No. 2 is proposed to be
realigned on the west side of College Avenue, and per the standards
set forth in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, this wetland will be
mitigated in a manner that replaces the ecological value lost from its
disturbance.
Based on site visits, staff discussions with Natural Areas staff, and the
project’s Ecological Characterization Study, the existing wetland is of a
low quality, as it is isolated from other wetlands and its position within
the City’s urban landscape. To meet the requirements of Section 3.4.1,
0.15 acres of wetlands will be mitigated through the creation of an
additional 0.15 acres of wetlands off site. The Applicants are working
with the City’s Natural Areas Department to mitigate the wetland within
the Poudre River Corridor, where the 0.15 acres of wetlands replaced
would exceed the value of the existing wetland. As this agreement has
yet to be finalized, staff recommends that the commitment to mitigate
these wetlands be made a condition of approval.
2) Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources
• The Phase Two Major Amendment proposes to expand the
development boundary of the previously approved Project
Development Plan to include a 0.7 acre property along the northern
edge of the site. The property is located at 3120 Remington Street and
is a single family home converted to a chiropractic office. The property
was determined to be constructed in 1958.
As the newly incorporated property is over 50 years in age, the
property underwent the determination of eligibility process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and was found to be ineligible for
local landmark designation due to the properties diminished historic
setting. The property's architectural and historical significance is not
sufficient to overcome this lack of integrity of setting.
C. Division 3.5 – Building Standards
1) Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 11
• Section 3.5.1(B) notes that "in areas where the existing architectural
character is not definitively established… the architecture of new
development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future
projects or redevelopment in the area."
• The proposed retail and restaurant buildings overall, have a lower
parapet height than the buildings proposed with the previously
approved PDP, but still meet the Land Use Code requirements. The
buildings continue to feature a mix of materials such as earth toned
Dryvit (synthetic stucco) and stone and brick veneer, ceramic tile, still
providing a richness to the project.
• The project complies with Section 3.5.1 (I) in that the utility meters will
continue to be screened by a combination of screen walls and
landscaping as well as painted to match.
• The site plan (sheet A100) and the elevations (sheet A301) provide
notes regarding the rooftop mechanical, stating the rooftop equipment
will be fully screened from College Avenue.
2) Section 3.5.3 – Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Standards
• The proposed commercial buildings along College Avenue are
oriented towards the public street in conformance with the "build-to"
line requirement.
• The buildings along the South College Avenue frontage as well as the
commercial buildings internal to the site vary in length and they all
meet the required variation in massing, wall articulation and changes in
mass related to entrances and other architectural features. No building
module exceeds 60 feet in length in conformance with Section 3.5.3(D)
requirements.
• All building bays are less than 30 feet in length and are defined by
windows or other vertical divisions. The building elevations along the
South College Avenue frontage are subdivided and proportioned with
windows.
• Entrances are clearly identified and articulated with awnings as a
sheltering element.
• The building facades typically feature variations on a "base treatment"
that matches the window mullion elevations as well as an EFIS or
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 12
other similar material top treatment, complying with Section 3.5.3(E)(6)
requirements.
D. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation
1) Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements
The City’s Traffic Engineering Department reviewed the revised
Transportation Impact Study (TIS). The TIS addresses traffic impacts over
the short range future (2015) and the long range future (2035). The TIS
presented the project in two ways; contrasting the mall’s 2012 condition to
the mall as it would have been when it was a vibrant, fully occupied mall,
and also the existing, fully occupied mall to the redeveloped mall as
proposed. This contrast of the existing but declining mall to the existing
mall still in a vibrant condition helps understand how traffic would have
been on the area roadways had the mall remained successful. The
evaluation of the existing but vibrant mall to the proposed redeveloped
mall also provides a more “apples-to-apples” review of the redeveloped
malls impacts.
The revised TIS shows that the proposed project would generate about
2.5 percent greater weekday trips, and approximately 1 percent fewer
weekend trips compared to the Mall when it was fully occupied. The TIS
for the previously approved PDP showed the mall generating 9 percent
greater weekday trips. With the Major Amendment mall, evening and
weekend peak hour traffic would also be approximately 4 percent lower
than a fully occupied existing mall; whereas the previously approved PDP
mall would have generated weekend peak hour volumes that were about 2
to 3 percent higher than a fully occupied existing mall. The revised Major
Amendment TIS reviewed each of the surrounding intersections plus one
new College Avenue right-in, right-out access point. Both the revised TIS
and previous TIS determined that most locations will only experience mild
impacts on existing traffic volumes.
Both the revised Major Amendment TIS and the previous TIS identified
two areas of heightened concern: the South College Avenue and
Horsetooth Road intersection as well as intersections along the congested
stretch of Horsetooth between Stanford and College Avenue.
The City has a funded project to add dual north-south left turn lanes at the
South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road intersection. The City
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 13
previously identified those improvements in the current Capital Projects
Improvement Plan with a tentative construction date in 2015. Per City
policies, the redevelopment project is permitted to use those
improvements in their short and long-term traffic analysis. With these
improvements in tandem with signal timing adjustments, the intersection of
South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road will continue to meet the
City’s Level of Service standards.
While the Horsetooth intersections of John F. Kennedy (JFK) Parkway and
Stanford Road met requirements for the addition of west bound right turn
lanes, the Major Amendment is not being required to construct the
improvement at the JFK Parkway intersection. This is due to existing
condition constraints, as the right turn lane and a west bound bike lane on
Horsetooth Road cannot both be accommodated without impacting
buildings along the north side of Horsetooth Road. It was determined that
the bike lane was of greater value than the right turn lane in that location,
plus the addition of the west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth at
Stanford Road is expected to capture most of the mall-bound traffic that
may have used JFK Parkway.
The construction of the west bound right turn lane is warranted pursuant to
the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Section 8.2.6
Exclusive Right Turn Lanes, as determined by Figure 8-4 in LCUASS. The
right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road is required because
the number of turning vehicles identified in the traffic study meets the
LCUASS criteria for when a right turn lane needs to be provided. As a
condition of approval, Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to
provide construction and design security for a west bound right turn lane
on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road prior to the issuance of any Phase
Two building permits, and the completion of the construction of the turn
lane prior to the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in Phase
Three, whichever occurs first.
Other roadway improvements being constructed by the mall
redevelopment are north bound right turn lanes on College Avenue at the
southern right-in, right-out access and at Foothills Parkway. The College
and Monroe intersection will receive pedestrian signal, crosswalk and
sidewalk improvements plus Monroe Drive between College Avenue and
JFK Boulevard will be restriped to a two lane roadway providing bike lanes
and a center turn lane. The mall project is expected to take over
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 14
ownership of Foothills Parkway, just east of College Avenue. As part of
the right-of-way vacation, the signal at Foothills Parkway and the mall
entrance will be removed and the intersection will transition to a stop-
controlled intersection.
With the recommended public improvements, the Major Amendment
continues to adequately provide the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted Level of Service
standards. The revised TIS makes the following conclusions and
recommendations related to the traffic impacts of the proposed
redevelopment:
• Restripe existing pedestrian crosswalks at signalized intersections
and install pedestrian countdown signals to improve pedestrian
access to and from the west;
• Provide a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at
Stanford Road;
• Re-time traffic signals along Horsetooth Road in order to improve
the weekday afternoon and Saturday peak period efficiency;
• Addition of a new right-in, right-out access and right turn lane on
College Avenue;
• Addition of a north bound right turn lane on College Avenue at
Foothills Parkway;
• The traffic signal at Foothills Parkway and the mall entrance is not
warranted;
• The TIS assumes the sidewalks along the three access drives on
Stanford Road are constructed with Phase Two in order to meet
pedestrian Level of Service standards;
• Construct the north-south dual left turn lanes at College and
Horsetooth; The City’s multi-modal Level of Service Standards can
be achieved; and
• The Major Amendment to the PDP is feasible from a traffic
engineering standpoint.
E. Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
Phase Two of the Foothills Redevelopment is located within the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road. As
such, the following standards apply:
1) 3.10.3 - Site Planning
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 15
• The applicable provisions of this Section require buildings to provide
frontages along public streets as well as outdoor spaces, to the extent
reasonably feasible. The retail buildings on Blocks 12-17 provide
frontage along South College Avenue. The Major Amendment
continues to provide an east and west lawn area, providing an outdoor
central feature and gathering space for the project.
2) 3.10.4 - Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections
• Street trees are provided along the South College Avenue and Monroe
frontage. Pedestrian light fixtures are also proposed along building
frontages along College Avenue, meeting the requirements.
• Surface parking is located behind the buildings, thus generally
screening it from South College Avenue.
• The parking structure has been reduced in size from 6 levels with the
previously approved PDP down to 4 levels. Access is gained at two
points from internal drive aisles along the northeast and southwest of
the structure. The Parking Structure Design standard is intended to
address access to a parking structure from public right-of-way.
However, the proposed parking structure is internally accessed from
private drive aisles, so compliance is not required. Nevertheless, Staff
is still requesting the Applicant voluntarily comply with the design of
auto entrances (3.10.4.(D)(3)) to the extent reasonably feasible at the
time of Phase Two Final Plan submittal.
3) Section 3.10.5 - Character and Image
• All buildings meet the minimum height requirement of 20 feet and all
proposed buildings have adequate vertical articulation to meet the
standard.
• Stone veneer, brick veneer, ceramic tile, engineered wood siding and
Dryvit (synthetic stucco) in neutral earth tones are proposed for
building materials for Phase Two.
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 16
• Ample glazing in tandem with enhanced landscaping and changes in
massing assist the Major Amendment in complying with the minimum
glazing requirement outlined in Section 3.10.5(G).
6. Neighborhood Meeting:
The neighborhood meeting requirement for this project was waived by the
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, as a
neighborhood meeting was held for the related Foothills Mall Redevelopment
PDP in September, 2012.
7. Findings of Fact and Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major
Amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The Phase Two Major Amendment complies with process located in
Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
B. The Phase Two Major Amendment complies with relevant standards
located in Article 3 – General Development Standards.
C. The Phase Two Major Amendment complies with relevant standards
located in Division 4.21, General Commercial (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts.
D. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to
provide financial security for the design and construction of a west bound
right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road prior to the issuance
of any Phase Two building permits and the completion of the construction
for the turn lane prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy
in Phase Two or the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase Three,
whichever occurs first.
E. The lost ecological value of the existing wetlands at the base of the
Larimer Canal No. 2 must be appropriately mitigated off-site via a
separate agreement with the City's Natural Areas Department.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two, #MJA130006,
subject to the following conditions:
Foothills Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment - #MJA130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing December 12, 2013
Page 17
1. The Applicant shall provide design and construction security funds for the west
bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road prior to the
issuance of any Phase Two building permits and shall complete construction for
the turn lane prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy in Phase
Two or the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase Three, whichever occurs
first.
2. The Applicant shall complete anoff-site wetland mitigation via a separate
agreement with the City's Natural Areas Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Plan Set
2. Landscape Plan Set
3. Tree Mitigation Plans
4. Building Elevations
5. Parking Structure Elevations
6. Lighting Plan Set
7. Preliminary Plat
8. Updated Traffic Study (2013)
9. Memo to updated Traffic Study
10. Previously approved PDP set (February 2013)
a. PDP Site Plans
b. PDP Landscape Plans
c. PDP Commercial Elevations
11. Phase Two Major Amendment Rendering Set