Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/2014 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting (2)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, April 10, 2014 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, April 10, 2014, hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, April 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes from the March 13, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Bella Vira, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #140002 This is a request for a one year extension of the term of vested right, to April 29, 2015, of the approved Bella Vira, Final Plan. The parcel is located generally at the southwest corner of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The Final Plan has been approved for 60 single family detached dwellings, and 25 multi-family dwelling units on 34.7 acres. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L -M -N) Zone District, and the Residential Foothills (RF) Zone District. Applicant: Linda Purdy, Vice President Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc. 4350 S. Monaco Street Denver, CO 80237 Staff: Pete Wray 1 E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 3. Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, O.D.P. #130003 and Modifications of Standard to Sections: 4.5(D)(1)(a), 4.5(D)(2) and 3.9.2(A) This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for a parcel of land located approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the corner of East Mulberry Street and I-25. The site is bordered by Boxelder Creek to the west with existing residential development to the north and west. The project contains 35.8 acres in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district with two phases of development proposed. The O.D.P. includes a request for three modifications of standard that are discussed in detail with this staff report and with the applicant’s supplemental attachments. Applicant: Stephanie Sigler Ripley Design Inc. 401 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff: Jason Holland 4. Lincoln Corridor Plan This item has been removed from the April 10, 2014 Hearing. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes March 13, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick, and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Wray, McWilliams, Stanford, Langenberger and Cosmas Agenda Review Member Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Director Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. Director Kadrich also addressed some citizen confusion that had occurred during previous hearings regarding consent items, and she asked the P&Z Chair to read each item individually to determine whether any citizen wanted to hear more about the items specifically under consent. She explained that, unless a citizen acknowledges that they are interested in hearing more about a consent item, then that item will be considered by the Board without any discussion or presentation. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, addressed the Board on the fairness of Type I hearings. He had attended a Type I hearing the previous week regarding the parking structure to be built at the site of the Summit. He expressed a concern over the use of tax increment financing. He felt that the development proposal did not comply with the Land Use Code. He did not agree with the amount of unlimited presentation time provided to the developer at the hearing versus the limited minutes given to citizens for public comments. He stated that citizens should be able 3 Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2014 Page 2 to use various forms of multi-media. He considered the public deprived of the benefit of City staff consultation and wants advocacy and support services for community members who wish to participate. Follow-up to Public Input: Director Kadrich clarified that Sarah Burnett is a City Employee who helps citizens understand proceedings. Sometimes Ms. Burnett is assigned to a Type I hearing, but she is not currently assigned to every hearing that goes through all Boards. Member Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Sutherland for suggestions for improving the Type I process. Mr. Sutherland responded that he had several ideas for improvement, including: • a method to make the hearing process more cooperative and less adversarial; • his perception that the process is always a “step behind” where it should be (e.g.: Type I hearings should be more like a neighborhood meeting, and appeals that go to Council should be more like the current Type II process); and • the need for a step in the beginning of the process to bring people together to consider the proposals and codes, then bring it to a neighborhood meeting, then to the decision-makers. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from February 13, 2014 2. Bella Vira, Filing 2, Major Amendment and Replat #140001 Chair Carpenter recognized several citizens wishing to pull the Bella Vira Item from the Consent agenda, which will now be considered as Item #4 on the Discussion agenda. Member Hart made a motion to approve the February 13, 2014, Consent agenda as stated, including the minutes from the February 13, 2014, hearing, with the exception of the Bella Vira project, which has been placed back on discussion. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Historic Preservation-Related Code Changes Project: Historic Preservation-Related Code Changes Project Description: The purpose of this item is to inform the Planning and Zoning Board of the results of this two-phase study and to seek the Board’s recommendation on proposed code changes to the Municipal and Land Use Codes. During 2012 and 2013, at Council’s direction, staff identified improvements to the Historic Preservation Program processes and codes to enhance the program’s transparency, predictability, and effectiveness. Recommendation: Proposed revisions are recommended to City Council Staff Presentation: Karen McWilliams gave a staff report on the code changes proposed, which will include Land Use Code (LUC) 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. She provided some history of the origination of the code changes and their possible future impacts. The City Council had requested this 4 Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2014 Page 3 examination of the LUC 3.4.7 on August 26, 2013 at their work session. She reviewed each proposal separately, including some new language: • Adding the ability for the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to review development proposals that are being impacted by both development code requirements and the historic preservation requirements in the LUC and enable the LPC to provide a recommendation on compatibility. • Ensuring that a percentage of the LPC members have experience in historic preservation to meet certified local government requirements (administered through the State Historical Society). • Offering the ability to do non-binding determinations of eligibility for projects undergoing LUC review. • Adding new language to LUC section 3.4.7 (new construction) to better clarify what adjacent properties are in the code for irregularly-shaped parcels and land that isn’t platted in a standard grid pattern. In order to determine how projects would be affected, buffers were put around designated properties (150’ and 300’ buffers were used). Ms. McWilliams provided a diagram of the properties receiving buffers. Chair Carpenter asked Secretary Cosmas if any input had been received since the work session. Secretary Cosmas responded that two emails from residents had been received with concerns regarding the procedures for the demolition of the Button House and requesting procedural changes to be made before other historic buildings are condemned and destroyed. Board Questions For clarification, Member Hansen asked if the purpose of allowing the LPC to review the historical projects was to speed up the process or to reduce paperwork. Ms. McWilliams responded that the primary consideration was to speed up the process, although there may be an added benefit of reducing paperwork. She also clarified that adjacent properties on the regular grid will still be considered on the block face. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Public Input Chair Carpenter allowed 4 minutes to the citizens speaking. Steve Mack, 420 E. Laurel, asked the Board to add to their resolution that the LPC reviews additional codes to prevent other historic buildings like the Button House from being demolished. He talked about the history of 711 Remington – how it was damaged, how there was no city code preventing buildings from being demolished without getting additional input first, and how there are no penalties to developers for damaging historic buildings. He strongly urged the Board in incorporate appropriate language into the LUC code for this type of scenario. Staff Response Ms. McWilliams responded by confirming that City staff is working on this issue. Director Kadrich acknowledged that this scenario is the first of its kind. She did confirm that processes will be reviewed to prevent future occurrences, including reviews of construction plans with verbiage on how to protect adjacent historic structures. Chair Carpenter asked if there is any time line for these changes. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it is premature to assume there is a problem with the law. He suggested that an investigation must first proceed in order to determine the root of the problem. Member Kirkpatrick inquired about the criteria used by Building Inspectors for reviewing historic buildings that may 5 Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2014 Page 4 have been damaged. Ms. McWilliams confirmed that the building inspectors would treat a historical building just like all other buildings. Board Questions Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that health/safety issue supersedes historic standards. Member Hart stated that the LPC would still be the best judge of the circumstances surrounding the Button House, and that situation should not affect the adoption of codes at this time. Ms. McWilliams confirmed that the Button House was designated on the National Register of Historic Places, on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was determined to be an individually eligible designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Although these designations would normally guarantee protection, once a building is found to be dangerous, these codes no longer apply. Member Kirkpatrick stated that she believes the Board still has an obligation to perform due diligence in supporting and protecting Fort Collins historic resources. Chair Carpenter stated that staff will be addressing this issue at a later time. Regarding the reason for choosing between the 150’ and 300’ buffers, Ms. McWilliams stated that, when a development proposal comes forward, staff would then look at the effect on parcels around it to determine potential impact. Depending on scale of project and the potential effect, staff might even propose a larger buffer. Member Schneider inquired whether this buffer would also apply to new construction, which could include additions to existing structures. Ms. McWilliams stated that additions would still be reviewed for impact on all surrounding properties, and buffers would be determined based on that potential impact. She also stated that it is impossible to develop a chart for the buffering as each project would be considered individually. Other discussion involved the pros and cons of having specific guidelines in place versus an arbitrary method of buffer determination. The unusually-shaped parcels are particularly difficult to work with, and there is no code requirement that buffers need to start from the boundaries of the parcel. Board Deliberation Member Hart stated that he supports these changes because of the expertise demonstrated by LPC Board members. Member Hobbs agreed and stated that he feels confident that staff has the capability of determining buffers for individual situations. Member Hansen also supports these changes and understands the difficulties involved. Member Kirkpatrick state that she is glad that the LPC will be more involved in the processes but understands the reasoning behind them. Member Schneider is also in favor of LPC’s participation, although he is still uncomfortable with the long-term effects on future irregularly-shaped properties and would still like to see some metrics involved. Member Heinz agreed and supports some type of standardization process. Chair Carpenter also supports these changes in code and that the Button House will not be forgotten. Member Hart made a motion that the P&Z Board recommend to the City Council adoption of the changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources. Member Hobbs seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Project: Bella Vira, Filing 2, Major Amendment and Replat #140001 Project Description: This is a request for a Major Amendment and Replat to amend the approved Bella Vira Final Plan. The request includes a replat to the northeast portion of Bella Vira Phase II, located at the southwest corner of West Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail. The existing, approved Bella Vira plans call for condominiums in this location; this proposal seeks to replat 25 lots for single-family 6 Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2014 Page 5 attached units with individual utilities. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L M N) Zone District. The applicant is requesting Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.5.2 (E) (1) (2). Recommendation: Approval Staff Presentation Senior Planner Wray gave a staff report on both the amendment and replatting modification. The original project development plan was approved in 2006, and the final plan was approved in 2008. The term of vested rights has been extended three times, with the most recent extended to May 16, 2014. The proposed replat and housing type change (from multi-family to single family) requires a major amendment under a Type II review. He detailed the various reductions in setbacks. He also confirmed that the amendment and modification still comply with the original standards. A neighborhood meeting was originally held in 2006; the required meeting for this request was waived by Director, based on no new significant neighborhood impacts. Board Questions Senior Planner Wray confirmed for the Board that the replatting has created individual lot lines and utilities for the 25 units. He also stated that, while the building locations have not changed, two of the buildings had a reduction in building setbacks. There are no parking changes. Applicant Presentation John Minatta, owner and applicant, gave a brief history of the project and detailed the plan changes. The reason for the design changes is primarily to be able to obtain construction financing. Board Questions Member Hart asked whether there would be a Homeowner’s Association (HOA), and Mr. Minatta confirmed that there would be one. Chair Carpenter asked Secretary Cosmas if any input had been received since the work session. Secretary Cosmas confirmed that two phone calls were received from citizens, one with neighborhood concerns and the other a general interest inquiry. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Public Input Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concerns over parking and pedestrian access, based on a similar neighborhood situation on the other side of Overland Trail. He is also concerned about the intersection of Elizabeth and Overland Trail, as the right-of-way on Elizabeth tapers into Overland Trail. He felt that, since there have been no signs in front of this project since 2006, the amendment could be problematic. He also feels that the neighbors have been deprived of the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process for the major amendment. Dale Edwards, 3208 Snowbrush Avenue, stated that he can see this development from his back window. He feels that there has been very little information regarding this project. He knew it has been previously 7 Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2014 Page 6 proposed, but he is concerned because he had no notification of the first filing. He confirmed that he did get notification of this development. He is concerned with the traffic flow at Elizabeth and about water runoff, since he observed the ground being stripped. Since his property has a walk-out window and the holding pond is very low, he is concerned with water distribution in the event of a flood. Keith Gallata, 3203 Snowbrush Place, stated that his home also backs up to Overland Trail and that he has similar traffic concerns. He had received a notice in the mail about the project. He feels that the junction at Elizabeth and Overland Trail is already difficult and is concerned with more traffic and the impact to the children in the neighborhood. He stated that he had previously requested a four-way stop sign from the City, but he hasn’t received an answer yet on that. Applicant Response Mr. Minatta responded to the issue of neighborhood meetings by saying that the scope has not been significantly modified from the original plan. At the original neighborhood meeting in 2006, the project was well-received. Additionally, he has worked closely with the HOA. Regarding the lack of parking, each unit will have separate parking spaces, and he does not agree that this project is similar to the neighborhood across the street, because there is low density and there are no investment properties. Concerning the traffic concerns between Elizabeth and Overland Trail, there is minimal adjustment needed and is not actually part of the scope of this project. He feels that the original process was thorough and complete. Staff Response Senior Planner Wray reiterated that another neighborhood meeting was not required for the modifications, although there were notices sent out and signs posted. Ward Stanford, City of Fort Collins Traffic, stated that he was not aware of a request for a four-way stop at the location mentioned by Mr. Gallata. He did state that traffic items would be monitored and addressed as needed. He confirmed that signals are installed for a general area, not just for a neighborhood. Regarding the difficulties at Elizabeth and Overland Trail, he stated that these issues are typical for arterial streets, although there has been an overall reduction of traffic at Overland Trail since 2009, because there has been no new growth in that area and due to the economic decline. Board Questions Member Kirkpatrick inquired about the pedestrian access and sidewalks. Sheri Langenberger, Engineering Department, responded that sidewalks will be installed along the south side of Elizabeth out to Overland Trail and south to the existing sidewalk down by the ponds. In addition, the box culvert will be extended over the canal to make room for a sidewalk. These are required in order to get permits. Those single-family amenities must be in place before anyone can live there. Regarding the water runoff, regional detention ponds have already been established. Senior Planner Wray confirmed there was a sign posted on the southeast corner of Overland Trail and Elizabeth. Mr. Stanford stated that there has not been significant development in this area since 2006 to warrant a new traffic study. Senior Planner Wray added that this request is not increasing the number of units, just changing the use type and lot configuration. He also confirmed that a neighborhood meeting was held in 2006. Board Deliberation Member Hart stated that there appears to be a neighborhood perception that a lack of communication has persisted. He clarified that, in 2008, a vested right to go forward with the project was approved. He acknowledged that the developer has tried to be responsive to neighbor concerns, but any project 8 Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2014 Page 7 discussion should have already taken place prior to this hearing. Member Kirkpatrick also expressed her understanding of the difficulty of building condos; however, she feels that a neighborhood meeting probably should have happened to give the neighbors an update on the project. Member Hart also stated that he wanted to state for the record that he did not feel he has a conflict of interest with this issue because he is not in the notification area and was on the Board that approved the extension last year. Deputy City Attorney Eckman directed the Board to make two separate motions. Member Hobbs made a motion that the P&Z Board approve the modification for Bella Vira, Filing 2, #140001, based on the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report on page 11, paragraph 7, then paragraph 5 pertaining to the modifications. Member Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Kirkpatrick made a motion that the P&Z Board approve the Bella Vira major amendment and replat #140001, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45pm. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 9 ITEM NO 2 MEETING DATE April 10, 2014 STAFF Pete Wray PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Bella Vira, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights # MIS140002 APPLICANT: Linda Purdy, Vice President Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc. 4350 S. Monaco Street Denver, CO 80237 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a one year extension of the term of vested right, to April 29, 2015, of the approved Bella Vira, Final Plan. The parcel is located generally at the southwest corner of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The Final Plan has been approved for 60 single family detached dwellings, and 25 multi-family dwelling units on 34.7 acres. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L -M -N) Zone District, and the Residential Foothills (RF) Zone District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request for Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 18, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Bella Vira, Project Development Plan (PDP) - #36-05A/B. On April 29, 2008 the Final Plan was approved. Per Section 2.2.11(D) (3), this Final Plan was granted a term of vested right for three years. On March 3, 2011, the term of vested right was extended administratively by the CDNS Director for one additional year per Section 2.2.11(D) (4). Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 10 Bella Vira, Filing 1, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #MIS140002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/10/2014 Page 2 On March 23, 2012, the term of vested right was extended for the second time administratively by the CDNS Director for one additional year. Section 2.2.11(D) (4) allows for only two successive administrative extensions. On May 16, 2013, the term of vested right was extended for the third time by the Planning and Zoning Board for one additional year. This extension requires all engineering improvements in accordance with the approved utility plans must be completed no later than April 29, 2014. At that time staff recommended the May 16 date to the Board in error. The correct extension date is April 29, 2014. There are now two owners for Bella Vira. Phase 1 was sold to Richmond American Homes. Phase 2 continues to be owned by OFP Development Company (John Minatta). Prior to the April 29, 2014 expiration date, the applicant representing Bella Vira Phase 1 forwarded a letter to City Staff, requesting a fourth one-year extension. According to the applicant, they are working diligently to complete development of the sites, and a majority of the grading is complete and they are beginning to install utilities. However, the public improvements will not be fully completed in time. In the request letter from Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc., the applicant for Phase 1 states that all of the required public improvements will be completed by the summer of 2014 and now seeks a one-year extension from the Planning and Zoning Board. The project continues to comply with Article Three – General Development Standards and Article Four, Division 4.2 –Residential Foothills, and Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. A vicinity map is included on the next page that shows project context in the area. 11 Bella Vira, Filing 1, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #MIS140002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/10/2014 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: Bella Vira Final Plan – Context Map 12 Bella Vira, Filing 1, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #MIS140002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/10/2014 Page 4 The property was annexed as the Minatta Annexation in November, 2005. Current surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Larimer County (FA-1) Colorado State University Foothills Campus South Low Density Residential (RL) Residential Foothills (RF) Existing Single-family Residential (Ponds) East Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhoods (LMN) Low Density Residential (RL) Existing Single-family and Multi-family Residential West Low Density Residential (RL) Residential Foothills (RF) Existing Single-family Residential (Ponds) 2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION Section 2.2.11(D) (4) Extensions (Notes and emphasis added.) Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. (Administrative extensions have been exhausted.) Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article Three and the Zone District Standards as contained in Article Four at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. The applicant for Phase 1, as stated in the letter: 13 Bella Vira, Filing 1, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #MIS140002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/10/2014 Page 5 Public improvements for the site are not able to be fully completed by May 16, 2014 for several reasons including: closing of property in September, 2013, winter weather delays, extensive grading to mitigate expansive soils on site, excess cut and fill and removal of excess dirt, and mitigation of high water table. Extending the vested right for the Final Plan for one additional year is not detrimental to the public good. This is because the project continues to comply with the L-M-N standard related to the mix of housing types. Further, the Final Plan continues to meet all aspects of the Land Use Code. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. The request for an extension of vested rights for Phase 1 was made on March 20, 2014. The request was submitted to the City more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of April 29, 2014. A letter from OFP Development Company, owner of Bella Vira Phase Two, supports the Applicant’s request for an extension of vested rights for Bella Vira Final Plan, which includes both Phases (see attachment No. 2). In compliance with Section 2.2.11 (D) (4) (a), the Applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements this year, although all required engineering improvements will not be complete by the expiration date. A major portion of the site excavation and grading has occurred. As stated in the Applicant’s letter, by the April 29, 2014 deadline, they expect to have Overland Trail paved and widened, a portion of the wet utilities complete, a portion of the curb and gutter complete, and a portion of the subgrade preparation for internal streets complete. In compliance with Section 2.2.11 (D) (4) (b), the Applicant has also stated due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. The site needed extensive over-excavation work to mitigate expansive soils for both the home foundations and public improvements. The site had excess dirt and removal of the excess dirt to an offsite location was required. And due to high water table at the site, the developer needed to design and will be constructing an interceptor drain on a portion of the site to mitigate water intrusion into the newly excavated soils. Finally, the project continues to represent a pattern of land use that complies with the Structure Plan Map. 14 Bella Vira, Filing 1, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #MIS140002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/10/2014 Page 6 3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Bella Vira, Final Plan proposal complies with the following applicable requirements / standards of the Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: Standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 – Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 4. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS A. Division 4.2 – Residential Foothills The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the RF District, including a Modification of Standard for Section 4.2(E) (2) Site Design for Residential Cluster Development, subsection (b), which states: Minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board, provided that the overall density of the cluster development is not greater than one (1) unit per gross acre, and the units are clustered together in the portion of the property designated on the plan for residential use at a density of three (3) to five (5) units per gross acre. The Final Plan includes a total of 20 single-family detached dwelling units (lots) on 15.13 acres in the RF District. This results in a gross residential density of 1.32 dwelling units per acre. Also, the development plan preserves 8.22 acres of private open space and clusters the 20 lots on 6.91 acres, resulting in a net residential density of 2.89 dwelling units per acre. B. Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) This proposal complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is a project that provides 40 single-family detached dwellings and 25 multi-family dwellings on 15.8 acres. The resulting gross residential density is 3.32 dwelling units per acre, and a net residential density of 4.10 dwelling units per acre. The property that is surrounded by developed properties containing residential and institutional uses. There is existing single-family and multi-family residential to the east. There is existing single-family residential to the west and south. Property to the north is owned by Colorado State University and is partially developed. 15 Bella Vira, Filing 1, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #MIS140002 Planning & Zoning Hearing 04/10/2014 Page 7 5. Neighborhood Meeting: The LUC requires a neighborhood meeting be held for development proposals that are subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review. The proposed request is not a development plan, but rather an extension of vested rights for a previously approved Final Plan, and as a result, a neighborhood meeting is not required. Therefore, a City- sponsored and facilitated neighborhood information meeting was not held for this project. 6. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: A. Bella Vira, Final Plan continues to comply with Division 4.2 RF and Division 4.5 LMN standards in Article Four Districts. B. Bella Vira, Final Plan continues to comply with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. C. The request for extension of vested rights satisfies Section 2.2.11(D) (4), including (a) diligence in constructing engineering improvements, although not complete, and/or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant. Furthermore, the granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. D. The request for extension of vested rights was made at least 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Bella Vira, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights # MIS140002, for a One Year Term of Vested Rights to April 29, 2015, provided that the City Council determines that the extension of the Plan granted by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 16, 2013, is valid and binding upon the City. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant Extension Request Letter (Phase 1), dated March 20, 2014. 2. Letter of support for extension from OFP Development Company, dated April 2, 2014. 16 17 18 ITEM NO 3 MEETING DATE April 10, 2014 STAFF Holland PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, O.D.P. #130003 and Modifications of Standard to Sections: 4.5(D)(1)(a), 4.5(D)(2) and, 3.9.2(A). APPLICANT: Stephanie Sigler Ripley Design Inc. 401 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Imago Enterprises Inc. 140 Palmer Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for a parcel of land located approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the corner of East Mulberry Street and I-25. The site is bordered by Boxelder Creek to the west with existing residential development to the north and west. The project contains 35.8 acres in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood zone district with two phases of development proposed. The O.D.P. includes a request for three modifications of standard that are discussed in detail with this staff report and with the applicant’s supplemental attachments. RECOMMENDATION: Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, O.D.P. #130003, and Modifications of Standard to Sections 4.5(D)(1)(a) Minimum Density in LMN Zone, 4.5(D)(2) Minimum Housing Types in LMN Zone and, 3.9.2(A) Single Family Lots within 1,320 feet of I-25. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 19 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Fox Grove O.D.P. and Modifications of Standard comply with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The O.D.P. complies with the Overall Development Plan Review Procedures in Section 2.3.2. • The three Modifications of Standard to Sections 4.5(D)(1)(a) Minimum Density in LMN Zone, 4.5(D)(2) Minimum Housing Types in LMN Zone, and 3.9.2(A) Single Family Lots within 1,320 feet of I-25 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 O.D.P. complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7), provided that the three Modifications of Standard are approved. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject property was annexed in November 2005, referred to as the State Highway 14 East Frontage Road Annexation, and was zoned L-M-N at the time of the annexation. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (GC) Interchange Business Park South Industrial (I) Undeveloped Parcel East Larimer County Clydesdale Park residential subdivision West Boxelder Creek and Lot 1 Lee M.L.D., Larimer County, zoned Commercial (C) Undeveloped Parcel 20 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 3 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies seven criteria for reviewing O.D.P.’s which are summarized as follows: A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards This standard requires the O.D.P. to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an O.D.P. submittal. • Land Use: The Fox Grove O.D.P. proposes a single-family detached land use, which is a permitted use in the L-M-N zone district. • Small Neighborhood Parks: The O.D.P. proposes three private neighborhood park areas containing 3.8 acres, which exceeds the standard that a public or private park at least one acre in size be provided for development plans that exceed ten acres. B. Section 2.3.2(H)(2) - Density This standard requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the L-M-N zone district. The L-M-N density standard requires that parcels greater than 20 acres have a residential density not less than 4.00 dwelling units per gross acre and not greater than 9.00 per net acre. • The Phase 1 portion of the O.D.P. provides 66 dwelling units on 25.5 acres for a density of 2.59 dwelling units per gross acre. • The Phase 2 portion of the O.D.P. provides 49 dwelling units on 10.3 acres for a density of 4.75 dwelling units per gross acre. • Both phases provide 115 units on 35.8 acres for an overall density of 3.2 dwelling units per gross acre. The O.D.P. proposes a modification to decrease the minimum density and minimum housing type requirement, which is discussed further in this staff report. C. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) and 2.3.2(H)(4) – Master Street Plan, Street Pattern, Connectivity, Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties 21 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 4 These standards require the O.D.P. to conform to the Master Street Plan as required by Section 3.6.1 and also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. Additionally, the O.D.P. is required to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the O.D.P. from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). Section 3.6.1 Master Street Plan: Carriage Parkway is designated as a collector street, and the O.D.P. extends this street through the project to the southern boundary, in accordance with the Master Street Plan. Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: This section requires that the O.D.P. provide for future public street connections along each boundary that abuts potentially developable land at maximum intervals of 660 feet. The southern boundary of the O.D.P. is approximately 2,025 feet in length, therefore requiring three street connections along the southern boundary. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance to provide two street connections along this southern boundary. Review Criteria For Alternative Compliance: To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this section, and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters non-vehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile. Staff is recommending approval of alternative compliance to provide two street connections and one non-vehicular connection along the southern boundary. This recommendation is based on the following considerations: • In strict conformance with the standard, any boundary over 1,980 feet requires three public street connections (660 feet x 3). The southern boundary’s 2,025 foot length is not significantly longer than 1,980 feet, 22 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 5 with the southwestern portion of the boundary containing open space and a natural feature, which reduces the developable length of the southern boundary so that two street public street connections provide adequate access and distribution, while recognizing the specific context of the site. • A second factor to consider is the presence of Industrial zoning to the south of the O.D.P. boundary. Given this context, two street connections provide adequate vehicular cross-access and traffic distribution, with a greater emphasis on providing a transition and buffer to non-residential uses to the south. • In conformance with the requirements for Alternative Compliance, a third access point along the western portion of the project will remain to provide for non-vehicular connections to the south and north, so that the reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. The location of this non-vehicular connection will be finalized during the P.D.P. review for Phase One. Section 3.6.4 requires compliance with the adopted Level of Service Standards (L.O.S.) for all modes of transportation. The T.I.S. estimates that the number of new trips generated by Fox Grove would be 86 in the a.m. peak and 117 in the p.m. peak. These new trips will have a relatively minor impact to the surrounding street system. An intermediate T.I.S. will be required at the P.D.P. phase to provided further analysis of the key intersections, in particular the intersection of Carriage Parkway and State Highway 14. D. Section 2.3.2(H)(5) – Natural Features This standard requires an O.D.P. to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). The Boxelder Creek corridor along the western boundary of the O.D.P. is a significant natural feature. In conjunction with a Project Development Plan submittal, the value of this natural feature will be evaluated and lost value will be required to be replaced with equal or enhanced value. This is consistent with the applicable requirements of Section 3.4.1(E) which requires that buffer zones be established and the buffer zone criteria met in conjunction with subsequent Project Development Plans for this O.D.P. In addition to the requirements of Section 3.4.1(E), it is likely that portions of the buffer area will be required to achieve an enhanced value in order to protect and enhance views to and from the development and I-25. 23 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 6 E. Section 2.3.2(H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan This standard requires an O.D.P. to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The site is located within the City of Fort Collins Boxelder Creek Drainage Basin. Development is anticipated to comply with the stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards of both this particular basin and city-wide best management practices. F. Section 2.3.2(H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses This section requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire O.D.P. and not on each individual P.D.P. The Fox Grove O.D.P. is addressing these standards at the O.D.P. stage. The standards related to housing density and housing types is the subject of a Request for Modification and are discussed in the following sub-sections of this report. The following is the Land Use Code Modification Criteria provided for reference: “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 24 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 7 difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). 1. Modification of Standard Request to Section 4.5(D)(1)(a) addressing Minimum Density in the LMN Zone A. Description of the Modification: The applicant has submitted a request for approval of a Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(D)(1)(a) addressing minimum density of 4.00 units per acre in the LMN zone, requesting that the project provide a minimum of 3.00 units per acre. B. The standard: Section 4.5(D)(1)(a) Density Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre of residential land, except that residential developments (whether overall development plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall have an overall minimum average density of three (3) dwelling units per net acre of residential land. C. Applicant’s Justification: The applicant provides the following written justification: “The original conceptual site plan (attached) met the minimum density standard of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. After meeting with the neighborhood and receiving comments from City staff, the applicant asked the design team to prepare an alternative conceptual site plan (attached) that: • provided a more interesting streetscape 25 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 8 • provided open space distributed throughout the plan • provided more site amenities, and; • created a variety of lot sizes that were more compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Lower density is appropriate at this location because the property is located at the urban fringe, adjacent to unincorporated Larimer County and near the Growth Management Area boundary. County residents living near the proposed development are especially sensitive to density in what they consider to be a rural area. They were particularly concerned about multi-family development proposed along the Boxelder Creek drainage. In fact, the site is not particularly conducive to multi-family development and higher densities in general because of its lack of proximity to shopping, recreational opportunities, employment, etc. Clydesdale neighborhood residents requested the new development have equal or better amenities per person as compared to their neighborhood. The proposed conceptual plan (attached) is designed to address the concerns of the neighborhood and City staff. The changes to the site plan result in an overall density reduction from 4 dwelling units per acre to 3 dwelling units per acre. We believe it promotes 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.” D. Staff Finding for the Modification: Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(D)(1)(a) to reduce the overall minimum average density from 4.00 units per acre to 3.00 units per acre 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, because the proposed density allows a better overall site design that provides an appropriate density transition at the community edge. 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. 26 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 9 Staff’s analysis and recommendation for any proposal to reduce or increase a project’s density evaluates the project’s surrounding context and specific site features. For this project, when considering the proposed design elements of the entire development plan and how the design fits into project’s surrounding context, a reduction of density from 4.00 units per acre to 3.00 units per acre is nominal. The density reduction enables the project to provide a more gradual transition at the community edge that is complementary with the existing Clydesdale Park neighborhood to the northeast. This approach is consistent with Policy LIV 22.10 of City Plan which states: City Plan Policy LIV 22.10 – Provide Transitions at Community Edges Where a new neighborhood develops next to designated open lands, rural lands, or Urban Estate Neighborhoods near an edge of the city, design the neighborhood and layout to complement the established patterns of open space, buildings, and land forms. Additionally, given the project’s context, the density reduction better achieves the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, including: (M) Ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (N) Ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. 2. Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(D)(2) Addressing Minimum Housing Types in LMN Zone A. Description of the Modification: The applicant is requesting a modification to reduce the required four housing types to provide one housing type (single-family detached). B. The standard: 4.5(D)(2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met: (a) A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on any project development plan containing twenty (20) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall development; and a minimum of four (4) housing 27 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 10 types shall be required on any such project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more. (b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions, garage placement, lot sizes and lot dimensions shall be significantly and substantially varied to avoid repetitive rows of housing and monotonous streetscapes. For example, providing distinct single-family detached dwellings or two-family dwellings on larger lots and on corners and providing small lot single-family dwellings on smaller lots abutting common open spaces fronting on streets are methods that accomplish this requirement. (c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement: 1. Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages. 2. Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages. 3. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than four thousand [4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty [40] feet or less) if there is a difference of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet between the average lot size for small lot single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages. 4. Two-family dwellings. 5. Single-family attached dwellings. 6. Mixed-use dwelling units. 7. Multi-family dwellings containing more than three (3) to four (4) units per building; 8. Multi-family dwellings containing five (5) to seven (7) units per building. 9. Multi-family dwellings containing more than seven (7) units per building (limited to twelve [12] dwelling units per building). 10. Mobile home parks. (d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than eighty (80) percent or less than five (5) percent of the total number of dwelling units. C. Applicant’s Justification: Equal to or Better Than Justification provided: 28 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 11 “The preceding paragraphs have outlined the appropriateness of lower density at the proposed site based on its location at the urban fringe and the existing low density neighborhood adjacent to it. Providing four housing types per the Land Use Code would increase the density over what is being proposed. The attached conceptual site plans demonstrate this. Although only one housing type is depicted, the proposed conceptual plan incorporates varied lot sizes and will also include several different house sizes and models to provide lifestyle choices and visual interest along the street. Lot sizes proposed include 50’ x 100’ lots, 60’ x 110’ lots and 70’ x 125’ lots. The pocket parks distributed throughout the development also serve to make the residential community unique and visually interesting. We have attached a conceptual site plan which meets the Land Use Code. The plan includes four housing types: Multi-family, Single Family Detached, Single Family Detached Alley Loaded, and Single Family Attached. In order to provide the varied housing types all of the single family lots are consistent at 50 feet by 100 feet. The Two-Family units are located at the corners of intersections. Single family detached housing in the low to mid price range is in high demand. In order to maximize this product, the original plan kept the other required housing types to a minimum. There were only eight each of the Two Family Dwelling Units and Single Family Alley Loaded housing types. With such limited numbers of units the cost of each increases and the cost is passed along to the consumer. The proposed conceptual plan eliminates the additional housing types but proposes to meet the purpose of the standard by providing variety through varied lot sizes, curvilinear street layout, open space and architectural interest in different house models In regard to housing types, we believe the Fox Grove Overall Development Plan (ODP) will promote the general purpose of the standard which is to provide a variety of products equally well or better than a plan that would comply with the standard.” Hardship Justification Provided: “Requiring four housing types on this 35.86 acre site creates hardship in the following ways: 1. Forcing a developer/builder to provide housing without a market demand for that housing will increase the cost of development and ultimately the housing cost to the consumer. 2. The limited size of this project makes it economically difficult to provide four housing types. Projects that are over 30 acres are required to have four housing 29 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 12 types, while a project that is 300 acres is also required to have four housing types. A development that has 300 acres can have one housing type on 75 acres. This development proposes one housing type on 35.86 acres. The larger the project is the more economically feasible it is to have a greater number of housing types.” D. Staff Finding for the Modification: While the curvilinear street layout and distribution of park space contributes to the overall variety and enhances the visual character of the development, the project will also provide seven housing models to add equivalent architectural variety within a single housing type provided. The seven housing models provided exceed the minimum requirement of four housing models for developments greater than 100 dwellings. Additionally, Phase Two provides an option for single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages as a second housing type. This second housing type would count towards the seven housing models if this option is included. Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(D)(2) Addressing Minimum Housing Types in the L-M-N 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)(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, because the project promotes the general purpose of the standard by providing a four lot sizes and seven housing models. 3. Modification of Standard to Section 3.9.2(A) Addressing the Prohibition of Single-Family Lots within 1,320 feet of I-25 A. Description of the Modification: The applicant is requesting a modification to allow single-family residential lots within 1,320 feet of the centerline of Interstate Highway 25 (I-25). B. The standard: 3.9.2 Location of Single-Family Residential Lots From I-25 30 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 13 (A) Development of new single-family residential lots within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of the centerline of Interstate Highway 25 (I-25) shall be prohibited. (B) In the Urban Estate zone district, development that creates new single-family residential lots located between one-quarter (¼) and one-half (½) mile from the centerline of I-25 shall utilize the clustering technique (as provided for in Section 4.1(E)(2) of this Land Use Code for the Urban Estate District) in order to concentrate densities away from I-25, maximize views and preserve landscape features or open space. (1) Exception: single family detached dwellings in the Rural Lands District (RUL) shall be exempt from this standard. C. Applicant’s Justification: “Per the Design Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor the intent of the standard is described as follows:” Single-family, duplexes, and other similar low-density residences should generally be located outside of activity centers along the Corridor and set back from I-25 to protect views and minimize noise impacts on residents. Locating residences adjacent to an interstate highway, although often convenient in terms of access, frequently necessitates the construction of costly sound barriers or berms to keep noise impacts below acceptable levels. In addition to their cost, these barriers should also be avoided because of their visual impacts; they significantly detract from the scenic, open character of the Corridor, block mountain views, and limit future transportation options. Natural landforms should be used where possible to mitigate these impacts. “The proposed site plan will provide an average 100-foot buffer along the east side of Boxelder Creek. Single family homes are proposed to be located adjacent to the buffer zone. The distance from I-25 to the single family development varies from 530-970 feet. The Land Use Code requires the setback to be 1,320 feet. In addition to providing the buffer, the Land Use Code requires the developer to preserve and enhance the ecological character and wildlife use of the habitat by preserving existing trees and other vegetation. The developer is also required to minimize the foreseeable impacts of development. The Boxelder Creek drainage and its associated buffer zone provide a natural visual buffer from the Interstate. Furthermore, single family development along the creek will have less impact than higher density development. Reducing 31 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 14 density along the Boxelder Creek drainage is a better plan ecologically than the conceptual site plan which placed multi-family development adjacent to Boxelder Creek and complied with the standard. Lastly, no mountain views are blocked and any proposed fencing will be visually buffered by the vegetation in the adjacent Boxelder Creek natural area.” D. Staff Finding for the Modification: Staff finds that the modification is justified based on several factors: • The single-family lots that are closest to I-25 located at the northwest portion of the site, are adjacent to Boxelder Creek, where existing trees along the Boxelder Creek corridor help soften and protect views to and from the corridor. • Buffer space with additional landscape screening will be required at the P.D.P. phase along Boxelder Creek to further enhance this visual transition. • The development pattern proposes a varied edge facing I-25. For approximately half of project’s western edge, the rear portions of the single-family lots do not face west. Instead, front facades face west, with proposed street frontage and open space providing further variety. This varied edge design significantly improves views of the neighborhood from I-25. • In part, the standard is intended to address the impacts of sound walls that detract from the scenic, open character of the corridor. Because the Boxelder Creek requires a natural buffer along the entire I-25 view corridor, sound walls will not be permitted in or near the buffer. Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 3.9.2(A) 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, because the Boxelder Creek corridor will provide an enhanced value landscape buffer that will protect views to and from the development. 32 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 15 4. 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. Neighborhood comments address the following topics: 1. The responsibility for the future maintenance of the existing portion of Carriage Parkway, which is within the boundaries of the Clydesdale Park neighborhood northwest of the O.D.P. This existing portion of Carriage Parkway is currently maintained by the Clydesdale Park residents through the funding of a Public Improvement District. 2. The use of the existing portion of Carriage Parkway for construction access. 3. Lack of open space / park space and the distribution of park space, as proposed with the initial concept plan presented at the neighborhood meeting. Concern was expressed that the lack of open space and amenities originally presented will cause future residents of Fox Grove to over-utilize existing open space amenities and walking paths within Clydesdale Park. 4. Concern that the general character and overall form proposed with the initial plan and does not transition and complement Clydesdale Park. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(D)(1)(a) to reduce the overall minimum average density from 4.00 units per acre to 3.00 units per acre 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, because the proposed density allows a better overall site design that provides an appropriate density transition at the community edge. 33 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 16 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, because the density reduction enables the project to provide a more gradual transition at the community edge and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2., including: ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods and ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. B. Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.5(D)(2) Addressing Minimum Housing Types in the L-M-N 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)(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, because the project promotes the general purpose of the standard by providing a four lot sizes and seven housing models. C. Staff finds that the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 3.9.2(A) to allow single-family lots within 1,320 feet of I-25 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, because the Boxelder Creek corridor will provide an enhanced value landscape buffer that will protect views to and from the development. D. The O.D.P. complies with the Overall Development Plan Review Procedures in Section 2.3.2. E. The O.D.P. complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7). 34 Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, ODP #130003 with Modifications of Standard Planning & Zoning Hearing April 10, 2014 Page 17 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Fox Grove Overall Development Plan, O.D.P. #130003, and Modifications of Standard to Sections 4.5(D)(1)(a), 4.5(D)(2) and 3.9.2(A). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Letters from Residents 4. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes 5. Statement of Planning Objectives 6. Fox Grove O.D.P. 7. Modification Requests 8. Modification Concept Plan with Color 9. Modification Plan 10. Original Proposed Fox Grove Site Plan (Old Plan) 11. Master Utility Plan 12. Master Drainage Plan 13. Transportation Impact Study 14. Drainage Report 15. Petition From Residents- Annexation 16. Petition From Residents- Fox Grove Conditions 35 Proposed (east Prospect Site) Baker Lake «¬14 ¦¨§25 ¦¨§25 Se Frontage Rd Sw Frontage Rd Canal Dr Kitchell Way Sun c h a s e D r Camino Real N e F r o ntag e R d N w F r o n t age Rd Carria g e P k w y Springer Dr Smit h f i e l d Dr Brenton Dr John Deere Rd Quest Dr Vitala Dr Ca m i n o Del Fox Grove -- Zoning Map This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 30,014 City of Fort Collins - GIS 0.9 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 0 0.47 0.9 Miles Notes Legend Street Names Neighborhoods City Floodplains City High Risk - Floodway City High Risk - 100 Year City Moderate Risk - 100 Year Growth Management Area Parks Schools Natural Areas City Zoning Community Commercial Community Commercial North College Community Commercial Poudre River General Commercial Limited Commercial Service Commercial CSU Downtown Employment Harmony Corridor Industrial High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Public Open Lands River Conservation River Downtown Redevelopment Residential Foothills Low Density Residential Rural Lands District Transition Urban Estate City Limits 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Fox Grove Overall Development Plan DATE: May 22, 2013 APPLICANT: Stephanie Sigler of Ripley Design on behalf of Les Kaplan CITY PLANNER: Jason Holland NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Sarah Burnett The meeting began with Jason Holland providing a brief explanation of the City development review process as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules. Stephanie Sigler, Landscape Architect with Ripley Design presented background information for the proposed project and the project concept site plan. General details of the site plan were presented including the overall proposed layout of streets and lots, the location of the one acre small neighborhood park, and the location of the different housing types planned for the project. Jason Holland then opened the meeting for questions. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: 1. Question: (Citizen) Concern about access only being provided through Carriage Parkway. How will traffic be handled? Response: (City) Jason exploring- between city and county. Typically, roads developed in the county for subdivisions are maintained by the development. If annexed, roads would need to be brought up to City standards to be considered for maintenance by the City. City staff and management will need to address this as part of a broader policy discussion for the area. Staff can meet with representatives from the neighborhood. 2. Question: (Citizen) Shouldn’t Carriage Parkway maintenance issue be addressed before the development? Response: (City) The easement (public access) already exists with Carriage Parkway. 3. Question: (Citizen) Lots back up on the white fence to the South. How close are they? How many are there? When? Response: (Sigler) The lots are 112 feet deep, and they will back up to the fence. Hope to begin as soon as approved. 4. Question: (Citizen) How long will the process take? How long until construction? 55 2 Response: (Les Kaplan) Unknown at this time. (City) Typical review process can take 6 months to a year, shorter or longer depending on the project. 5. Question: (Sunflower Resident) What about the multifamily portion, how many units, how tall? Response: (Sigler) Within one-quarter mile of I-25; no single family is allowed by the city. It can be multifamily or industrial, etc. However multifamily was chosen. Response: (Les Kaplan) The final number of multifamily units is not yet determined. The red area on the plan is for the multifamily and is in the Box Elder floodplain, and improvements will proceed in the future. (Box Elder Creek floodplain area). Area cannot be developed until it’s out of the floodplain Response: (City) The maximum permitted building height on the lots is 2.5 stories, 3 stories for multi-family buildings. 6. Question: (Citizen) When are the Boxelder improvements happening? Response: (Les Kaplan) I’ve heard maybe 2015, but the date has been changed multiple times and it’s not certain when public funding will be in place. Response: (Les Kaplan) Zoning for the LMN requires 4 housing types. One type of housing could be townhomes, but it cannot be single family within the I-25 one-quarter mile setback. 7. Question: (Citizen) Do you know who the architect of the houses is? Is the architecture going to be similar to Clydesdale Park? Response: (Les Kaplan) We do not know yet. 8. Question: (Citizen) In regards to the wetlands, why would it be built here? Will there be any environmental studies? Response: (City) There could be building on the floodplain portion if it’s taken out of the floodplain with a map amendment. Wetlands would require a buffer, and the City requires an environmental assessment report when the development is adjacent to a natural feature such as Boxelder Creek. 9. Question: (Citizen) How would the development be required to respond to the study? Is it a “done deal”? Response: (City) The development proposal will go through multiple rounds of review, in which various departments will review the plans to make sure the project meets the buffer standards that are required to protect habitat. 10. Question: (Citizen) Is the single family a “done deal”? Response: (Les Kaplan) Brochure explains the process. Response: (City) This meeting is part of the first steps in the process. There will be a formal staff review, then a public hearing at a Planning and Zoning board meeting. The P&Z is the decision maker for the project and a notice of the hearing will be mailed out in the same way as the neighborhood meeting notice, at least two weeks prior to a hearing. 56 3 11. Question: (Citizen) What will be done in regards to the traffic that will need to go on Carriage Parkway? Response: (Les Kaplan) The City street plan shows Carriage Parkway as a collector. The primary access will be Carriage Parkway. The secondary access will be for emergency only through Sunflower. There will be a barricade at the end of street. 12. Question: (Citizen) Are there plans for bike paths along Prospect Road? They now stop at the Colorado Visitor Center. Response: (City) I’m not aware of the long term plans for Prospect Road bike path improvements, but we will find out. 13. Question: (Citizen) Where is the City land (Growth Management Area boundary) near Timnath? Response: (City) The GMA boundary is along the east portion of the project and Clydesdale Park is within the City of Fort Collins GMA on the current map. 14. Question: (Citizen) What is the information about the school land to the south? Response: (City) PSD owns the land. 15. Question: (Citizen) Is there a buffer between backyards? Response: (Les Kaplan) Not as currently planned. The lots are deeper than typical. 16. Comment: (Citizen) Great concern for the Sunflower neighbors. Sunflower sits six feet higher than surrounding yards. The project needs a buffer zone and green belt to address this. 17. Question: (Citizen) 20 foot easement for the ditch to the east? Response: (Les Kaplan) If there is an easement there, we will have to adjust. The project cannot interfere with water transport. 18. Question: (Citizen) What is the single family lot width? Response: (Sigler / Kaplan) Not certain. Comment: (Citizen) Easement along Sunflower fence would be desirable / proper. 19. Comment: (Citizen) Likes peacefulness of Clydesdale Park. Concerned about traffic, use of Clydesdale Park private amenities such as paths, fishing ponds. 20. Question: (Citizen) Can you add some paths, amenities for proposed homes? Response: (Les Kaplan) Could explore amenities, trails along creek, pocket parks. 21. Comment: (Citizen) Would like to see more green and more buffers. Response: (Les Kaplan) Stoneridge at Horsetooth and Timberline (as an example) are at 3 units per acre. The city is density and infill oriented, and revolves around the idea of 57 4 “land use efficiency”. We have to meet city standards with 4 units minimum per acre but still have a desirable development. Clydesdale is developed in county, therefore less dense. Response: (Les Kaplan) Would like to be part of the solution for Carriage Parkway concerns. 22. Question: (Citizen) Clydesdale Public Improvement District (PID) maintains all the streets. Dirt washes into ponds, so PID cleans street. Concerned about construction traffic. Would like agreement during construction, so PID does not have to clean or have expense during construction. Response: (Les Kaplan) agrees. 23. Comment: (Citizen) Need to figure out street issue before approving project. Response: (City) Will take feedback to City and work with City management and various department staff. Solution may involve intergovernmental agreements. Complex problem with a number of people involved. 24. Comment: (Citizen) Construction phase will be impactful – would like separate egress/construction entrance. We have had farm traffic impact. Response: (City) Erosion control plan requirements are extensive and are enforced during development and can be enforced along Carriage Parkway. 25. Comment: (Citizen) Clydesdale pays for roads and 21 acres of common space, and the second pocket park. Response: (Les Kaplan) Recognize that this is an issue. This development is not going to take place on backs of Clydesdale Parkway. Willing to be part of the solution. Problem is longer term when Clydesdale Parkway goes through to Prospect. You are maintaining a collector street that will carry 10,000 cars a day. Comment: (City) A traffic study will be required with the Overall Plan. Comment: (Les Kaplan) Clydesdale has a capacity for this development because it is designed as a collector. 26. Question: (Citizen) How many units will there be? Response: (Sigler / Kaplan) 116 lots total. 88 single families, 6 duplexes (12), and 8 alley loaded townhomes (16). 27. Comment: (Sunflower Citizen) Sunflower residents cannot turn left on Mulberry. Have to go on Carriage Parkway. 28. Question: (Citizen) Has the builder been selected for phase 1? What is the process for this? Response: (Les Kaplan) It is too early to know this. 58 5 29. Question: (Citizen) What about the architecture? Response: (City) The City has residential standards: no protruding garages, different housing models interspersed. A more detailed plan will be submitted to City later. May be another neighborhood meeting for the detailed plan (for the multifamily portion of Overall Plan). No neighborhood meeting for single family portion or individual homes, but evaluated according to code standards at time of building permit. (Note that Jason Holland mentioned that there would be another neighborhood meeting required for the project. To clarify, the single-family / two-family portion of the Overall Plan would not require an additional neighborhood meeting. An additional neighborhood meeting is required for the multi-family portion of the project if more than 50 units are proposed). 30. Question: (Citizen) Could the greenbelt on the south be moved to the north to serve as a buffer to Sunflower? Response: (Les Kaplan) There is a stormwater and utility easement on the south, therefore it cannot be shifted. 31. Question: (Citizen) When and how do we hear back from the city? Response: (City) Access the minutes from tonight, next step. 32. Question: (Citizen) When do we hear how the city will address issues raised? Response: (City) Once application is submitted, staff will evaluate according to the land use code. It is up to the applicant to consider the issues raised. Response: (Les Kaplan) Maintenance of the street is done by the property owners and it shouldn’t be. Before submitting a project, the city needs to address the street maintenance issue. There needs to be something from the city to address this. He would like to help work it out. Response: (City) Just to clarify, some comments and concerns are related to the Carriage Parkway issue and some are related to the proposed site plan. 33. Question: (Citizen) will Jason Holland commit to meeting with developer, PID, and city staff? Response: (City) Yes, will set up meetings to discuss the issue. 34. Question: (Citizen) Can city have a role without annexing? Response: (City) Would involve discussion with City management and City attorney would have to help determine this. 35. Comment: (Citizen) Green space, ponds, walking trails; the Clydesdale Park neighbors use now, but concerned about lots of people using them and HOA maintains it. Response: (Sigler) have to meet the 4 unit per acre minimum. Can get more open space by increasing duplexes and multifamily. Must make the tradeoffs. 36. Question: (Citizen) Could you ask for exemption in density? Response: (City) Applicant can propose through a modification request. 59 6 37. Question: (Citizen) Was it not decided between Timnath and Fort Collins that anything East of I-25 would be annexed into Timnath? Response: (City) Will research and consider this. 38. Question: (Citizen) Could city provide temporary construction access for short term? Is it feasible? Response: (City) The city is limited in what it can require. This would need to be addressed as a private matter between adjacent property owners. Response: (Les Kaplan) Can explore with city what it would take to improve Farmers road to the east for construction access and what is the city policy on Carriage Parkway. Comment: (Citizen) this construction access would solve a lot of residents’ concerns. 39. Question: (Citizen) Why can’t the city put a road to the South (Prospect) Response: (City) City policy. Developers pay their way. Developers also pay to street oversizing fee for improvements to existing roads and larger projects. 40. Question: (Citizen) When is the next meeting? Response: (City) This will need to be determined. 41. Comment: Appreciate chance for input. Similar lot size as Sunflower. Seems like patio homes. Don’t see many parking spaces. Response: (City) All streets will have on street parking. Also there are code requirements for how houses are configured on lots; 20 feet setback is required from back of sidewalk to garage to enable parking in front of garage, off street. 5 foot side setback minimum, 8 foot rear setback minimum. 42. Question: (Citizen) What will houses sell for? Response: (Les Kaplan) Hard to predict, depends on finish. 60 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com March 5, 2014 Fox Grove OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Planning Objectives The Fox Grove Overall Development Plan (ODP) is located in the Lee-MLD subdivision, Lot 2, east of I-25 and south of East Mulberry Street. The land is owned by Imago Enterprises, Inc., Les Kaplan, 140 Palmer Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525. Land uses proposed within the ODP include residential lots of various sizes, pocket parks, a neighborhood park/natural area and trails. The pocket parks and open spaces will be privately owned and maintained by the home owner’s association. This project will contribute to Fort Collins’ high standards of development through buffering natural features, improving circulation, and following City Plan Principles and Policies. This site is adjacent to Boxelder Creek, a known natural habitat with large existing deciduous trees and tall prairie grasses. The project will respect this feature and maintain an average 100’ buffer as described in the Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.1 (E). An Environmental Characterization Study shall be submitted when a development is proposed to be located within 500 feet of the Creek. The City of Fort Collins is nearing completion of the Boxelder Creek Drainage Basin Study. It is anticipated that the Study’s recommendations will include storm water improvements that may change the boundaries of the floodplain and floodway in this area. The intent of this ODP is to allow for the project to be developed in phases as the Drainage Basin improvements get completed. The circulation and proposed road alignments have a significant impact on this property. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) intends to relocate the frontage road on the east side of the interstate. Several meetings were held and included CDOT, City Staff, the property owner, as well as David and Rick White who own the adjacent property to the south. It was determined that the conceptual alignment of the frontage road will move further east, but remain adjacent to the interstate. 61 Fox Grove ODP Planning Objectives March 5, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com According to the City’s Master Street Plan, Carriage Parkway is a minor collector. This project provides the next segment of Carriage Parkway to the south from the terminus in the Clydesdale Park subdivision. The proposed alignment connects with the Prospect/I- 25 ODP dated June of 2003 which was done for the adjacent property further south. When both sections are done, Carriage Parkway will make a continuous connection from Mulberry Street to Prospect Road. Several neighbors within the Clydesdale Subdivision voiced concerns about new housing using Carriage Parkway as the primary point of access. Currently, Clydesdale is not within city limits. Therefore, it is the residents of that subdivision who have the responsibility of maintenance for that portion of Carriage Parkway. The applicant, Les Kaplan, wrote a letter to City officials explaining this concern and requesting this conflict be resolved. When the Clydesdale Park Subdivision was approved in Larimer County pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement between Fort Collins and Larimer County the developer granted the City a power-of-attorney to annex Clydesdale Park upon statutory eligibility. Clydesdale Park has been eligible for annexation since 2005. To complicate matters further, the City has entered into an agreement with the Town of Timnath which states that Clydesdale Park, if ever annexed into any municipality will be annexed into the Town of Timnath. The City and the Town of Timnath are currently in negotiation regarding the annexation of Clydesdale into Fort Collins rather than Timnath. The applicant understands the neighborhood’s concerns and is working with them to get the matter resolved. A preliminary traffic study was conducted which concluded that the Fox Grove ODP will not present any traffic related issues to the existing roadway network. In summary:  Carriage Parkway is a publicly dedicated street  A traffic report concludes that the existing street network has adequate capacity for the proposed development  The City of Fort Collins is currently in negotiations with the Town of Timnath regarding the annexation of Clydesdale Park  Both the City and the County intend Carriage Parkway to continue to the south and serve as a collector street for the future developments based on its current design In addition, there is an existing emergency access easement through the adjacent Sunflower Subdivision as show in the attached exhibit. This access shall be for emergency vehicles only by means of a remote-controlled gate. This temporary emergency access easement will terminate 30 days after other satisfactory emergency access to this property becomes available. This ODP proposes two phases within this project. The first would extend Carriage Parkway to the south; provide single family detached homes, and three small pocket parks. It includes approximately 20 acres. The second phase would include single family detached homes or other approved uses as described in the Land Use Code. The second phase is approximately 8.8 acres. The Project Development Plan will be 62 Fox Grove ODP Planning Objectives March 5, 2014 Page 3 of 3 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com submitted shortly after this ODP and construction will begin in the spring of 2015. The project phases will be planned and constructed as market demand allows. It is also dependent on the design of the new frontage road and Boxelder Creek drainage basin improvements. Three modifications have been submitted for density, housing types, and distance to Interstate 25 based on comments from neighbors and City staff (see attached). In addition to the Modifications, this project is requesting Alternative Compliance for Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. The standard states that the spacing of local street connections shall not exceed 660 feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land. For this project, it is the western and southern boundaries to which this standard applies. The western boundary is adjacent to Lot 1 of Lee MLD and borders the Boxelder Creek Drainage Basin. A street connection to the west would require significant disruption and negative impacts to Boxelder Creek and its associated wildlife habitat. In order to avoid these impacts, no street connection to the west is being proposed. The property boundary is 1050 feet long resulting in spacing between street connections which exceeds the 660 feet. The southern boundary is adjacent to undeveloped Industrial and Urban Estate land. Due to the curvilinear design of the street network, greater street connection spacing is proposed. Carriage Parkway will be extended through this project as a collector street connection to the south. The next connection point is a local street approximately 980 feet west. Beyond that are Boxelder Creek and then the frontage road which is approximately 1200 feet west of the proposed local street connection. The proposed connection points have been discussed with the adjacent property owners. 63 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X OHE OHE OHE OHE 8" W 12" W 12" W 12" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W PROPERTY LINE PHASE 2 (LMN) “$&5(6 PHASE 1 (LMN) “$&5(6 (INCLUDES ALL TRAILS, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE) OPEN SPACE EXISTING EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT (NO THRU TRAFFIC) INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (UNDEVELOPED) URBAN ESTATE DISTRICT land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com March 5, 2014 Modification Requests 1- DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density. (a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre of residential land, except that residential developments (whether overall development plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall have an overall minimum average density of three (3) dwelling units per net acre of residential land. 2- DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (D) Land Use Standards. (2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met: (a) A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on any project development plan containing twenty (20) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall development; and a minimum of four (4) housing types shall be required on any such project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more. (b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions, garage placement, lot sizes and lot dimensions shall be significantly and substantially varied to avoid repetitive rows of housing and monotonous streetscapes. For example, providing distinct single-family detached dwellings or two-family dwellings on larger lots and on corners and providing small lot single-family dwellings on smaller lots abutting common open spaces fronting on streets are methods that accomplish this requirement. 65 Fox Grove ODP Modification Requests Page 2 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com (c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement: 1. Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages. 2. Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages. 3. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than four thousand [4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty [40] feet or less) if there is a difference of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet between the average lot size for small lot single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages. 4. Two-family dwellings. 5. Single-family attached dwellings. 6. Mixed-use dwelling units. 7. Multi-family dwellings (limited to twelve [12] dwelling units per building); 8. Mobile home parks. (d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than eighty (80) percent or less than five (5) percent of the total number of dwelling units. 3- DIVISION 3.9 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE I-25 CORRIDOR 3.9.2 Location of Single-Family Residential Lots from I-25 (A) Development of new single-family residential lots within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of the centerline of Interstate Highway 25 (I- 25) shall be prohibited. 66 Fox Grove ODP Modification Requests Page 3 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Reason for the Request The Fox Grove development is Lot 2 of a Minor Land Division called Lee-MLD. This 35.86 acre property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins in 2005. It is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District (LMN). The proposed project is located on the urban fringe of Fort Collins, adjacent to unincorporated Larimer County. A conceptual site plan was presented at a neighborhood meeting held on May 22, 2013. Several concerns were raised by the neighborhood including the proposed density, the lack of open space, and impacts associated with the proposed multifamily portion of the project. City staff comments echoed the neighbor’s concerns and the design team was asked to prepare a more creative alternative site plan that would be a better design fit for the adjacent neighborhood. Suggestions included curvilinear streets, varied lot sizes, additional open space, and more site amenities. The revised conceptual site plan addresses neighborhood concerns as well as those raised by the City staff. The proposed development plan will require three Modifications associated with density, housing types and distance from Interstate 25. Specifically the Applicant is requesting a reduction of the minimum density from 4.0 dwellings units per acre to 3.0 dwelling units per acre, a reduction of required housing types from four to one, and an allowance to build single family detached homes within a quarter mile of Interstate 25. The proposed development plan is supported by many City Plan policies and we believe achieves the intent of the City’s Land Use Code in regard to residential communities. It exemplifies the City’s principles and policies in regard to neighborhoods in the following ways:  Interconnected street and pedestrian network  Walkable blocks  Varied lot sizes  Varied housing models  Interesting streetscapes  Integrates natural features  Provides parks, open space and trails 67 Fox Grove ODP Modification Requests Page 4 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Justifications The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the decision-maker must also find that the Modification meets one of the following four criteria described in the LUC. (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; 1- Density The original conceptual site plan (attached) met the minimum density standard of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. After meeting with the neighborhood and receiving comments from City staff, the applicant asked the design team to prepare an alternative conceptual site plan (attached) that:  provided a more interesting streetscape  provided open space distributed throughout the plan  provided more site amenities, and;  created a variety of lot sizes that were more compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Lower density is appropriate at this location because the property is located at the urban fringe, adjacent to unincorporated Larimer County and near the Growth Management Area boundary. County residents living near the proposed development are especially sensitive to density in what they consider to be a rural area. They were particularly concerned about multi-family development proposed along the Boxelder Creek drainage. In fact, the site is not particularly conducive to multi-family development and higher densities in general because of its lack of proximity to shopping, recreational opportunities, employment, etc. Clydesdale neighborhood residents requested the new development have equal or better amenities per person as compared to their neighborhood. The proposed conceptual plan (attached) is designed to address the concerns of the neighborhood and City staff. The changes to the site plan result in an overall density reduction from 4 dwelling units per acre to 3 dwelling units per acre. We believe it promotes 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. 2- Housing Types 68 Fox Grove ODP Modification Requests Page 5 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com The preceding paragraphs have outlined the appropriateness of lower density at the proposed site based on its location at the urban fringe and the existing low density neighborhood adjacent to it. Providing four housing types per the Land Use Code would increase the density over what is being proposed. The attached conceptual site plans demonstrate this. Although only one housing type is depicted, the proposed conceptual plan incorporates varied lot sizes and will also include several different house sizes and models to provide lifestyle choices and visual interest along the street. Lot sizes proposed include 50’ x 100’ lots, 60’ x 110’ lots and 70’ x 125’ lots. The pocket parks distributed throughout the development also serve to make the residential community unique and visually interesting. We have attached a conceptual site plan which meets the Land Use Code. The plan includes four housing types: Multi-family, Single Family Detached, Single Family Detached Alley Loaded, and Single Family Attached. In order to provide the varied housing types all of the single family lots are consistent at 50 feet by 100 feet. The Two- Family units are located at the corners of intersections. Single family detached housing in the low to mid price range is in high demand. In order to maximize this product, the original plan kept the other required housing types to a minimum. There were only eight each of the Two Family Dwelling Units and Single Family Ally Loaded housing types. With such limited numbers of units the cost of each increases and the cost is passed along to the consumer. The proposed conceptual plan eliminates the additional housing types but proposes to meet the purpose of the standard by providing variety through varied lot sizes, curvilinear street layout, open space and architectural interest in different house models In regard to housing types, we believe the Fox Grove Overall Development Plan (ODP) will promote the general purpose of the standard which is to provide a variety of products equally well or better than a plan that would comply with the standard. 3- Distance of Single Family to I-25 Per the Design Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor the intent of the standard is described as follows: Single-family, duplexes, and other similar low-density residences should generally be located outside of activity centers along the Corridor and set back from I- 25 to protect views and minimize noise impacts on residents. Locating residences adjacent to an interstate highway, although often convenient in terms of access, frequently necessitates the construction of costly sound barriers or berms to keep noise impacts below acceptable levels. In addition to their cost, these barriers should also be avoided because of their visual impacts; they significantly detract from the scenic, open character of the Corridor, block mountain views, and limit future transportation options. Natural landforms should be used where possible to mitigate these impacts. The proposed site plan will provide an average 100-foot buffer along the east side of Boxelder Creek. Single family homes are proposed to be located adjacent to the buffer 69 Fox Grove ODP Modification Requests Page 6 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com zone. The distance from I-25 to the single family development varies from 530-970 feet. The Land Use Code requires the setback to be 1,320 feet. In addition to providing the buffer, the Land Use Code requires the developer to preserve and enhance the ecological character and wildlife use of the habitat by preserving existing trees and other vegetation. The developer is also required to minimize the foreseeable impacts of development. The Boxelder Creek drainage and its associated buffer zone provide a natural visual buffer from the Interstate. Furthermore, single family development along the creek will have less impact than higher density development. Reducing density along the Boxelder Creek drainage is a better plan ecologically than the conceptual site plan which placed multi-family development adjacent to Boxelder Creek and complied with the standard. Lastly, no mountain views are blocked and any proposed fencing will be visually buffered by the vegetation in the adjacent Boxelder Creek natural area. (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; 2- Housing Types Requiring four housing types on this 35.86 acre site creates hardship in the following ways: 1. Forcing a developer/builder to provide housing without a market demand for that housing will increase the cost of development and ultimately the housing cost to the consumer. 2. The limited size of this project makes it economically difficult to provide four housing types. Projects that are over 30 acres are required to have four housing types, while a project that is 300 acres is also required to have four housing types. A development that has 300 acres can have one housing type on 75 acres. This development proposes one housing type on 35.86 acres. The larger the project is the more economically feasible it is to have a greater number of housing types. 70 71 72 73 74 75 ELB Engineering, LLC. Transportation Engineering Solutions Memorandum TO: Mr. Les Kaplan, Imago Enterprises Mr. Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer FROM: Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E DATE: March 4, 2014 SUBJECT: Fox Grove; Overall Development Plan, TIS Memorandum This memorandum addresses the requirements of a transportation impact assessment for the Overall Development Plan of Fox Grove. The project is located in East Fort Collins, east of I-25 and south of Mulberry (SH 14). The project entails two phases of residential development. The first phase will be 66 units of single-family detached housing. The second phase will follow in a yet to be determined time frame of 49 single family units. A Preliminary Development Plan will be submitted shortly after the ODP and accompanied by an Intermediate Level Transportation Impact Study. The exact location of the project is displayed in Figure 1. The project is directly south of the Sun Flower Retirement Neighborhood and directly west of the Clydesdale Development. Short-term access to the site will be via Carriage Parkway. Long-term access will extend Carriage Parkway to the I-25 frontage road located a short distance west of the site. A scoping form was sent to the City Traffic Engineer to determine the scope of the transportation impact study. It was agreed that the project will have relatively minor (if any) impact to the surrounding street system and that a memorandum would be sufficient to address the related transportation impacts at the ODP level. Capacity analyses would not be required and a trip generation estimate would be required. The scoping form for the transportation study can be found in Appendix A. ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@lpbroadband.net 1 76 Site Figure 1: Location Map Existing Conditions The actual site is currently in agricultural use. Directly to the north of the site is the Sun Flower neighborhood and is advertised as an “active retirement community”. The Clydesdale neighborhood is to the northeast of the site, connecting via Carriage Parkway and is a single family detached housing neighborhood. Site - looking west Carriage Parkway is a collector roadway, approximately 50 feet in width with no striping (bike lanes, center stripe, etc…). The pavement is in good condition and has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. This roadway will be the principle access to the development until such time it is extended. ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@lpbroadband.net 2 Carriage Parkway looking northeast 77 The Fort Collins Master Street Plan shows Carriage Parkway being extended to the south to make the connection to Prospect Road. Discussions regarding its future terminus also have been to extend the roadway to the west to connect to the I-25 frontage road. The intersection of Carriage Parkway and SH 14 is controlled with an 8-phase traffic signal maintained and operated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The other potential access would be the use of Sun Chase Road through the Sun Flower Development. However, this is an issue that will need further discussion. Sun Chase is a 32-foot roadway that makes a fairly direct connection from Carriage Parkway to SH 14. However, Sun Flower is a gated community and Sun Chase appears to be a private roadway. At the time of the site visit, the gates were open and not monitored and driving through the neighborhood didn’t present an issue. The intersection of Sun Chase and SH 14 is a limited movement (RI/RO) controlled by a raised median. Future discussions on how to prevent cut-through traffic will more than likely need to take place. Sun Chase – look south The I-25 frontage road connects Prospect Road to State Highway 14. The roadway has a 26-foot cross section and a posted speed limit of 30 mph on the southern portion and a 45 mph speed limit on the northern portion. The pavement is in good condition. From active modes of transportation perspective, the area is not served or connected to any on-street bikes lanes or multi-use trails. The area is also not served by any transit system. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for the proposed project are based on the Trip Generation, 8th Edition manual prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The manual presents data from numerous trip generation studies for a variety of land uses from across the country. ITE Code 220, apartments and Code 210, single family, was used in this analysis. There were no trip reductions assumed since the area is not served by transit, bike facilities, or nearby major traffic generators. Table 1 below summarizes the proposed trip generation for the project. For the entire project, during the morning peak hour, 86 trip ends can be expected and 117 trip ends can be expected from the project during the afternoon peak hours. ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@lpbroadband.net 3 78 Table 1 – Trip Generation Estimates AM Rate AM Trips AM Rate AM Trips PM Rate PM Trips PM Rate PM Trips Use ITE CODE Size Daily Rate Daily TripsININOUT OUTININOUTOUT Project Phase I Single Family Residential 210 66.0 9.57 632 0.19 13 0.56 37 0.64 42 0.37 24 Phase II Single Family Residential 210 49.0 9.57 469 0.19 9 0.56 27 0.64 31 0.37 18 Total 1101 22 64 74 43 Trip Distribution Trip distribution is generally based on either a gravity model or engineering judgment. In this case, engineering judgment is all that is required. Since the project is located on the eastern boundary of the Fort Collins Urban Area, nearly all the trips produced by the project will be heading west. When the west moving traffic comes to I-25, the majority of traffic will either continue west on SH14 or divert to southbound I-25. When Carriage Parkway is extended, there will be a fairly even split of traffic heading west and south. Conclusion From a traffic engineering perspective, the Fox Gove development will not present any traffic related issues to the existing roadway network. There is sufficient capacity to handle the new traffic. The development is typical residential development surrounded by other residential development with roadway standards designed to accommodate high levels of service. An intermediate level TIS with capacity analysis of key intersections will be submitted with the PDP. Please let me know if you have any questions or if additional information is required. ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@lpbroadband.net 4 79 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@lpbroadband.net 5 APPDENDIX 80 Chapter 4 - Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Future Traffic Growth Rate ---I 1 Project Information Project Name ::ti:.?K/;j20v6 0DP TIS Assumptions Study Area Boundaries Study Years East:&r/"I}"~ f}; .I.- Short Range: I;?C> I g, A West: I-;..s;:' [;_1.,. ~7<..P . ( Long Range: South: Type of Study Full: North: Hc-0 ~ I tf Study Intersections l . An access drives 5. 3. /.. :-/ I I i I V' ~ " ••.' - - - 7. 4. l 8. Trip Generation Rates Time Period for Study Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: I -- I Captive !--1p~ Market:-- Overall Trip Distribution <.-='/<- ''/ __ . ..sEEATTACHED SKETCH J ~L) ¥-i c:i~J Mode Split Assumptions Committed Roadway Improvements Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study /'-'l em,;J eJ. s .f.-t..- s s ,'cn-'\ 6?:' p/'"o pe> oS,.J1 fY-P/ ~ <..-1- I PhAS(Nj 14/'eA- sf/'ee.l-s I =r 0e-J«/44 /-,frV'" A1~I""t../-'_ J.o ••~ ().L1Ar'4 .1S. --II I /-0 Date: r/ 2L1 /1 :..~ ,e=, . '£~-p-( r: Traffic Engjneer?fi __~-=- ---r----c/n---------------------- Local Entity Enginee ;k¥ 7)5' jU. Page 4-34 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards - Repealed and Reenacted April 1. 2007 Adopted by Larimer County. City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins 81 1 Overall Drainage Report Date: March 26, 2014 Project: Fox Grove Overall Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Mr. Wes Lamarque Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Mr. Lamarque: This letter report accompanies the submittal for the Fox Grove Overall Development Plan (ODP). Specifically, this letter report serves to document the overall drainage impacts associated with the proposed Fox Grove Development. The proposed development site is located southeast of the I-25/Mulberry (State Highway 14) interchange in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is situated along the existing I-25 east frontage road, just south of the existing Interchange Business Park development. The overall Fox Grove site is roughly 36 acres in size. The proposed development site is in the City of Fort Collins Boxelder Creek Basin. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. However, if it can be shown by basin modeling that undetained flows from the developed site would result in no increase in peak discharge within Boxelder Creek, the detention requirement would be waived. No modeling has been done at the present, but may be considered as this project progresses. The current submittal does show proposed on-site detention. Previous submittals for the Fox Grove site are briefly described below:  CLOMR Request for Lee MLD, Northern Engineering, September 2007. This CLOMR was submitted to FEMA in 2007 and approved in November 2008. The proposed work shown with the CLOMR included both Lot 1 (west of Boxelder Creek) and Lot 2 (east of Boxelder Creek) of Lee MLD. The CLOMR included proposed grading along the east bank 82 2 of Boxelder Creek, and proposed revisions to the regulatory floodplain and floodway. Due to land development market conditions at the time of the CLOMR, the project was placed on hold. The project did not move to construction, and no LOMR was submitted for the project. The proposed Fox Grove site will drain into on-site detention ponds which will release into the Boxelder Creek, located just west of the site. We do not currently propose any release to the east. All water quality treatment requirements and LID requirements will be satisfied with the proposed development. Means of providing for these requirements will be worked through at the Preliminary and Final stages of the design process. A significant portion of the subject property is located within the Boxelder Creek flood fringe. FEMA FIRM Panel Number 1003G for Larimer County, Dated May 2, 2012 is referenced in this study. Base (100-year) flood elevations in the vicinity of the proposed project range from 4925.0 to 4930.5 (elevations referenced to the City of Fort Collins NAVD 88). Please see the attached FIRMette with the approximate site boundary superimposed. The Boxelder Creek floodway is located near the north and west boundaries of the property. No fill is proposed within the floodway. Proposed grading will tie-in with existing grades outside of the floodway boundary. Please see the attached FIRMette of the area. It is acknowledged that the site design must satisfy the standards of Chapter 10 of City Code; Final design documents will be completed accordingly. In summary, this Overall Drainage Report letter adequately addresses any potential stormwater changes associated with the proposed development. In general, there are no significant changes proposed at a major drainage level. The ODP complies with the governing City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plans, and the previously approved drainage plans specific for the subject property. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely NORTHERN ENGINEERING Aaron Cvar, PE Project Engineer 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 ITEM NO 4 MEETING DATE April 10, 2014 STAFF Wray/Lewin PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Lincoln Corridor Plan Item has been removed for the April 10, 2014 Hearing Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 138 (UNDEVELOPED) LARIMER COUNTY SUNFLOWER SUBDIVISION (SINGLE FAMILY) “'8$&5( UNINCORPORATED LARIMER COUNTY (UNDEVELOPED) 518' 20' SEWER EASEMENT 20' UTILITY EASEMENT 50' SANITARY SEWER, DRAINAGE & ACCESS EASEMENT BOXELDER CREEK CENTER LINE BOXELDER CREEK TOP OF BANK LIMITS OF 100' BUFFER BOXELDER CREEK CENTER LINE BOXELDER CREEK TOP OF BANK CARRIAGE PARKWAY MINOR COLLECTOR 76' R.O.W. QUEST DRIVE ESPIRIT DRIVE PLEASURE DRIVE BRUMBY LANE SUNCHASE DRIVE SE FRONTAGE ROAD I-25 BOXELDER 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOXELDER 100 YEAR FLOODWAY BOXELDER 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOXELDER 100 YEAR FLOODWAY PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (PHASE 1) PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (PHASE 1) “ 72, LA SITE CARRIAGE PKWY EXTENSION CITY LIMITS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA (I) (UE) (LMN) (CG) (CG) (E) (LMN) (CG) (E) MULBERRY ST. PROSPECT ST. I-25 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax: 970/224.1662 phone: 970/224.5828 website: www.ripleydesigninc.com stephanie.sigler@ripleydesigninc.com land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FOX GROVE ODP LOT 2, LEE MLD IN ASSOCIATION WITH: PROJECT No.: R13-007 DRAWN BY: SS REVIEWED BY: LR ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05.22.13 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 RE SUBMITTAL 3.5.2014 2 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING 4.10.2014 SITE ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR NORTHERN ENGINEERING NICK HAWS, PE, LEED AP 200 S. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 970.221.4158 TRAFFIC ELB ENGINEERING, LLC ERIC L. BRACKE, P.E., P.T.O.E. 5401 TAYLOR LANE FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 970.688.7551 DEVELOPER / APPLICANT IMAGO ENTERPRISES INC LESTER KAPLAN 140 PALMER DR. FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 970.226.6819 SHEET 1 OF 1 PHASE 1 AREA (ACRES) % OF TOTAL AREA PHASE 1 (LMN) 18.9 52% SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 3.8 11% OPEN SPACE 2.8 8% OWNER (SIGNED) Date THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS THIS DAY OF MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: (PRINT NAME) A.D., 20 BY 1. THE PURPOSE OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS TO ESTABLISH GENERAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PARAMETERS, FOR PROJECTS THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES WITH MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS, WHILE ALLOWING SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY TO PERMIT DETAILED PLANNING IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS. APPROVAL OF AN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY VESTED RIGHT TO DEVELOP PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE FOR DENSITY, HOUSING TYPES, AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME DISTANCE TO I-25, HAVE BEEN REQUESTED WITH THIS ODP. 3. THE 100' BUFFER LINE FROM BOXELDER CREEK IS A ROUGH ESTIMATE ONLY. THE BUFFER ZONE SHOWN MAY BE ENLARGED OR REDUCED BY THE DECISION MAKERS DURING THE PDP PROCESS. REFERENCE SECTION 2.3.2(H)(3)(5). 4. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITATS BUFFER ZONE. 5. AT THE TIME OF THIS ODP, THE DRAINAGE BASIN MASTER PLAN HAD NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR THIS DRAINAGE BASIN. THEREFORE, FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODWAY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF THE PDP. a) PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY ARE LOCATED IN THE FEMA-REGULATORY 100-YEAR BOXELDER CREEK FLOODWAY AND HIGH-RISK FLOOD FRINGE. b) ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN MUST COMPLY WITH THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE. c) CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODWAY. d) RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED IN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD FRINGE PROVIDED THEY MEET ALL ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 10 OF CITY MUNICIPAL CODE. e) NON-STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT (FENCES, DETENTION PONDS, HARD SURFACE PATHS, FILL, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, VEGETATION ETC.) IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODWAY, PROVIDED THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CAUSE A RISE IN THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OR CHANGE OR A CHANGE TO THE FLOODWAY OF FLOODWAY FRINGE BOUNDARIES. NON-STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT RESTRICTED IN THE FLOOD FRINGE. 6. FIRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. 7. WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY ELCO WATER DISTRICT AND BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT. 8. ALL PUBLIC STREETS WILL BE DESIGNED TO MEET OR EXCEED CITY STANDARDS UNLESS VARIANCES ARE GRANTED TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN CITY STANDARDS. EXACT LOCATION OF ACCESS POINTS AND CERTAIN STREET ALIGNMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED WITH THE SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW OF PDP. 9. THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CONNECTIONS WILL CONFORM TO MINIMUM STREET ACCESS REQUIREMENTS UNLESS MODIFICATIONS, ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AND OR VARIANCES ARE APPROVED. FURTHER INTERNAL CONNECTIONS TO MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS, MINOR COLLECTOR STREETS, AND CONNECTOR STREETS SHALL BE REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.6.3 AT THE TIME OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ACCESS POINTS ARE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS AT TIME OF PDP. 10. ALL PARKS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE ARES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER AND/OR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, OR ASSIGNS, UNLESS OTHERWISE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR MAINTENANCE. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______ . SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. LAND USE TABLE* NOTES OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PLANNING & ZONING CERTIFICATE ODP BOUNDARY PHASE BOUNDARIES COLLECTOR STREET POINT OF ACCESS FOR LOCAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS EXISTING TREES PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ROUTES EXISTING BUILDINGS VICINITY MAP LEGEND BOXELDER 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOXELDER 100 YEAR FLOODWAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2, LEE M.L.D. NO. 04-S2309, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PHASE 2 PHASE 2 (LMN) 7.1 20% OPEN SPACE 3.2 9% TOTAL GROSS AREA COVERAGE 35.8 100% PHASE 1 DWELLING UNITS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 66 PHASE 2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 49 TOTAL 115 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY POCKET PARKS / OPEN SPACE / DETENTION * QUANTITIES ARE AN ESTIMATE BASED ON CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DESIGN. THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 64 M u n d o Carriag e Rd Stockton Ave Weicker Dr Jutland Ln Wi t h e r s D r Mclaughlin Ln M ead o w a ire D r Espirit Dr Ruidosa Dr Brumby Ln Me s sa r a Dr Frontage Rd Frisian Dr La Cruz Dr Noriker Dr Centro Way H es s e n Dr Pleasure Dr S a n Feli p e Dr La P a z D r D enr o s e C t Boca Del Rio Dr Br a ndt Cir Loma Linda Dr Palamino Ln Boxelder Dr Interstate 25 E Mulberry St E Prospect Rd Interstate 25 © Fox Grove Proposed Residential Neighborhood Overall Development Plan 1 inch = 1,000 feet Site 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet 36