Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2016 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 February 11, 2016 Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 11, 2016 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) CONSENT AGENDA (NOTE: Any public hearing item approved on the Consent Agenda shall be considered to have been opened and closed. The information furnished in connection with any such item and provided to this Board shall be considered as the only evidence presented for consideration. Approval of any public hearing item as a part of the Consent Agenda constitutes adoption by this Board of the staff recommendations, findings, and conditions of approval for those items.) 1. January 14, 2016, P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the January 14, 2016, P&Z Hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Agenda 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 2. Windsong at Rock Creek PDP#150024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a P.D.P. for a long-term care facility located at the northeast corner of Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive on Parcel C of the Harmony Technology Park. The primary focus is to serve the needs of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and other related dementia. The site is 3.34 acres. The one-story building will be approximately 37,000 sq. ft. and contain 64-beds arranged in individual apartments with central dining. There will be 51 parking spaces serving 22 employees on the largest shift, visiting professionals and guests. The parcel is located in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. APPLICANT: Vista Pointe Development Co., LLC c/o Lenity Architecture 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 OWNER: Harmony Technology Park LLC 303 Detroit Street, Suite 301 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 3. Talon Estates PDP Final Plan, 1-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights (#42-05A/B) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: This is a request for a one-year extension of the term of vested right, to March 11, 2017, of the approved Talon Estates PDP Final Plan. The parcel is located on Falcon Drive, generally ¼ mile west of South Taft Hill Road. The Final Plan has been approved for a total of 13 single-family houses on individual lots over 7.85 gross acres. Nadine Holter PO Box 272546 Fort Collins, CO 80527 4. Request for 1-Year Extension to Planned Development Overlap District (PDOD) Pilot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 6-month extension to the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot will expire on March 9, 2016, but City Council has the option to extend it if there have been insufficient projects to adequately evaluate the PDOD. 2 City of Fort Collins Page 3 DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. Gardens of Spring Creek Major Amendment Continuation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: OWNER: This is a continuation of the Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, which is the formal name and location of the Gardens on Spring Creek. John Beggs, Senior Landscape Architect Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 6. Verizon Wireless Facility at Lifepointe Church – PDP#150022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to install new telecommunications equipment at Lifepointe Church located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Ellis Street, at 900 East Prospect Road. The proposed site will include a total of six antenna structures mounted to a screen wall tower that is incorporated into building's existing architecture on the roof of the church. Additional electronic equipment associated with the wireless antennas will be placed on the ground, behind the church on the north side of the building. The equipment will be surrounded by wood fencing that will match the color of the existing building. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district. APPLICANT: OWNER: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless, 3131 South Vaughn Way Aurora, CO 80014 The First Baptist Church of Fort Collins (Lifepointe Church) 900 East Prospect Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Contact – Steve Paxton (970) 484-4053 7. Brookfield Second Filing Tracts D & E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT/ OWNER: This is a request for a Project Development Plan for Brookfield Second Filing Tracts D and E, located at the northeast corner of Precision Dr. and Brookfield Dr. The proposal calls for changes to 2 building types from a previously approved, but expired, plan. The stacked ranch condos originally approved are now proposed as townhome-style condos. There are 12 buildings proposed with a total of 68 units; the overall density of the site is 11.1 dwelling units per acre. The parcels are located in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district. Jason W. Sherrill Morningside Land Company, LLC 1170 W. Ash St., Ste 100 Windsor, CO 80550 3 City of Fort Collins Page 4 8. Bucking Horse Filing Four Multi-Family PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: OWNER: This is a request for 322 multi-family units on 23.06 acres located within the Bucking Horse development. There would be a mix of two housing types: 13 multi-family buildings (304 units) and nine two-family buildings (18 units). There would be a total of 586 bedrooms served by a total of 573 parking spaces for a ratio of .97 spaces per bedroom and five spaces would be assigned to the leasing office. Parking would be divided among surface, covered and garage spaces. A clubhouse, pool, central green and community garden are provided. Primary access would be gained via Yearling Drive and Miles House Avenue. In addition to two buildings fronting on Gooseberry Lane, there would be two other access points from Cutting Horse Drive and a private driveway off Nancy Gray Avenue. Bellisimo, Inc. c/o Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Bellisimo, Inc., LLC c/o Mr. Gino Campana 3702 Manhattan Avenue • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 4 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft January 14, 2016, P&Z Hearing Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the January 14, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board draft minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft January 14, 2016, P&Z Minutes (DOC) 5 Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing January 14, 2016 Vice Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, and Schneider Absent: Carpenter Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Leeson, Burnett, Wilkinson, Shepard, Holland, Ragasa, Everette and Cosmas Election of Officers Vice Chair Kirkpatrick requested nominations for Chair and Vice Chair for the 2016 P&Z Board. Member Hobbs nominated Vice Chair Kirkpatrick as Chair; Member Schneider seconded that nomination. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs nominated Member Hart as Vice Chair; Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 5:0, with Member Hart abstaining. Agenda Review Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 6 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 2 • 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. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience. He also reported that he has a conflict of interest regarding the Waters’ Edge modification and that Tom Leeson, CDNS Director, will be present in his place during that project presentation. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 17, 2015, P&Z Hearing 2. Maverik First Annexation and Zoning, ANX#150004 Vice Chair Kirkpatrick read the following statement prepared by Assistant City Attorney Yatabe: “Any public hearing item approved on the Consent Agenda shall be considered to have been opened and closed. The information furnished in connection with any such item and provided to this Board shall be considered as the only evidence presented for consideration. Approval of any public hearing item as a part of the Consent Agenda constitutes adoption by this Board of the staff recommendations, findings, and conditions of approval for those items.” Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the January 14, 2016, Consent agenda, including the draft minutes from the December 17, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing and the Maverik First Annexation and Zoning, ANX#150004. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020 4. Waters’ Edge Modifications of Standard #1 and #1, MOD#150001 7 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 3 Project: 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020 Project Description: This is a request for a P.D.P. for redevelopment of 215 Mathews Street for a three-story office building containing 8,550 square feet. The existing house would be demolished and the driveway would be closed allowing for four new public parking spaces to be placed on the street. Sole access would then be gained via the alley to nine, at-grade, under-structure parking spaces. The mid-block parcel is 7,000 square feet in size and zoned Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB). There are five requests for Modification of Standard. Two relate to maximum allowable floor-to-area ratios, two relate to building setbacks, and one relates to the location of the handicap parking space. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave an overview of this project and the five modifications being proposed. Greg Fisher, the architect for this project, also provided some history of the project location and discussed the zone district and how this property fits well with the neighborhood. He showed photos of the area, diagrams of the proposed buildings relative to other surroundings, proposed landscaping, setbacks, architecture of the proposed building, and the massing of the surrounding buildings with respect to the proposed building. He discussed elevations and roof lines and the modifications that were made to similar buildings that relate to those currently being presented. He also detailed the reasoning behind each of the proposed modifications. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked for more detail regarding the modification to standard for the floor area ratio, and Mr. Fisher reviewed the standard and the modification, which results in a lower ratio than other surrounding building. The intent is to preserve good backyard relations with neighbors, and he believes this proposal supports this objective. Member Hansen asked about the undulation of the side yard setbacks, and Mr. Fisher responded that the undulation is related more to the front elevation façade. Member Hart asked about the proposed usage of the first floor parking spaces, and Mr. Fisher stated that those will most likely be used by employees predominantly and by visitors on occasion. Public Input Rich Kress, 1733 Beamreach, stated that he feels that handicapped persons should be provided with a higher degree of parking lot security than regular parking spaces generally provide. Board Questions and Staff Response Mr. Fisher responded to the citizen’s comment by saying that employees will also need security after hours and late at night. Member Schneider asked how the alley will be maintained or improved to allow the additional alley traffic. Chief Planner Shepard responded by saying the responsibility for maintenance falls to the City Streets Department. Planning Director Gloss added that this is not part of planned upcoming alley improvements. Member Hansen asked if the alley has any traffic control other than at the block ends, and Chief Planner Shepard and Mr. Fisher both stated that there are no separate traffic controls. It was also clarified that there is no other public parking other than the few street spaces. Member Heinz asked about the 1:1 floor area ratio; Chief Planner Shepard explained how the zone 8 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 4 district would accomplish the buffering of surrounding neighbors from the downtown area. He continued by explaining that rezoning this block face would require higher floor area ratios and heights rather than using the existing downtown zoning. Member Hobbs also asked about the reaction from owners of surrounding buildings, and Chief Planner Shepard responded that there was no indication of opposition to this project. There was more discussion about the parking options available for this area. Board Deliberation Each Board member indicated their support of this project. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification 1 to standard section 4.9 (D)(1) (density) for 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020, based upon the findings of fact on page 15 and 16 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification 2 to standard section 4.9(D)(5)(floor area ratios) for 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020, based upon the findings of fact on page 15 and 16 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification 3 to standard section 4.9(D)(6) (minimum front yard setback) for 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020, based upon the findings of fact on page 15 and 16 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification 4 to standard section 4.9(D)(6)(d) (minimum side yard) for 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020, based upon the findings of fact on page 15 and 17 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification 5 to standard section 3.22(K)(5)(b) (location of the handicap parking space) for 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020, based upon the findings of fact on page 15 and 17 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 215 Mathews Street Offices, PDP#150020, based upon the findings of fact on page 18 through 21 of the staff report, subject to the following condition: at the time of submittal for final plan, the applicant shall provide an alternate parking lot layout showing 1 onsite, van-accessible handicap parking space. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Project: Waters’ Edge Modifications of Standard #1 and #2, MOD#150001 Project Description: This is a request for two "stand-alone" Modifications of Standard to the City Land Use Code related to Oil and Gas residential buffer setbacks for the Waters' Edge development, located on 130 acres at the northwest corner of Turnberry Road and Brightwater Drive. The project site is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) and Urban Estate (U-E). 9 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 5 The applicant is proposing two modifications: Modification 1: To allow the construction of streets, sidewalks, and public right of way within the 350 foot Buffer Yard D area surrounding the oil wells located on the property. Modification 2: To allow the construction of residential dwellings within a portion of the 350 foot Buffer Yard D areas surrounding the three oil wells located on the property, conditioned upon the oils well having been permanently plugged and abandoned in accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Standards. Per the attached map exhibit, the proposed residential units would be located outside a 150 foot radius from Well Sites number 2 and 3, outside a 100 foot radius from Well Site number 5. A 150 foot reduced setback radius is also requested for the Blunck 2 well, which is a plugged and abandoned well located within the existing right of way of Morningstar Drive within the Hearthfire development and within 350 feet of proposed improvements in the Waters’ Edge development. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas detailed the items that were received since the work session, including a revised Attachment 3 and a memo describing the recommended conditions of approval from Planner Holland. In addition, several items were received from citizens, including emails from Bill Swalling and Carol Van Meter with cell phone service solutions and letters from Ruth Sommers and Andrew Lynch with questions and concerns about the oil well treatment and taxation. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave an overview of the project, detailing each of the modifications being proposed. He reviewed the site plan and the buffer setbacks and how they conform with the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Standards. He reviewed the modification review criteria options: • Must not be detrimental to public good; • Must be equal to or better than original plan; • Could meet the hardship criteria; and/or • Must be nominal and inconsequential relative to the entire project. Planner Holland recommended approval with conditions, and he plans to present evidence that impacts associated with plugging and abandonment will be mitigated. He also reviewed the three conditions for approval he previously recommended: • 1st condition: applicant shall provide the agreement documents that the surface rights shall be relinquished; • 2nd condition: prior to any residential building permit in conjunction with the final plans, the oil and gas well heads within the project boundary will be permanently plugged and abandoned; and • 3rd condition: confirmation testing must be performed (to ensure no gas migration (primarily methane) might escape through the well head). • Planner Holland was assured by the COGCC that there should be no venting if the well heads are properly plugged, but a soil survey should be done to confirm this. They recommended a minimum setback of 25-foot radius as a preventive measure. He reiterated that this modification request was not taken lightly and a thorough review was conducted. Vice Chair Hart asked whether the development has an approved site plan; Planner Holland confirmed there is not. Member Schneider asked about justifying the “nominal and inconsequential” criteria when there is no site plan provided yet. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe interjected that a hypothetical site plan 10 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 6 should be considered (original site plan was previously approved but had expired); he said there would most likely be residences built at some point in the future. He added that the P&Z Board could also grant approval with certain conditions. Planner Holland clarified that the criteria “equal to or better than” stands on its own as it directly relates to a site plan. Member Hobbs asked if the plugging/abandonment is a one-time event or whether they would require future attention; Planner Holland reiterated that proper plugging and abandonment should not result in future issues. Bill Swalling, General Partner of Actual Communities, Inc., gave a brief history of his company and its purpose to help design total communities (with physical, mental, and spiritual benefits). He used the term “net zero morbidity”, describing his goal to enable individuals to delay reliance on assisted living. The project got its name, “Waters’ Edge”, from its location next to several bodies of water. His plan has embraced the “nature in the city” concept and urban agriculture as well. They will incorporate a commercial center within the project to reduce the carbon footprint by providing amenities within walking distance of residents. He described how the surrounding waters would be renovated, and he showed pictures of other similar projects where water areas were reclaimed and revitalized. David Dillon, a Petroleum Engineer and Consultant, addressed the issue of plugging and abandoning the oil wells, showing a map illustrating 4 other plugged and abandoned wells in the area. He explained that one of the modifications is requesting a reduction in the normal setback used for producing wells – from 350 feet to 150 feet. There are currently no set distances required for such setbacks; therefore, the 150- foot setback proposed is considered to be adequate to ensure safety. Since he has not seen issues with previously plugged wells, the fact that there are no set distance requirements established by the COGCC, and since no future work should be needed on these wells, he concluded that a 150-foot setback is a more reasonable distance for a plugged and abandoned well. Dave Neslin, the Oil and Gas Attorney, gave reasons to support the low possibility that new wells would be drilled. He explained that operators would have difficulty obtaining mineral rights, and such drilling would be unprofitable at present. Stricter environmental requirements would drive up drilling costs, as well as the regulatory hurdles (i.e. setbacks from subdivisions or waivers for variances). He concluded that it would be both technically unfeasible and economically unpractical that new wells would be drilled within the subdivision in the future. Layne Kottmeier, with Actual Communities, summarized the presentations made by the applicant team members, detailing the justification for the modifications presented. She discussed the “hardship issue” - that some roads already exist within the original 350-foot buffer zone – which contributed to some of the difficulties the developer has had in trying to conform to the original engineering standards. She also stated that this project is attempting to meet some of the City’s objectives, like affordable housing and keeping nature in the City. She concluded by asking the Board to grant the modifications requested. The Board took a short recess at 8:05pm and resumed the hearing at 8:15pm. Public Input: Randy Mergler, 1028 Frisian Drive, has lived in Fort Collins since 1977, and he is in support of this project. He believes that the applicant is going above and beyond, and he feels another developer would not be as diligent. Mike Edwards, 3320 Corte Almaden, asked whether the setbacks apply to existing wells rather than new wells. He asked whether existing capped wells should be recapped in order to ensure safety. He also asked whether there are still surface rights available for purchase within the subdivision. Finally, he asked whether future horizontal fracking could have an effect on existing capped wells. 11 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 7 Jim Miles, 3403 Apiatan Court, resident of the Hearthfire subdivision, commended the developer for plugging the wells. He asked about the timing of the well resolution, which should occur before the project plans are submitted. He also asked about the minimum setback requirements and whether there would be an egress or ingress to those plugged and abandoned wells. He would like to see an independent review performed on the proposals being outlined, due to the lack of empirical data and potential impacts. Richard Alper, 3202 Town Center Court, a neighbor to this project, stated that he is in favor of soil and gas surveys and an ongoing monitoring program. He suggested that it might be helpful to consolidate a review of the future site plan with a review of the setback request. He questioned the possibility of methane gas migration as well as oil and gas contamination around Richard’s Lake. Hunter Harms, 1738 Beamreach, supports the project and modification 1, but he has an issue with modification 2 because of the perception that homes will be built too close to the oil wells. Board Questions and Staff Response Mr. Dillon responded to the citizen questions by mentioning how the wells were initially plugged in 1946, which indicates that problems with previous wells are not imminent. Regarding the fracking of horizontal drilling, he stated that the COGCC reviews all wells within a 1,500-foot radius to identify problems before a well can be stimulated or a new well drilled. There are no minimum requirements for distance to plugged and abandoned wells; therefore, he believes that the 150-foot proposal is a safe distance. Regarding gas migration, the act of plugging and abandoning prevents such migration. Mr. Neslin addressed whether there could be continued surface rights within a subdivision by saying the operator would relinquish such rights, which is a contractual condition that has been already required. Planner Holland also addressed some of the questions related to timing: first there would be the relinquishment of surface area agreement, then the wells would be plugged and abandoned prior to any building permits being obtained. He confirmed that the COGCC does not have specific requirements for setbacks from plugged and abandoned wells. Vice Chair Hart asked about the different setbacks currently in place (ranging from 100 to 150 feet). To ensure separation in perpetuity in accordance with any future site plan, it was suggested that this issue be addressed at the site plan level rather than in conjunction with these modifications. Mr. Swalling added some history as to how the setbacks became varied in their distances. Mr. Dillon also clarified some of the concepts of surface and production casing. Member Schneider asked whether hydrocarbons from previously-producing wells could be reestablished so that someone in the future could eventually come back and seek to gain from those fields; Mr. Dillon commented that, due to the age of the field and the current low production, it is unlikely that this would occur. Planner Holland clarified that Staff was under the impression originally that a 350-foot setback was adequate for fully-operational wells; nothing was established for plugged and abandoned wells. A setback analysis was not done for these wells. Mr. Dillon added that the thought was that the setback should be equivalent to the height of a drilling rig to ensure that a rig that tipped over wouldn’t damage any buildings. These rules applied to permitting a well only, rather than plugging a well. There was some discussion regarding whether certain locations should have certain setbacks, since the site plan hasn’t been approved yet. Member Heinz asked if a road can be built over an abandoned well; Planner Holland responded that this has already happened. There are requirements to disclose these wells to potential buyers, since a home could be built adjacent to a plugged and abandoned well. This information would be listed on the plat. Planner Holland recommended that this be identified and/or conditioned in the site plan review. 12 Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2016 Page 8 Member Schneider asked about the ongoing soil survey and analysis and if there is a particular time frame for follow-up to ensure no leakage; Mr. Dillon responded that there is no specific time for identifying leaks, but he agrees that this should be done. He offered to consult with an environmental company about this. Planner Holland suggested that a time condition could be recommended by the Board. There was more discussion about the purpose of the current recommendation and whether there could be overlap with respect to what will be covered in the future by the site plan review. Member Hobbs commented that the operators will be relinquishing surface rights but not mineral rights, which was confirmed by Mr. Dillon. Mr. Swalling stated that this area would be called a “unitized” field, meaning the rights are shared. There was more discussion on the mineral and surface rights. Chair Kirkpatrick asked about the environmental impacts to the area, and Mr. Dillon responded that there would be a “final reclamation” of the well site, which would be overseen by the COGCC. Board Deliberation Member Hansen supports the reduction of the setback and feels that plugged and abandoned wells should be addressed in the Land Use Code. Member Hobbs stated his professional involvement with oil and gas (as a geologist), his review using Larimer County records and Google Earth sites, and some extra research he performed; he acknowledged the proximity of these older oil wells and homes, but feels the plugged wells represent a far lower threat than a producing well. Member Schneider does not have concerns with modification #1, but he does have some issues with the lack of distance consistency for Modification #2. He supports having the setback distance consistent for all plugged wells. Member Hansen stated that the setbacks are being applied to the homes not the wells. The Board has general agreement on modification #1; however, there was more discussion on modification #2. Member Hobbs and Member Hansen are in support. More discussion continued about how this modification should be presented, whether more conditions should be attached, and if time frames should also be included. Planner Holland suggested a minimum expectation be established. There was additional discussion regarding the 150-foot buffering standard. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approval the modification to standard #1 MOD#150001 to section 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) to allow the construction of streets, sidewalks, public rights of way, and other minor structures or site elements based on the findings of fact and conclusions on page 15 of the staff report and the conditions of approval on the modified January 14, 2016, memo. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approval the modification to standard #2 MOD#150001 to section 3.8.26 to reduce the buffer yard 350-foot minimum setback to allow the construction of residential units within a portion of the buffer yard based on the findings of fact and conclusions on page 15-16 of the staff report and on the modified January 14, 2016, memo, with an additional condition that there be 150-foot radius outside of wellsite #5. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. There was some clarifying discussion. Vote: 6:0. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair 13 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME WINDSONG AT ROCK CREEK, PDP#150024 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a P.D.P. for a long-term care facility located at the northeast corner of Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive on Parcel C of the Harmony Technology Park. The primary focus is to serve the needs of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and other related dementia. The site is 3.34 acres. The one- story building will be approximately 37,000 sq. ft. and contain 64-beds arranged in individual apartments with central dining. There will be 51 parking spaces serving 22 employees on the largest shift, visiting professionals and guests. The parcel is located in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. APPLICANT: Vista Pointe Development Co., LLC c/o Lenity Architecture 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 OWNER: Harmony Technology Park LLC 303 Detroit Street, Suite 301 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The project complies with the policies of the Harmony Corridor Plan. • The P.D.P. is in conformance with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment. • The P.D.P. complies with the land use and development standards of the H-C, Harmony Corridor, zone district. • The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development standards. • The site and landscape plans have been designed in coordination with the proposed P.D.P. to the north, Eye Center of Northern Colorado, with regard to public and emergency access and landscaping along Ziegler Road. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 Comments: 1. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: H-C Harmony Technology Park Eye Care/Northern Colorado P.D.P. S: L-M-N Fossil Ridge High School E. H-C Harmony Technology Park Vacant W R-L Wildwood Farm & Harvest Park Existing Residential The property was annexed as part of the 156 acre Harmony Farm in 1984. The first Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan consisted of 155 acres and was approved in 1997 in conjunction with Celestica Manufacturing. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 Since 1997, the following annexations occurred: • Kendall-Harmony Annexation - June, 2000 • Johnson-Harmony Annexation - July, 2000 These annexations triggered cooperation among various land owners which created the Harmony Tech. Park, First Amended O.D.P. (267 acres) - September, 2000 In 2004, the Harmony Technology Park, O.D.P., Second Amendment was approved which added three residential properties and increased the total acreage of the O.D.P. from 267.19 acres to 270.19 acres. Since 2004, five additional amendments to the O.D.P. were approved in response to the great recession, parcel adjustment for various end-users, and re-allocation of the primary and secondary uses. The governing O.D.P. is the Seventh Amendment approved in 2014 and encompasses 270 acres among several property owners. The following projects have been approved in the Harmony Technology Park: Project Name Applicant/Use Year Site (acres) H.T.P. 1st Filing Celestica/Intel 1998 34.4 H.T.P. 2nd Filing H-P South Campus 2001 60.14 Brookfield Townhomes Chateau Development 2002 42.39 H.T.P. 3rd Filing Custom Blending 2008 5.01 Presidio Apartments Multi-Family 2011 11.83 H.T.P. 3rd Filing Numerica 2012 4.90 Milestone Apartments Multi-Family 2013 10.20 Banner Health Hospital 2013 27.95 H.T.P. 4th Filing Fuse Office 2014 1.62 Main Street Health Long Term Care 2015 7.5 The following projects are under current review: Project Name Proposed Use Site (acres) Harmony Commons Commercial Mixed-Use 4.00 Eye Center of Northern Colorado Medical Office 4.16 2. Compliance with Harmony Corridor Plan: The entire 270 acre O.D.P. is within the Basic Industrial Non-Retail Employment Activity Center (B.I.N.R.E.A.C). The proposed land use, Long Term Care, is a primary use in the H-C zone district. Development of the subject parcel, therefore, contributes to fulfilling the vision of the Harmony Corridor being an area reserved for a variety of business-related uses on relatively large parcels within an attractive industrial park setting. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 3. Compliance with the Harmony Technology Park, Seventh Amendment Overall Development Plan: By being located within the B.I.N.R.E.A.C. and zoned H-C, the Overall Development Plan is divided between 75% primary and 25% secondary uses. Windsong at Rock Creek is a Long Term Care Facility which is permitted in the H-C as a primary use. The parcel is located on Parcel C of the O.D.P. which is 42.55 acres and designated on the O.D.P. for Primary Uses. The project, therefore, complies with the approved Overall Development Plan. 4. Compliance with Applicable Harmony Corridor Zone District Standards: As mentioned, a Long Term Care Facility is a permitted primary use subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The building is below the maximum allowable height of six stories. The applicant is participating with the master developer of the Harmony Technology Park to establish and comply with an integrated pattern of streets and streetscaping along Ziegler Road. For example, in conjunction with the pending Eye Center of Northern Colorado P.D.P. to the north, the following site plan elements of Windsong at Rock Creek are being coordinated:  Both P.D.P.’s will share a north-south private drive along their respective east property lines that will connect Precision on the north to Rock Creek Drive on the south. This drive will be designated as a public access easement allowing for internal circulation without having to load local traffic onto Ziegler Road.  Both P.D.P.’s will share a common emergency only access drive for the benefit of a providing a secondary access for emergency vehicles and equipment.  Both P.D.P.’s are designing an integrated landscape along Ziegler Road that coordinates a common theme for over 800 feet of public street frontage. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. provides full tree stocking around the entire site. Street trees are provided along both Ziegler Road (4-lane arterial) and Rock Creek Drive (collector with no parking). Foundation shrubs are provided around all sides. The screen walls that enclose the two courtyards on the east and west sides are mitigated by continuous rows of trees and shrubs including upright junipers for year-round effectiveness. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping There are 12 spaces in front (south) for visiting professional staff and guests. There are 39 spaces in the back (north). The 25 north-facing spaces are along the perimeter of the property are buffered by a mix of with shade and evergreen trees in excess of the minimum requirement of one per 40 feet. There is no adjacent residential area. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 5 C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The parking lot exceeds 6% interior landscaping in the form of islands which exceeds the required minimum for lots with less than 100 spaces. D. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access Circulation and Parking The parking and circulation system is complete and capable of serving the expected number of staff on the largest shift, 22, as well as visiting medical and professional staff and visitors. The north-south private drive allows for connectivity between Precision Drive and Rock Creek Drive. E. Section 3.2.2(K)(3) – Parking Lots – Maximum Number of Spaces – Alternative Compliance This standard requires that for a Long Term Care Facility, the range of allowable number of parking spaces is between 0.5 per bed (required minimum) and .33 per bed plus one per two employees on the largest shift (allowable maximum). The P.D.P. includes 64 beds, 22 employees on the largest shift and a total of 51 spaces. There is no available parking on either public street so the 20% bonus is applicable. The P.D.P. exceeds the required minimum of 32 spaces. The maximum allowable number of spaces is 38. (64 x .33 = 21 plus 11 (employees) = 32 x 20% (bonus) = 6 + 32 = 38). The number of proposed spaces is 51. The P.D.P. exceeds the maximum allowable by 13 spaces. The applicant has indicated that the number of proposed parking spaces is based on existing facilities that are under current operation in other communities and is justified under the Alternative Compliance provision of Section 3.2.2(K)(3). The primary justification for the increase in the number of spaces is due to number of visiting professionals that provide services to the clients. These include primary care physicians, medical specialists, physical therapists, diagnosticians, social workers, hospice volunteers, beauticians, pet therapists and the like. These professionals and volunteers are not in-house employees but provide a wide range of services on a daily or weekly basis. In addition, there is shift overlap requiring the higher number of spaces so that parking does not spill off-site. Finally, the total anticipated employee count is 24 full-time equivalents which are divided among approximately 36 employees depending on the number of part-time employees. Staff finds that the request for Alternative Compliance represents a reasonable approach that accomplishes the purpose of the standard equally well than would a plan with less parking. For example, 39 spaces are located on the north side of the building along the shared property line with the pending Eye Care Center medical office building. This rear lot is not along a public street so it well-screened and has less visibility. Further, the perimeter of this parking lot includes a dense mix of trees and shrubs to soften the exposure. Bicycle parking is provided in excess of the standard and the site is served by Transfort Route #16. One factor in recommending approval of the Alternative Compliance is that the standard does not account for various programs and events that allow the residents to interact with the community. All Long Term Care facilities engage the services of an Activities Director who brings in community volunteers who offer a wide variety of programs and functions that socially engage the residents in order to combat isolation and withdrawal. These volunteers are often groups, not just individuals that may need the extra parking spaces. 18 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 6 The scale of the Harmony Technology Park is large. For example, by way of comparison, the three projects within the H.T.P. along Ziegler Road (from north to south) are as follows: Use Building Size (sq. ft.) Parking Site (acres) Intel 199,194 625 34.4 Main Street Health 48,158 100 7.5 Eye Care Medical Office 32,903 209 4.16 Windsong Long Term Care 38,303 64 3.38 Given the size and scale of these existing and proposed facilities, the 13 extra spaces requested by Windsong appears nominal and inconsequential when compared to the surrounding context. Staff recommends approval of the Alternative Compliance to allow 13 extra spaces because request complies with the applicable standards in that the parking lot is planned and landscaped in such a way that it: 1. does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity, 2. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible, 3. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood, 4. creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation, 5. creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features, 6. maintains handicap parking ratios. F. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting Parking lot pole lighting and wall-mounted sconces will feature down-directional and full cut-off fixtures. There are no foot-candles that exceed the maximum allowable. G. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(E)(F) – Building Project and Compatibility The one-story building evokes a residential character although at a relatively large scale. The roof is pitched with multiple rooflines and gables and further mitigated by entrances on the south (main) and north (employees). The south-facing porte cochere draws attention to the main entrance. A series of gables provides horizontal relief. As would be expected, windows are numerous which helps break down the mass. The side courtyard walls read as if the building exterior is continuous. Cultured stone serves as the base for the south elevation. The balance of the wall materials is a variety of cementious lap siding (7” reveal and 4” reveal) and cementious panel board. Colors are earth-tone and residential in character. H. Section 3.5.3(C)(1) – Orientation to a Connecting Walkway There are two direct walkways, one from each street, that connect the public sidewalks to a plaza, located at the building entrance, without having to cross a drive aisle. In addition, there 19 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 7 are two entry portals located at the public sidewalk that invite and lead the pedestrian to the plaza and entrance. Each portal consists of decorative columns, beams and a trellis and are intended to break down the visual distance between the public street and the entry plaza due to the size and scale of the building. Staff finds that use of entry portals is an effective design solution that enhances the relationship between the building the public streets in an industrial park-like environment. I. Section 3.5.3(B)(2) – Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings The P.D.P. complies with this standard by creating a plaza that includes a significant amount of landscaping, seat walls and outdoor gathering space. This plaza ties into the main entrance which is made prominent by architectural features. As mentioned, this plaza connects to the public sidewalks along both streets. Ziegler Road is a four-lane arterial and Rock Creek is a collector with no parking. As such, both streets are more suburban in character than urban which would otherwise require a closer building relationship to the street. In fact, the Landscape Plan is specifically designed to attenuate the road noise associated with an arterial street. Given this context, the building is pulled back from the property line in excess of 15 feet. Together, the prominent entry feature, plaza, connecting walkways and entry portals combine to comply with the allowable exception to the build-to line requirement per Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)1. J. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements As mentioned, Ziegler is an arterial street which prohibits a driveway connection. Rock Creek is a collector allowing the project two access points. The westerly driveway would be restricted to right-out only turn movements due to its proximity to the intersection with Ziegler Road. The easterly driveway will allow for full-turning movements onto Rock Creek Drive. This driveway will connect to Precision Drive and includes a continuous sidewalk along the west side. The Transportation Impact Study concludes that, with full development of this P.D.P., the future vehicular Level of Service at the key intersections will be acceptable. In addition, acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes (Transfort Route 16) based upon the measures in the Multi-Modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. 6. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on September 24, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. Questions about the operation of the facility were answered satisfactorily. Concerns about the site plan, landscaping, traffic, parking, and stormwater runoff were raised and addressed by the Windsong representatives. 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating Windsong at Rock Creek, P.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. is in compliance with land use and development standards of the Harmony Corridor Plan. B. The P.D.P. complies with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment. 20 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 8 C. The P.D.P. is a permitted use and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Harmony Corridor zone district in accordance with Article Four. D. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Windsong at Rock Creek, P.D.P., #PDP150024. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 4. Statement of Planning Objectives (PDF) 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 6. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 21 Attachment 1 22 64 Bed Memory Care Facility 1 Story REFUSE AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURE ENTRANCE ENCLOSED YARD EMPLOYEE AREA LOADING ROCK CREEK DRIVE ENCLOSED YARD ZIEGLER ROAD COURTYARD COURTYARD DETENTION POND DETENTION POND LIGHT POLE-TYPICAL STREETLIGHT MULCHED TREE RING-TYPICAL COVERED ENTRANCE RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL MULCHED TREE RING-TYPICAL EX. SIGN (BIKE LANE) EX. SIGN (SPEED LIMIT) RETAINING WALL 5' PUBLIC SIDEWALK 8' PARKWAY 7'-0" PUBLIC SIDEWALK 10' PARKWAY CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT RETAINING WALL SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE EARTHEN BERM EARTHEN BERM EARTHEN BERM EARTHEN BERM NOTES- 1. AN AUTOMATED PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED USING SMART TECHNOLOGY, PROVIDING 100% COVERAGE TO ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS. WETLAND SEED MIX TO BE IRRIGATED TEMPORARILY FOR TWO GROWING SEASONS ONLY. 2. ALL SHRUB/GROUND COVER BEDS AND TREE RINGS TO RECEIVE A 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED FIR OR PINE BARK MULCH CONFERENCE 105 HALL 104 LOBBY ACCENT WALL W/ LOGO 100 OFFICE 101 RECEPTION 106 SITTING DIRECTOR 102 132 SERVICE 115 SERVICE 115 STAFF STORAGE RESTROOM LOCKERS 121 FEC LOCKERS 119 120 MECH. 122 SPRINKLER XXX BATHER 123 LIN. SOIL LAUNDRY 117 118 ELEC. 112 STORAGE 145 STORAGE J.C. 109 110 STORAGE 000 144 RESTROOM 000 STOR. ENCLOSED YARD 1,804 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED YARD 1,804 SQ. FT. COURTYARD 2,396 SQ. FT. COURTYARD 2,396 SQ. FT. Fort Collins, CO SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" DATE: 18 Nov. 2015 ELEC. MECH. KITCHEN. 64 Bed Memory Care Facility 1 Story REFUSE ENCLOSURE ENTRANCE ENCLOSED YARD ENCLOSED YARD BENCH WALL BENCH WALL BENCH WALL BENCH WALL BIKE RACK RETAINING WALL WITH PROJ. SIGN RETAINING WALL BIKE RACK COLUMN AND TRELLIS COLUMN AND TRELLIS COLUMN AND TRELLIS PERVIOUS FH PAVERS PERVIOUS PAVERS PERVIOUS PAVERS BENCH RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER EMPLOYEE AREA GENERATOR TRANSFORMER 422.83' 395.47' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 26 27 28 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 P 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565 w lenityarchitecture.com ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING November 18, 2015 Windsong at Rock Creek Project Development Plan Statement of Planning Objectives Project Description & Introduction  The subject parcel is a 3.337‐acre piece of an 18.70‐acre parcel, generally located on the NE corner of Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive. The existing zoning is Harmony Corridor District (HC) and the site is located within the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan.  The subject parcel is currently vacant and is used for agricultural purposes. There are no natural features, existing trees, or natural areas that required preservation.  The area around the subject parcel is currently developed or included in an overall plan for development.  The PDP proposal is to subdivide the parcel and develop a 38,303 SF, 64‐bed memory care facility. The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code defines this use as a Long‐Term Care Facility, which is an allowed use in the Harmony Corridor District (HC) with a Type II review by the Planning & Zoning Commission.  The Windsong at Rock Creek Memory Care facility will be a state licensed facility that expects to have approximately 35 employees.  No new street names are proposed with this project.  The project is to be developed in a single phase. Construction is expected to begin Fall of 2016 with completion expected in 2017. Property & Development Ownership  The current property owner is: Harmony Technology Park, LLC a Colorado limited liability company Mark S. Melchi & Jeffery T. Harshe South State Commons I 2723 South State Street, Suite 250 Ann Arbor, MI 48104  Upon closing on the property prior to the start of construction, the property owner will be Vista Pointe Development Co., LLC. They are the current contract purchaser on the property and will be the owner and operator of the proposed memory care facility. Vista Pointe Development Co.,LLC Don Harris and Mike Zingg 1883 SW Vista Avenue Portland, OR 97201  Lenity Architecture is the applicant and consultant to Vista Pointe Development who is submitting this application with the full knowledge of the existing property owner. Attachment 4 29 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 P 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565 w lenityarchitecture.com ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING Conceptual Review  The proposed development had a Conceptual Review Meeting on July 20, 2015 under the title Harmony Technology Park ‐ Long‐Term Care Facility  The design concern brought up during the Conceptual Review was the build‐to requirements of the Land Use code. The nature of a Memory Care facility requires a drop off area at the front of the building which limits the ability to push the building up toward the street as required by the code. In further discussions with the planning department and some site design changes a consensus was reached that with the proposed pedestrian amenities, this design is an acceptable exception to the required build‐to standard.  The original design showed an emergency access only drive exiting onto Ziegler Road. The planning department requested that the fire department consider alternative designs. The civil engineer on the project met with Poudre Fire Authority and they discussed the current proposal, which provides an emergency access easement to the northern property line. When the site to the north develops, a connection could be made to provide a through fire access drive. Design Rationale  The site is designed to orient the main entry toward Rock Creek Drive with a berm and landscape buffer along Ziegler Road. The south facing entry provides weather protection for residents and visitors. The site is designed with a shared access drive that will connect future developments North and East of the site to the development and also provide a through access road to Rock Creek and Precision Drive.  The front entry and drop off area has been designed to allow vehicles to return to the parking area east of the entry without exiting onto Rock Creek Drive.  Currently the site is developed for agricultural purposes. No existing natural features, trees, wetlands, or open spaces exist onsite.  The site has been designed with extensive pedestrian amenities to connect the building to the public rights of way and to mitigate the increased setback required by the use for the front drop off area.  Sidewalks connect the site to the adjacent parcels to encourage connectivity to future developments.  Service locations have been placed on the site at the area farthest from the public right of way and is provided with screening with both and enclosure and appropriate landscaping.  Onsite stormwater management is proposed and has been incorporated into the landscape design.  The building is a single story structure that is compatible with the surrounding area. The building is an appropriate size for the site and is in character with the use and the surrounding developments. Neighborhood Meeting  No significant issues were raised at the neighborhood meeting. The questions were about some of the graphic items on the site plan and the nature of the facility. No major issues were brought up that needed to be addressed. Attachment 4 30 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 P 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565 w lenityarchitecture.com ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING Parking & Traffic  The standard in the Land Use Code for Long‐Term Care Facilities is .33/bed plus parking for employees on the major shift. With 64 beds and 22 employees, the standard is calculated as 43 spaces. The proposed 51 spaces is sufficient parking for employees, visitors and guests.  A traffic memo was prepared for this project and is included in this submission. The traffic analysis concluded that there will be less than 12 AM peak hour trips and 15 PM peak hour trips. The conclusion was that with the development of the project, the future level of service would be acceptable. City Plan Principles and Policies The City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by this development are as follows: Economic Health EH 1.1 – Support Job Creation: The proposed Windsong at Rock Creek Memory Care Facility will provide 35 skilled jobs to the community. These jobs support the economic health of the community. EH 3.1 – Support Programs Emphasizing Local Business: Facilities for the ageing population is a needed asset to the City of Fort Collins. Providing specialized facilities like the Windsong at Rock Creek project allow residents and their families to stay in Fort Collins rather than look for services outside of the community. Environmental Health ENV 8.3 ‐ Employ a Citywide Approach & ENV 8.6 – Prevent Pollution: Providing the unique services offered by the Windsong at Rock Creek project has the potential to reduce emissions by keeping residents or their family members from traveling outside the city to get the services they need for their family members. ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development: This project will meet the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements to minimize the impact of the development on urban watersheds. ENV 20.2 – Follow Design Criteria for Stormwater Facilities: The Windsong at Rock Creek project utilizes Best Management Practices (BMPs). The site specific BMPs proposed include permeable interlocking concrete pavers, grass swales, and an extended detention basin for water quality treatment. Attachment 4 31 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 P 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565 w lenityarchitecture.com ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING Community and Neighborhood Livability LIV 5.4 – Contribute to Public Amenities: The site development for this project includes public facilities adjacent the site including ADA accessible pedestrian amenities along Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive, landscaped tree lined streetscapes, and site amenities adjacent to the Public Right‐of‐Way. LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods & LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood‐Related, Non‐Residential Development: This project is compatible with the surrounding area in use and intensity based upon the existing business, commercial use and residences in close proximity to the site. The building design is compatible with both commercial and residential developments. LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations & LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing & Policy & LIV 7.6 – Basic Access: Windsong at Rock Creek is a unique housing opportunity for a very specific population. This facility will add housing options to the community and provides for those with special memory care needs. The facility will be ADA accessible and will provide a functional living opportunity for those with a variety of mobility concerns. LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets & LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees LIV 10.5 – Retrofit Existing Streetscapes: Ziegler Road will be enhanced with the addition of street trees, landscaped berms, and by strategically placing pedestrian entry points near building entrances. Rock Creek Drive will be provided with a landscaped parkway and street trees. The proposed landscape design will greatly improve the visual quality and character of the existing streetscape as viewed from the surrounding neighborhoods, pedestrian ways, and vehicles passing by. LIV 12.1 – Design for Crime Prevention and Security & LIV 12.2 – Utilize Security Lighting and Landscaping: The landscape and lighting for the project is designed with security in mind. The lighting layout provides visibility in areas with additional security needs like parking areas and on walkways. The landscape plan is designed to avoid hidden area and to promote visibility. LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features & LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape & LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes: The landscape design is centered on providing a reasonably maintainable, safe and natural living environment for residents of the memory care facility. More than half the planting areas consist of low and very low water use. Lawns have been confined to areas of high visual impact. Landscaping has been designed to be very functional, especially in areas where stormwater management is Attachment 4 32 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3150 Kettle Court SE Salem, OR 97301 P 503 399 1090 f 503 399 0565 w lenityarchitecture.com ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING implemented. Landscape berms undulate along the western boundary to provide visual and audible buffering from the arterial road. LIV 15.2 – Seek Compatibility with Surrounding Development: This project is compatible with the surrounding area in use and intensity based upon the existing business, commercial use and residences in close proximity to the site. The building design is compatible with both commercial and residential developments. LIV 30.1 – Provide a Balanced Circulation System & LIV 30.3 – Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access & LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking: Windsong at Rock Creek includes public pedestrian improvements, improved access to surrounding developments and buffers parking areas from Public Rights‐of‐Way. Bicycle parking is provided at both entrances, which are connected by private onsite sidewalks to the public sidewalks. LIV 31.2 – Site Layout and Building Orientation & LIV 31.4 – Design for Pedestrian Activity & The primary entrance of the WIndsong at Rock Creek building is oriented toward pedestrian areas and has an enhanced pedestrian connection to both Rock Creek Drive and Ziegler Road. LIV 38.3 –Land Use Transitions This project is right at the edge of the employment district. It is a perfect transition from the high school and nearby residential properties to the future commercial developments intended for the parcels north and east of the site. Safety and Wellness SW 1.5 ‐ Maintain Public Safety through Design: The Windsong at Rock Creek project is designed with security in mind. The lighting layout provides visibility in areas with additional security needs like parking areas and on walkways. The landscape plan is designed to avoid hidden area and to promote visibility across the site. Transportation T 3.1 – Pedestrian Mobility & T 3.2 – Bicycle Facilities & T 12.1 – Connections T 12.4 – ADA Compliance: Windsong at Rock Creek includes ADA compliant public pedestrian improvements and private improvements to increase access to surrounding existing and future developments. Bicycle parking is provided at both entrances, which are connected by private onsite sidewalks to the public sidewalks to encourage bicycle usage. Attachment 4 33 Attachment 5 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Windsong at Rock Creek, Long Term Care Facility LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive DATE: September 24, 2015 APPLICANT: Don Harris, Windsong Long Term Care CONSULTANTS: Mark Lowen, Lennity Architecture, 3150 Kettle Court SE, Salem, OR 97301 CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the project consists of a long-term care facility located at the northeast corner of Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive on Parcel C of the Harmony Technology Park. The primary focus is to serve the needs of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and other related dementia. The site is 3.32 acres. The one-story building will be approximately 37,000 sq. ft. and contain a 64-beds arranged in individual apartments with central dining. There will be 48 parking spaces provided to serve the project. There will be approximately 22 employees on the largest shift. The parcel is located in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. This proposal will be subject to review and consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board at a future public hearing with the date to be determined. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicants and consultant. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS 1. What are the sizes of the rooms? Are any rooms shared? A. We have two types of rooms. The singles are about 200 square feet and the shared rooms are about 180 square feet per resident. Please note that the only portion that is shared is the bathroom. The rooms, while on the small side, are intended to not become mini-apartments, but, rather, to encourage residents to get out and circulate and join the activities and enjoy the common amenities. 34 Attachment 5 2 2. What are the building setbacks? A. The building is setback about 40 feet from Ziegler and about 110 feet from Rock Creek Drive. 3. The green area that is shown in front of the building, is that a stormwater detention area? A. Yes, the area in southwest corner of the site is set aside as a stormwater detention pond. In addition, the frontage along Rock Creek Drive is also shown to be for stormwater detention as the site generally slopes from west to east. 4. Where does the stormwater go? A. All storm flows are directed, after detention, to a regional stormwater pond on the east side of Technology Parkway. 5. Is there an irrigation ditch along Ziegler? What will happen to this ditch? A. Yes, there is an existing irrigation ditch that serves both Fossil Ridge High School and the City of Fort Collins Parks Department further to the south and east. This ditch will be placed in a pipe. 6. How many residents will the facility serve? A. We plan on a capacity of 64 residents. 7. How many employees will you have? A. We will have about 24 full-time equivalent employees. This means about 36 total employees. We expect to have approximately 22 employees on one shift during peak time. 8. Will there be enough parking? A. Yes, we will have about 48 parking spaces. The parking spaces along the front will be reserved for visitors. Employees will park on the north side of the building. The number of parking spaces is also intended to allow for visiting professional staff such as physical therapists, primary doctors, etc. 9. Will there be a registered nurse on staff? A. Yes. 10. What is the green area and the concrete area in the northwest corner? 35 Attachment 5 3 A. That is a landscaped area and an employee break area. 11. What is the road on the east side of the site? A. This is a private access drive, not a public street, that serves our site as well as future development to the north. 12. So there is no direct access out to Ziegler Road? A. That is correct, sole access is to Rock Creek Drive at the two locations shown. 13. Are you connecting to the site with a drive to the north from your parking lot? A. That connection is shown at the request of the Poudre Fire Authority who may need an emergency access easement to serve our site from the north, or the north site from our site, as a secondary point of access. 14. It looks like given the size and scale of the project, there could be more landscaping along Ziegler. A. Thank you for the comment. These plans are conceptual and we will add more specific detail for the formal submittal to the City. 15. You mentioned that certain security measures will be implemented to prevent any of the residents from leaving the premises. Could you describe these measures? A. Yes, the term in the trade is known as “elopement” and to prevent this we have two enclosed courtyards and two external courtyards that are enclosed by a fence or decorative wall. We prefer that this fence or wall be eight feet so that there is no visual attraction over the fence that may encourage a resident to wander off. This will be an attractive fence / wall and not simply 8 feet of solid wood fencing. 16. How long is the average stay? A. About 2 – 3 years. Our longest running resident was 12 years. 17. You mentioned outside professional staff coming on-site to provide services. Do residents also leave the site to receive medical services? A. Yes, we have a bus that transports residents to off-site appointments and various activities. For example, at our Salem, Oregon facility, our residents made dog and cat toys and then visited the Humane Society to deliver toys and engage with the staff and the animals. 36 37 DELICH Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Figure 3 shows recent peak hour counts at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection. The traffic volumes at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection were collected in May 2015. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix B. Table 1 shows the current morning and afternoon peak hour operation of the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection. The Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection currently meets the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with existing control and geometry. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersection from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 (revised per staff comments regarding type of intersection) showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Windsong at Rock Creek site is in an area termed “other.” In areas termed “other,” acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service E for any approach leg for an arterial/arterial, arterial/collector and arterial/local intersections. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. At unsignalized collector/local intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. Figure 4 shows the site plan for the development at Windsong at Rock Creek. The development at Windsong at Rock Creek is a 64 bed memory care facility. Currently the site is vacant. Access to the site will be via a right-in/right-out access and a full movement access to/from Rock Creek Drive. Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Nursing Home (Code 620) in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at a site. This land use category best fits a memory care facility. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of the Windsong at Rock Creek development resulted in 134 daily trip ends; 11 morning peak hour trip ends; and 14 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for Windsong at Rock Creek site and is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment of Windsong at Rock Creek. Figure 7 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2020) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. Traffic volumes at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection were increased at a rate of 2.0 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing control and geometry in the short range (2020) future. 38 DELICH Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Figure 8 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the Ziegler/Rock Creek, Rock Creek/Right-in/Right-out Access, and Rock Creek/Full Movement Access intersections. Table 4 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. The Ziegler/Rock Creek, Rock Creek/Right-in/Right-out Access, and Rock Creek/Full Movement Access intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing control and geometry. The recommended short range (2020) geometry is shown in Figure 9. The existing geometry at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection is appropriate. The right- in/right-out access should be designed to discourage other traffic movements. Although the trip generation/assignment shows little traffic, the City may desire an enhanced channelization island at this access. Right-turn lanes are not required at the site access intersections based on Figure 8-4 in LCUASS. According to Figure 8-1 in LCUASS, an eastbound left-turn lane is not required at Rock Creek/Full Movement Access intersection. However, with other potential developments using the site access in the future, Windsong at Rock Creek will restripe this section of Rock Creek Drive to provide an eastbound left-turn lane. According to LCUASS, Chapter 7, Table 7-3, on major collector streets, the distance between high volume driveways and intersections is 200 feet (minimum). The corner clearance between driveways/alleys (not high volume) and street intersections is 175 feet (minimum). The distance between driveway edges is 75 feet (minimum). The Right-in/Right-out Access will not be a high volume driveway. The Full Movement Access will likely have volumes commensurate with that of a high volume driveway in the future, since it will serve other parcels north of Rock Creek Drive. There are two driveways that will provide access to the Windsong at Rock Creek site on the north side of Rock Creek Drive. According to the site plan, the Right-in/Right-out Access is 198 feet east of Ziegler Road (centerline to centerline). Therefore, the Right-in/Right-out Access meets the corner clearance spacing criterion. The distance between the Right- in/Right-out Access and the Full Movement Access is 253 feet (centerline to centerline). Therefore, the spacing between the Right-in/Right-out Access and the Full Movement Access meets the driveway spacing criterion. The distance between the Full Movement Access and the driveway to the south (serves Fossil Ridge High School) is 177 feet. This separation meets the driveway spacing criterion. The Windsong at Rock Creek site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Windsong at Rock Creek site. The Windsong at Rock Creek site is located within an area termed as “transit corridor,” which sets the pedestrian level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories, except for Directness and Security at LOS B. There are two destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed development at Windsong at Rock Creek: 1) the residential area to the west and 2) Fossil Ridge High School to the southeast. This development will build sidewalk along the site frontage. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. The pedestrian level of service will be met. 39 DELICH Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Based upon Fort Collins Bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination area within 1320 feet of the Windsong at Rock Creek site: Fossil Ridge High School to the southeast. Appendix F contains a Bicycle LOS Worksheet. Bicyclists will have access to Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive. The bicycle level of service will be met. Currently, this area is served by Transfort route 16. The nearest bus stop is at the Ziegler/Rock Creek intersection. It is concluded that, with development of the Windsong at Rock Creek, the future level of service at the key intersections will be acceptable. The Rock Creek/Right- in/Right-out Access intersection should be designed to discourage left turns. An eastbound left-turn lane will be restriped at the Rock Creek/Full Movement Access intersection. The driveway spacing along Rock Creek Drive meets the spacing criteria in Table 7-3 in LCUASS. The pedestrian and bicycle level of service will be met. 40 SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Windsong at Rock Creek Timberwood Drive Rock Creek Drive Ziegler Road Technology Parkway FRHS Access 41 EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive - Denotes Lane 42 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive AM/PM 81/41 534/343 13/5 21/78 258/612 69/140 64/33 30/25 72/51 100/125 9/25 6/15 43 DELICH Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) EB LT/T/RT D D WB LT D C WB T D C WB RT D C WB APPROACH D C NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B A TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 620 Nursing Home 64 Beds EQ. 134 0.12 8 0.05 3 0.07 4 0.15 10 44 SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 45 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive AM/PM SITE 5% 5% 10% 80% 46 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive AM/PM 1/1 6/3 1/0 2/8 0/1 1/1 1/3 0/0 2/7 8/4 2/7 0/0 0/0 0/0 8/4 Right-in/Right-out Site Access 47 SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive AM/PM 89/45 590/379 14/6 23/86 285/676 76/155 71/36 33/28 79/56 110/138 10/28 7/17 48 DELICH Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) EB LT/T/RT D C WB LT D C WB T D C WB RT D C WB APPROACH D C NB LT A A NB T B A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A B SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B B 49 SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive AM/PM 1/3 0/0 129/190 131/193 2/7 0/0 0/0 127/183 8/4 123/189 Right-in/Right-out Site Access 89/45 590/379 15/7 23/86 285/676 82/158 71/36 34/28 79/56 112/146 10/29 8/18 50 DELICH Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES TABLE 4 Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Ziegler/Rock Creek (signal) EB LT/T/RT D C WB LT D C WB T D C WB RT D C WB APPROACH D C NB LT A A NB T B A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A B SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B B Rock Creek/Right-in/Right-out (stop sign) SB RT A A Rock Creek/Site Access (stop sign) EB LT A A SB LT/RT A A 51 SHORT RANGE (2020) GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Windsong at Rock Creek TIS, October 2015 Ziegler Road Rock Creek Drive - Denotes Lane Right-in/Right-out Site Access 52 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME TALON ESTATES PDP FINAL PLAN, ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN VESTED RIGHTS (# 42-05A/B) STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Director PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a one-year extension of the term of vested right, to March 11, 2017, of the approved Talon Estates PDP Final Plan. The parcel is located on Falcon Drive, generally ¼ mile west of South Taft Hill Road. The Final Plan has been approved for a total of 13 single-family houses on individual lots over 7.85 gross acres. APPLICANT: Nadine Holter PO Box 272546 Fort Collins, CO 80527 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a one year extension by the Planning and Zoning Board, for vesting of the Final Plan through March 11, 2017. The Talon Estates PDP Final Plan was approved on March 15, 2011 and a Development Agreement was executed. The three year final plan approval that was to expire in 2014 has since been extended twice administratively per LUC Sec. 2.2.11(D)(4). Having exercised the two available administrative extensions, the applicant is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Board grant a one year extension at its February 11, 2016 hearing, making the vested right valid through March 11, 2017. The project continues to comply with LUC ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS and ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division 4.4 – Low Density Mixed Use District (LMN). 53 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: On March 15, 2011, the Final Plan for the Talon Estates PDP was approved and a development agreement executed. On February 15, 2014, the Talon Estates PDP Final Plan vesting was extended for one year by the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4). On February 17, 2015, the Talon Estates PDP Final Plan vesting was again extended for one year by the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4). 2. Article 2 - Administration Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions (Notes and emphasis added). Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. (Both administrative extensions have been exhausted.) Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. The request for an extension of vested rights (see attached) identifies the applicants effort to work diligently and in good faith to complete the entirety of engineering improvements required under the approved Final Plan. The applicant was first caught in the economic downturn and then later had difficulty completing required utility and street improvements within the requisite time period given the full schedules of local contractors. Extending the vested right for the Final Plan for one additional year is not detrimental to the public good. This is because the project continues to meet all aspects of the Land Use Code. Further, the project continues to represent a pattern of land use that complies with the Structure Plan Map. The request for an extension of vested rights was made on January 14, 2016, more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of March 11, 2016. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights for the Talon Estates PDP, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 54 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 A. Talon Estates PDP is in compliance with all applicable Article 3 General Development Standards of the Land Use Code. B. Talon Estates PDP continues to be in compliance with Article 4 Districts, Division 4.2 – Urban Estate District (UE). C. The request for extension of vested rights satisfies Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions, due to other extraordinary and exceptional market situations, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. D. The request for extension of vested rights was made at least 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights to the Talon Estates PDP to March 11, 2017 based on the Findings of Fact found on page 3 of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Extension Letter (PDF) 55 56 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT PILOT STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Director PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 6-month extension to the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot will expire on March 9, 2016, but City Council has the option to extend it if there have been insufficient projects to adequately evaluate the PDOD. Since no projects have applied to use the PDOD and there are none anticipated within the remaining pilot timeframe, the option is available to ask Council to extend it. A request has been received by the same prospective applicant as in 2015, whose property lies within the PDOD boundary, to extend the pilot for an additional year. To address the challenges of infill and redevelopment, staff worked collaboratively in 2011-2012 with P&Z to develop the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a unique zoning mechanism that blends the concepts of Planned Unit Developments and performance-based zoning. The PDOD provides flexibility on certain development regulations in the Land Use Code without having to use the existing Addition of a Permitted Use or Modification processes. In return for this flexibility, projects must achieve at least 60 points on a supplemental performance matrix that is designed to reward projects for going beyond minimum standards. The PDOD has a defined boundary, which was drawn to be consistent with the City’s targeted infill and redevelopment areas and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. One final characteristic to note is that all PDOD projects are processed as a Type 2 application. Being an untested concept for the City, the PDOD was proposed first as a pilot to allow for real-world test cases. The pilot was unanimously recommended by P&Z and ultimately adopted by City 57 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 Council on February 26, 2013; it provided a six-month window where PDOD submittals could be accepted, but the number of applications accepted was capped at five. The pilot began immediately after adoption and was set to expire on September 9, 2013. According to the PDOD Ordinance, City Council had the option to extend the pilot “in the event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been insufficient development proposals presented to the City within the boundaries of the PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the viability of the District”. Two subsequent extensions have been approved: a one-year extension approved by City Council on September 2, 2104, and a subsequent six-month extension on September 9, 2015, giving a new application deadline of March 9, 2016. There have not been any PDOD submittals to-date; only one potential project has expressed interest in participating in the pilot, and the prospective applicant has expressed that an additional one year extension is necessary to meet their anticipated development application submittal date. The same conditions of the pilot district as established by the original pilot ordinance and subsequent amendments apply to the requested 6-month extension: • Only projects within the defined boundary area are eligible to use the PDOD. • Up to five PDOD submittals will be accepted within the one year pilot extension. • City staff will collect data on any PDOD projects that submit and, with help from the citizen taskforce, evaluate how well the PDOD is working and report back to City Council. • Council will continue to have the option to extend the pilot should insufficient projects submit during the one year timeframe. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a one-year extension to the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot. 58 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT FACILITY AT LIFEPOINTE CHURCH PDP150022 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to install new telecommunications equipment at Lifepointe Church located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and Ellis Street, at 900 East Prospect Road. The proposed site will include a total of six antenna structures mounted to a screen wall tower that is incorporated into building's existing architecture on the roof of the church. Additional electronic equipment associated with the wireless antennas will be placed on the ground, behind the church on the north side of the building. The equipment will be surrounded by wood fencing that will match the color of the existing building. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district. APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless, 3131 South Vaughn Way Aurora, CO 80014 OWNER: The First Baptist Church of Fort Collins (Lifepointe Church) 900 East Prospect Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Contact – Steve Paxton (970) 484-4053 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The approval of the wireless telecommunication facility complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The project complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2. • The project complies with the relevant Low Density Residential (R-L) District standards in Division 4.4 of the Land Use Code. • The project complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. 59 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 COMMENTS: Project Location Map: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Residential (R-L) University Acres residential subdivision South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Prospect at Spring Meadows East Low Density Residential (R-L) University Acres residential subdivision West Low Density Residential (R-L) Lesher Middle School 60 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 • In 1957, the property was annexed as part of the Second College Addition. • In 1959, The Lifepointe Church property was platted as part of the University Acres Second Subdivision. 2. Compliance with Applicable Low Density Residential (R-L) District Standards: The designated use is Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, which is permitted in the R-L zone as an accessory use, subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board as a Type 2 use. No other R-L standards apply to the proposal. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant comments provided: Section 3.8.13 - Wireless Telecommunication 3.8.13 (A) Location. The project is in compliance with this section, which allows wireless telecommunication equipment to be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city, provided that the wireless telecommunication equipment is not attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. 3.8.13 (B) Co-location. The project is in compliance with this section, which requires that wireless telecommunication facilities cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant's good faith efforts toward such cooperation. The applicant has provided documentation that this proposed location is necessary in order to improve wireless coverage in the area. 3.8.13(C)(1) Setbacks. The project is in compliance with this section, which requires that the setbacks for ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The project proposes a screened equipment area adjacent to the north side of the church within the interior portion of the property. The minimum front setback in the R-L zone is 20 feet along East Prospect and 15 feet along Ellis and Lake Streets, and the proposal is well within these setbacks. 3.8.13(C)(3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. The tower projects approximately 12 feet above the existing roofline in compliance with this section, with materials and colors that match the building. This section requires that wireless telecommunication equipment mounted on the roof be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building's design, color and material. Additionally, whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than 15 feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. 3.8.13(C)(4) Landscaping. The project is in compliance with this section. No landscaping is proposed or required because the ground-mounted equipment is located behind a fence and incorporated within the rear service area of the main building. Additionally, if the wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees are required to be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. In this case, the equipment area is located at the rear of the building with no direct street frontage, and therefore the street tree requirement is not applicable to the project. 61 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 3.8.13(C)(5) Fencing. The project is in compliance with this section, which prohibits chain link fencing to screen the equipment area and requires that the fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. The fencing proposed is 6 feet in height and shall be painted to match the building. 3.8.13(C)(8) Color. The project is in compliance with this section which requires that the wireless telecommunication equipment be painted to match as closely as possible the color of the surrounding building using neutral, earth tone colors. 3.8.13(C)(15) Stealth Technology. The project is in compliance with this section. By integrating the wireless telecommunication equipment into a new church tower, the applicant employs "stealth technology" as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage the project’s visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use of grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar "mimic" structures. Such "mimic" structures shall have a contextual relationship to the adjacent area. 4. Neighborhood Meeting A City neighborhood meeting was held on March 4, 2015 at Lifepointe Church. Meeting minutes are attached. The major issues that were conveyed in included:  One of the biggest issues expressed was not related to the wireless facility, but was related to existing issues on the church property. This included very bright, unshielded spotlights mounted on the building roof, facing outward towards the surrounding streets and homes, as well as old tires and multi-colored sheds stored in the center of the site. These issues have been addressed by the church staff.  The plan presented at that time included a large pre-fabricated equipment building along the Ellis Street frontage. Residents expressed strong concern that the building was unattractive and seemed out of place. The building was removed from the plans and the equipment is now incorporated behind a wood fence adjacent to the back of the church. The backup generator and gas tank storage are also no longer proposed.  The stealth tower used to screen the wireless equipment was only three-sided, with the back north-facing portion exposed. The plans now show this as screened with the same materials used for the other three sides.  Residents were concerned that no street trees or landscape screening would be provided along Ellis Street adjacent to the equipment building. Because the equipment building was eliminated from the proposal, the landscape requirement is no longer applicable. 5. Findings of Fact When considering the Verizon Wireless Equipment Facility at Lifepointe Church Project Development Plan PDP150022, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The PDP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The PDP complies with the relevant Low Density Residential (R-L) District standards in Division 4.4 of the Land Use Code. C. The PDP complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. 62 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of the Verizon Wireless Equipment Facility at Lifepointe Church Project Development Plan PDP150022 based on the Findings of Fact on page 5 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Planning Objectives (PDF) 2. Co-location Statement (PDF) 3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) 4. Photo Simulation (PDF) 5. Site and Elevation Plans (PDF) 6. Citizen Emails (PDF) 7. Information Sheets (PDF) 63 PLANNING OBJECTIVES VERIZON WIRELESS LIFEPOINTE CHURCH FTC SPRING MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SITE PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Information: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless, 3131 South Vaughn Way, Aurora, CO 80014 Representative: Greg DiBona, Leasing and Zoning Consultant, Centerline Solutions, 16360 Table Mountain Pkwy, Golden, CO 80403; (303) 993-3293 x381 Land Owner Information: The First Baptist Church of Fort Collins, 900 East Prospect Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80525; Contact – Steve Paxton (970) 484-4053 Engineering Firm Preparing Site Plan: TowerCom Technologies, LLC; 1745 Shea Center Dr, 4th Flr, Highlands Ranch, CO 80129; (303) 683-3194 Address of Project: 900 East Prospect Rd PLANNING OBJECTIVES Verizon Wireless proposes to develop a new telecommunications site, “Verizon Wireless FTC Spring Meadows,” at 900 East Prospect Road, on a Church located at the intersection of East Prospect Road and Ellis Street. The purpose of this site is to provide improved 4G-LTE voice and data capacity for Verizon Wireless customers in the area. The proposed site will be part of a continuous telecommunications network serving the greater Fort Collins area. Verizon Wireless has recently developed several sites within the City of Fort Collins and approval of this application will allow Verizon Wireless to meet its federally mandated obligations under the license granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The explosive growth of data usage from “smartphones” and similar devices has made it necessary to increase data capacity in densely populated areas. The proposed facility will address the need for additional capacity within the University Acres neighborhood and along East Prospect Road. The proposed site will include a total of six (6) panel antennas mounted to a non-penetrating tri-mount skid placed on the roof. The skid will be surrounded by 4 screen walls made of RF transparent material that will blend in with the building’s existing architecture. The existing cross will be replaced with one larger that is also made of RF transparent material. Samples of the material for the wall and cross have been provided. Electronic equipment associated with the antennas will be placed on the ground, behind the Church on the north side of the building. The equipment will be surrounded by wood fencing that will match the color of the existing building. Attachment 1 64 The following pages provide detail regarding compliance with the City’s zoning requirements for Wireless Telecommunication Sites. LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.8.13 REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION 3.8.13 Wireless Telecommunication (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: The proposed design calls for antennas to be mounted on the roof. This building does not contain any dwelling units. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility owners or lessees or employees thereof shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment with other wireless telecommunication providers.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: Verizon Wireless will not act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other competitor from using the building for the location of future antennas or telecommunication equipment. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for ground- mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: Not applicable – tower not being proposed. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography, and other natural features. If such Attachment 1 65 facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: The proposed telecommunication facility is consistent with the architectural style of the existing Church. The roof mounted antennas will be completely concealed from view and the proposed concealment will be harmonious with the building’s existing architecture. Samples of the screening material have been provided as well as photo-simulations of the proposed installation. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building or structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Roof- and ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: The proposal calls for a 15’ increase from the existing building height. The roof mounted facility will be screened on all 4 sides by 15’ stealth screen walls. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to the unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: All antennas at this site will be mounted on the roof. The ground mounted equipment is proposed to be placed at the back of the Church surrounded by a wood fence to match the existing color of the building. The area surrounding the ground mounted equipment consists of a paved parking lot. Attachment 1 66 (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: A 6’ wooden fence is proposed to be placed around the ground equipment. The fence will be painted to match the existing color of the building. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: No berming is proposed. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: No landscaping or berming is proposed; hence, no irrigation is required. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: Due to the equipment being screened from view, we believe that painting the equipment is unnecessary. (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: No security lighting is proposed for this facility. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers.  FTC Spring Meadows: The Verizon Wireless telecommunications site will not interfere with other electronic devices. (11) Access Roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: No new access roads are proposed at this site. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the Attachment 1 67 facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: Foothills or Hogbacks are not an issue for this site. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: The proposed wireless telecommunication equipment is not located near an airport or within a flight path. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: The subject property is not a historic site or structure. (15). Stealth Technology: To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use of grain bins, silos, or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures. Such “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship to the adjacent area.  FTC Spring Meadows Proposal: This proposal employs stealth technology on the roof of the existing church. Essentially the roof is being extended 15’ with stealth screen walls on 4 sides and a new and a larger cross to match the taller roof profile. The screen walls and cross will consist of RF transparent material and will blend in with the building’s existing architecture. Photo-simulations of the proposal have been provided. Attachment 1 68 Verizon Wireless ‐ FTC Spring Meadows 900 E. Prospect Rd COLLOCATION STATEMENT The closest tower to our proposed location is a T‐Mobile built monopole .96 miles away. The tower was not considered for collocation because the tower is well outside the area Verizon is attempting to provide coverage for. This application is for a new communications site which will be collocated on the roof of the Church at 900 E. Prospect Rd. No new tower is proposed. Attachment 2 69 1 Lifepointe Church Verizon Wireless Facility Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 4, 2015 Meeting held at Lifepointe Church In attendance from the City: Jason Holland, City Planner Representing the Applicant: Becky Siskowski The meeting began with Jason Holland providing an explanation of the development review process, next steps in the review, and an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules. Ms. Siskowski, project representative for Verizon, provided an overview of the proposal. Q: Can the equipment building be turned 180 degrees? A: (Applicant) we can check on that. Q: Where does all of the wiring go to the equipment building, underground? A: (Applicant) Yes Q: Where is the closest wireless facility? A: (Applicant) There’s one at Drake and Lemay. This area is a gap in coverage for us. Comment: I like the look of the tower on the church. Q: Will there be co‐location for other providers? A: (Applicant) We lease space on the roof, there could be other providers. Q: Who will maintain the facility? A: (Applicant) Verizon. Q: Will there be shrubs and trees around the equipment building? A: (Applicant) We are not currently proposing any but can look at that. Q: Are there interference issues with my HAM radio equipment? A: (Applicant) No, a different frequency is used. Q: Is there gas used for the generator? Quantity? A: (Applicant) Yes, it is stored in the equipment building. 200 gallons. Q: Timing? A: (Applicant) Spring 2016. Q: Will street trees be required? A: (City) This may be required, I’ll have to check on this. Attachment 3 70 2 Q: Tower on the church, can this be screened on the back, it is only three sided right now? A: (Applicant) Yes, it is only three sided. We can see if it’s possible to make it three sided, there is air handling equipment in the way that may have to be moved. Comment: We feel that the back part of the tower will be visible and needs to be screened. Q: Materials? A: (Applicant) Earth tone materials that will complement the building. The main tower is similar to stucco and still allows wireless signals. No other comments Attachment 3 71 72 73 74 75 76 USED Code Year / Type: (ORDINANCE) X X X X X X X X FTC SPRING MEADOWS (ALT 2) PUBLIC RECORD PARCEL NO. 97134-08-933 900 EAST PROSPECT RD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 LARIMER COUNTY EXISTING BUILDING NEW ROOF TOP COMMUNICATION SITE PROJECT NO. 20141061225 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Attachment 5 77 1631 1631  Attachment 5 78 Attachment 5 79 Attachment 5 80 G G G G G G G G G X ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Attachment 5 81 G G G G G G G G X X X X G G G G G G G G X X Attachment 5 82 Attachment 5 83 Attachment 5 84 From: bwshortridge@aol.com To: Jason Holland Subject: Fwd: something you could easily do to help stop the cell antennas near our schools Date: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:11:35 AM Mr. Holland, Being a concerned citizen, with grandchildren who could be effected by the tower under consideration, I urge you to reject this project. Please study this plan and you will be fully informed when the time comes to deny this project. Please read the following information provided by Heather Lahdenpera. Respectfully, Beverly Shortridge -----Original Message----- From: Heather Lahdenpera <hlahden@aol.com> To: hlahden <hlahden@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 4, 2016 10:21 am Subject: something you could easily do to help stop the cell antennas near our schools Hello again, I'm writing today to tell you that if you are even somewhat concerned and want to do something to help, but perhaps can't make it to the meeting next week, you could email Jason Holland, PLA. He is the city planner in charge of this project. His email address is jholland@fcgov.com. Feel free to copy and attach my letter if you like or make one up of your own. Thank you! I will attach the letter to the bottom of this email in case you want to use it for reference. In Health, Heather Heather Lahdenpera, LAc, MTP, LLC 280 Circle Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-237-2224 Hello Friends and Neighbors. (And cc'd PSD Folks) Perhaps you received a notice of public hearing in the mail last week for a proposed wireless equipment facility to be located on the top of Lifepointe Church on Prospect. When I received this notice, I was immediately concerned because these antennas would be right next door to my son's middle school and I am aware of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation - especially in children. I immediately sent an email out to notify the parents of my children's friends to see if I could get support to oppose this proposal. Please know that I never wanted to become so educated in this matter but, over the past couple of days, as I have been pulling together as much information as I can to educate myself further, it came to my attention that many independent scientists who are studying this topic recommend that "any wireless structure be placed at least 1,500 feet away from nearby schools" as this is considered a safe distance for ADULTS - and children are even more susceptible. After seeing this measurement I realized that we all need to be concerned, as our whole neighborhood is well within 1,500 feet of the Lifepointe Church. The neighborhoods on either side of Pitkin from about Lemay to Lake and the new neighborhoods South of Prospect around Lifepointe are also affected! There are also FOUR schools within this radius which include Lesher, the Barton Early Childhood Center, PSD Global Academy and Riversong Waldorf School. Attachment 6 85 This is a very controversial topic world wide right now. As Ann Louise Gittleman, author of Zapped (a comprehensive guide to electromagnetic radiation) states, "Although the topic is admittedly controversial- due to the high stakes of the trillion dollar telecom industry - exposure levels of microwave or radio frequency radiation at levels 1000 times lower than current standards have been proven to have detrimental biological effects, including increasing the risk of cancer within a few hundred METERS of a cell tower." (In my research, I have learned the different lingo - a cell tower is a tower with cell antennas attached to it. The antennas are what emit the electromagnetic radiation - the tower is the holder. In the case of Lifepointe, the building will act as the "tower"). You must know that if you research this topic, it is the independent scientists who are calling this out as unsafe. The industry sponsored science is all saying that there is no danger involved with the technology itself or with living near a cell structure. This makes me think of many other industry sponsored studies - think Tobacco, DDT, Asbestos, X-rays - or even the recent Flint, MI debacle. Everyone was saying all of these things were safe and now it seems crazy to even think we ever believed that. Because there is controversy, I am not willing to risk my childrens' or your childrens' or yours or my health. I do not want any of us to be the guinea pigs. I am going to link you to a slew of information that I think is important to read. I have put it in order of importance and readability. Please look at some of it and decide where you stand. If you are even a little bit concerned, won't you please join me in standing against this proposed development? The hearing is NEXT THURSDAY NIGHT - FEBRUARY 11 - AT 6:00 PM AT CITY HALL - 300 LAPORTE AVE. I have a meeting with the man in charge of this project at the church next week. He was very kind when I called and my hope is that the church will do the right thing, but when money is involved things become complicated. These buildings receive rent from the telecom industry to place their structures on the buildings. I am also in touch with the president of Lesher and the Operations Manager for PSD and I am hoping to gain support from them as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. And Please, if you have other friends in the neighborhood, please talk to them or feel free to forward this email. In Health, Heather Scientific paper: Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207_israel.pdf A great interview with Devra Davis, author of Disconnect. One of the leading experts in the field. http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/radiation-concerns-about-cellphones Article/interview with three leading experts: http://goop.com/are-cell-phones-and-wifi-signals-toxic/ Washington Post article citing dangers of cell antennae near schools http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29.html Scientific paper discussing biological effects of electromagnetic radiation http://becknatmed.com/doc/bio_effects_cell_tower.pdf Website with studies dedicated to achieving safer schools in regards to electromagnetic radiation http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BRAG_Schools.pdf Attachment 6 86 Wall Street Journal article - antenna safety worries - (only readable with membership) http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055 Wireless Radiation Safety, 2014: Year in Review http://www.saferemr.com/2014/12/wireless-radiation-safety-in-2014-year.html An Australian website designed to help protect schools from towers near schools http://www.notowersnearschools.com Discusses risks of antennas and the incentives given to the owners of the buildings who agree to put them on their property http://www.rfcheck.com/news/What-are-the-Dangers-of-Living-Near-Cell-Phone-Towers.php An article by a young girl who looks into the dangers of a cell tower being placed near her home http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/cell_phone_towers_238 Heather Lahdenpera, LAc, MTP, LLC 280 Circle Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-237-2224 Attachment 6 87 From: Heather Lahdenpera To: Jason Holland Subject: Lifepointe Church Verizon Wireless Proposal Date: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:32:13 PM Hello Jason, I believe a few of my neighbors have already forwarded my letter of concern regarding the proposal referenced above. I will attend the meeting next Thursday to voice my concerns, however I thought I would send you a list of articles and references for you to consider before moving forward with this proposal. This is a conversation that needs to be had, not only for this proposal, but going forward as more and more of these structures are being erected. Until the evidence is non-controversial, it is my belief that the city needs to err on the side of caution and protect it's citizens - especially the most vulnerable - our kids. Thank you for your consideration. I believe you have already received a list of links, however this one is more extensive. In Health, Heather Scientific paper: Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207_israel.pdf A great interview with Devra Davis, author of Disconnect. One of the leading experts in the field. http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/radiation-concerns-about-cellphones Article/interview with three leading experts: http://goop.com/are-cell-phones-and-wifi-signals-toxic/ Washington Post article citing dangers of cell antennae near schools http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29.html Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/?s=cell+phone+tower+radiation The IAFF declines putting towers on structures until a scientific study of highest merit is conducted and safety proven http://www.iaff.org/hs/facts/CellTowerFinal.asp Scientific paper discussing biological effects of electromagnetic radiation http://becknatmed.com/doc/bio_effects_cell_tower.pdf Parents against cell towers near schools in NY http://parentsact.weebly.com/fact-sheet.html Wall Street Journal article - antenna safety worries - (only readable with membership) http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055 Wireless Radiation Safety, 2014: Year in Review http://www.saferemr.com/2014/12/wireless-radiation-safety-in-2014-year.html An Australian website designed to help protect schools from towers near schools http://www.notowersnearschools.com Discusses risks of antennas and the incentives given to the owners of the buildings who agree to put Attachment 6 88 them on their property http://www.rfcheck.com/news/What-are-the-Dangers-of-Living-Near-Cell-Phone-Towers.php An article by a young girl who looks into the dangers of a cell tower being placed near her home http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/cell_phone_towers_238 Heather Lahdenpera, LAc, MTP, LLC 280 Circle Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-237-2224 Attachment 6 89 From: Heather Lahdenpera To: Jason Holland Subject: more on the Verizon/Lifepointe proposal Date: Friday, February 05, 2016 8:48:14 AM Hello Jason, I am writing again about the Verizon/Lifepointe proposal. I have another very serious concern which is that the parents of the students attending Lesher, Barton Early Education Center, and PSD Global Academy have not been notified about this proposal and hearing. I was notified because I am also a neighbor of the church. Given the conflicting science on the safety of this technology and the fact that Lifepointe is directly next door to Lesher and only next door and across the street from Barton and The Global Academy, it seems only prudent and ethical that all parents are notified before this proposal is allowed to move any further. It is not my intention to prove that these cell structures are harmful, it is my intention to prove that the evidence is conflicting and thus, it is not worth risking our childrens' health. And so, I send more research your way. German study http://www.emf-health.com/PDFreports/Germanreport_celltower.pdf Austrian study http://www.emf-health.com/PDFreports/Austrianstudy.pdf Mumbai's regulations which include distance relative to number of antennas http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Public%20Relation%20Officer/Press%20Release/Public%20Notice%20for%20Chief%20Engineer%20Development%20Plan%20Department%20eng.pdf Thank you so much for your attention. Best, Heather Lahdenpera, LAc, MTP, LLC 280 Circle Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-237-2224 Attachment 6 90 From: smschoenig@frii.com To: Jason Holland Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Lifepointe Church - A Bit of Feedback Date: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:54:01 PM Jason, Thanks for your follow-up on these issues. I offer some feedback to you in regard to the "side" issues surrounding LifePointe that were raised at the neighborhood meeting months ago. Having lived across the street from LifePointe for nearly 12 years, I can say they are exemplary neighbors, with excellent grounds-keeping, facilities maintenance and GENEROSITY to all (they freely allow folks to use their playing field as a dog exercise area; Lesher also uses it on occasion for class activities). While I appreciate concerns of excess security lighting and elderly snow removal equipment, I also appreciate the well-lit parking area from a security standpoint as I frequently have to walk in that area late at night to do elder-care at my mother's home. Having resided in Fort Collins for 45 years, I can say we have other neighborhood blight concerns that far exceed those of a couple of aging pick-up trucks that are put to very good use during snow season. If you have opportunity, please communicate my appreciation to the folks at LifePointe. And thank you for your thoroughness in all of this. Respectfully, Steve Schoenig On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:53:08 +0000, Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com> wrote: > Just an added note here, I drove by the site a little while ago and it > looks like they moved the trucks further into the site, they now parked > next to the sheds. This seems better. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > FROM: Jason Holland > SENT: Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:31 AM > TO: Jason Holland > CC: Sarah Burnett > SUBJECT: Lifepointe Church wireless facility -- status update from Jason > Holland > > Dear neighbors, > > I just wanted to follow up with you all personally and provide you a > status update on the Verizon wireless facility that is being proposed at > the church. I have met with the Verizon representatives as well as church > staff several times to address both the issues with the Verizon facility > as well as most of the Church's existing site issues. Here is what has > been accomplished thus far: > > Verizon Facility Issues: Attachment 6 91 > > · Tower: As you may recall, the tower on top of the church was proposed > to have only three sided screening, with no screening on the back (north) > side. This has been changed and they are now screening all around the > proposed tower with the same material. > > · The large, pre-fab. equipment building that was proposed along Ellis > Street. I met with Verizon and the church staff on site I asked if they > could remove this entirely, and relocated the equipment along the north > side of their building, where they already have a fenced area along the > building. They agreed and are now showing this solution on their proposed > construction plans. They will be rebuilding this existing fenced area, > lengthening it to incorporate a Verizon equipment area, and building a > new screen fence (6 feet in height, wood). > > Existing church issues: > > · I've been working with the church staff and they have finally come up > with a solution to decrease the intensity of the pole-mounted roof > lights. I apologize that this has taken so long to work out a compromise > solution with them. (Mr. and Ms. Johnson, thank you for bringing this to > my attention) > > · Multi-colored sheds, I agree this could be better, and as I'm sure > you've noticed they painted the sheds to be the same color and the color > is a bit more muted, earth tone (blends in). > > · Old tires near the storage sheds, they have removed these. > > · Rusty plowing trucks. There is a concern that these are parked too > close to the street, are not attractive, and rarely move. I have not been > able to resolve this. I asked if they could park them further towards the > interior of the parking lot, or screen them with landscaping. In my > discussions with city code enforcement, I don't have a code enforcement > option for this since they are not parked on a public street, and I can't > hold the Verizon approval hostage in order to have this issue mitigated. > They would need to agree voluntarily to provide a remedy. I agree they > are not attractive. > > Also for you convenience, attached are the current plans for the Verizon > facility and a hearing notice that you all will get in the mail, most > likely today. The Verizon proposal will be going to the Planning and > Zoning Board for a hearing on Feb. 11th. See the attached hearing notice > for more information. Please note that the hearing item is on the > "consent agenda", which means that there will not be a staff presentation > or discussion on the item. If you'd like to discuss the project with the > Planning and Zoning Board and provide public testimony, we would move the > item to the discussion agenda, which is not a problem. Here is a pamphlet > that explains how the hearing works: Attachment 6 92 > http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf [1] > > I'm sending this e-mail to everyone who signed in at the neighborhood > meeting last year, please forward this to neighbors who might be > interested so they're aware of the status and the hearing. Please let me > know if you have any questions. Please let me know if you have any > further issues with the church property that you'd like to discuss with > them, and I'll set up a meeting on the site with them so we can discuss > it. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Jason > > Jason Holland, PLA | City Planner > > City of Fort Collins > > 281 North College Avenue > > Fort Collins, CO 80522 > > 970.224.6126 > > jholland@fcgov.com [2] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf > [2] mailto:jholland@fcgov.com Attachment 6 93 From: Cyd Coogan To: Jason Holland Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: Re: Lifepointe Church wireless facility -- status update from Jason Holland Date: Monday, February 01, 2016 12:48:32 PM Hi Jason, Thank you so much for the changes (for the better!) to this project and the follow-up e-mail with the University Acres neighbors. I would say the outcome is better than expected; and the nixing of the pre-fab equipment building was a pleasant surprise. (Brilliant solution.) Very pleased with the updates and hugely looking forward to the reduced exterior lighting. We do have a University Acres NextDoor website chapter if you would like an opportunity to reach more people (e.g., with a short and simplified project synopsis). I think some of the neighbors may wonder what's up once construction starts. Just thought I'd mention it. Thanks for all your hard work, keeping us in the loop, your concern and understanding for the neighborhood issues (!), and your creativity with the solutions. Much appreciated. Cynthia "Cyd" Coogan 1316 Morgan Street On Jan 28, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com> wrote: Dear neighbors, I just wanted to follow up with you all personally and provide you a status update on the Verizon wireless facility that is being proposed at the church. I have met with the Verizon representatives as well as church staff several times to address both the issues with the Verizon facility as well as most of the Church’s existing site issues. Here is what has been accomplished thus far: Verizon Facility Issues: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Tower: As you may recall, the tower on top of the church was proposed to have only three sided screening, with no screening on the back (north) side. This has been changed and they are now screening all around the proposed tower with the same material. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->The large, pre-fab. equipment building that was proposed along Ellis Street. I met with Verizon and the church staff on site I asked if they could remove this entirely, and relocated the equipment along the north side of their building, where they already have a fenced area along the building. They agreed and are now showing this solution on their proposed construction plans. They will be rebuilding this existing fenced area, lengthening it to incorporate a Verizon equipment area, and building a new screen fence (6 feet in height, wood). Attachment 6 94 Existing church issues: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->I’ve been working with the church staff and they have finally come up with a solution to decrease the intensity of the pole- mounted roof lights. I apologize that this has taken so long to work out a compromise solution with them. (Mr. and Ms. Johnson, thank you for bringing this to my attention) <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Multi-colored sheds, I agree this could be better, and as I’m sure you’ve noticed they painted the sheds to be the same color and the color is a bit more muted, earth tone (blends in). <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Old tires near the storage sheds, they have removed these. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Rusty plowing trucks. There is a concern that these are parked too close to the street, are not attractive, and rarely move. I have not been able to resolve this. I asked if they could park them further towards the interior of the parking lot, or screen them with landscaping. In my discussions with city code enforcement, I don’t have a code enforcement option for this since they are not parked on a public street, and I can’t hold the Verizon approval hostage in order to have this issue mitigated. They would need to agree voluntarily to provide a remedy. I agree they are not attractive. Also for you convenience, attached are the current plans for the Verizon facility and a hearing notice that you all will get in the mail, most likely today. The Verizon proposal will be going to the Planning and Zoning Board for a hearing on Feb. 11th . See the attached hearing notice for more information. Please note that the hearing item is on the “consent agenda”, which means that there will not be a staff presentation or discussion on the item. If you’d like to discuss the project with the Planning and Zoning Board and provide public testimony, we would move the item to the discussion agenda, which is not a problem. Here is a pamphlet that explains how the hearing works: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf I’m sending this e-mail to everyone who signed in at the neighborhood meeting last year, please forward this to neighbors who might be interested so they’re aware of the status and the hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Please let me know if you have any further issues with the church property that you’d like to discuss with them, and I’ll set up a meeting on the site with them so we can discuss it. Thanks and Regards, Jason Jason Holland, PLA | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6126 Attachment 6 95 jholland@fcgov.com <4-FTC Spring Meadows photo sim 100115.pdf> <5-Verizon Wireless - Lifepointe Church drawings.pdf> <Verizon Lifepointe Church-staff report.pdf> <Lifepointe hearing letter_formatted.pdf> Attachment 6 96 From: Lori R. Freese To: Jason Holland Subject: wireless tower at Lifepointe Church Concern Date: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:27:50 AM Hello Jason, Please read the below letter. I am a parent and a neighbor and am concerned. Please read the below letter written by my neighbor Heather Lahdenpera. Hello Friends and Neighbors. (And cc'd PSD Folks) Perhaps you received a notice of public hearing in the mail last week for a proposed wireless equipment facility to be located on the top of Lifepointe Church on Prospect. When I received this notice, I was immediately concerned because these antennas would be right next door to my son's middle school and I am aware of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation - especially in children. I immediately sent an email out to notify the parents of my children's friends to see if I could get support to oppose this proposal. Please know that I never wanted to become so educated in this matter but, over the past couple of days, as I have been pulling together as much information as I can to educate myself further, it came to my attention that many independent scientists who are studying this topic recommend that "any wireless structure be placed at least 1,500 feet away from nearby schools" as this is considered a safe distance for ADULTS - and children are even more susceptible. After seeing this measurement I realized that we all need to be concerned, as our whole neighborhood is well within 1,500 feet of the Lifepointe Church. The neighborhoods on either side of Pitkin from about Lemay to Lake and the new neighborhoods South of Prospect around Lifepointe are also affected! There are also FOUR schools within this radius which include Lesher, the Barton Early Childhood Center, PSD Global Academy and Riversong Waldorf School. This is a very controversial topic world wide right now. As Ann Louise Gittleman, author of Zapped (a comprehensive guide to electromagnetic radiation) states, "Although the topic is admittedly controversial- due to the high stakes of the trillion dollar telecom industry - exposure levels of microwave or radio frequency radiation at levels 1000 times lower than current standards have been proven to have detrimental biological effects, including increasing the risk of cancer within a few hundred METERS of a cell tower." (In my research, I have learned the different lingo - a cell tower is a tower with cell antennas attached to it. The antennas are what emit the electromagnetic radiation - the tower is the holder. In the case of Lifepointe, the building will act as the "tower"). You must know that if you research this topic, it is the independent scientists who are calling this out as unsafe. The industry sponsored science is all saying that there is no danger involved with the technology itself or with living near a cell structure. This makes me think of many other industry sponsored studies - think Tobacco, DDT, Asbestos, X-rays - or even the recent Flint, MI debacle. Everyone was saying all of these things were safe and now it seems crazy to even think we ever believed that. Because there is controversy, I am not willing to risk my childrens' or your childrens' or yours or my health. I do not want any of us to be the guinea pigs. I am going to link you to a slew of information that I think is important to read. I have put it in order of importance and readability. Please look at some of it and decide where you stand. If you are even a little bit concerned, won't you please join me in standing against this proposed development? The hearing is NEXT THURSDAY NIGHT - FEBRUARY 11 - AT6:00 PM AT CITY HALL - 300 LAPORTE AVE. I have a meeting with the man in charge of this project at the church next week. He was very kind when I called and my hope is that the church will do the right thing, but when money is involved things become Attachment 6 97 complicated. These buildings receive rent from the telecom industry to place their structures on the buildings. I am also in touch with the president of Lesher and the Operations Manager for PSD and I am hoping to gain support from them as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. And Please, if you have other friends in the neighborhood, please talk to them or feel free to forward this email. In Health, Heather Scientific paper: Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207_israel.pdf A great interview with Devra Davis, author of Disconnect. One of the leading experts in the field. http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/radiation-concerns-about-cellphones Article/interview with three leading experts: http://goop.com/are-cell-phones-and-wifi-signals-toxic/ Washington Post article citing dangers of cell antennae near schools http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29.html Scientific paper discussing biological effects of electromagnetic radiation http://becknatmed.com/doc/bio_effects_cell_tower.pdf Website with studies dedicated to achieving safer schools in regards to electromagnetic radiation http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BRAG_Schools.pdf Wall Street Journal article - antenna safety worries - (only readable with membership) http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055 Wireless Radiation Safety, 2014: Year in Review http://www.saferemr.com/2014/12/wireless-radiation-safety-in-2014-year.html An Australian website designed to help protect schools from towers near schools http://www.notowersnearschools.com Discusses risks of antennas and the incentives given to the owners of the buildings who agree to put them on their property http://www.rfcheck.com/news/What-are-the-Dangers-of-Living-Near-Cell-Phone-Towers.php An article by a young girl who looks into the dangers of a cell tower being placed near her home http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/cell_phone_towers_238 -- Lori R. Freese, LMT Retreat For The Body retreatforthebody.com 970-224-0789 Attachment 6 98 PRINT CLOSE Cellular Phone Towers Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but since then their use has increased dramatically. The widespread use of cell phones has led to cell phone towers being placed in many communities. These towers, also called base stations, have electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit radiofrequency (RF) signals. How do cellular phone towers work? Cell phone base stations may be free-standing towers or mounted on existing structures, such as trees, water tanks, or tall buildings. The antennas need to be high enough to adequately cover the area. Base stations are usually from 50-200 feet high. Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers mainly through radiofrequency (RF) waves, a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, they are forms of non-ionizing radiation. This means they cannot cause cancer by directly damaging DNA. RF waves are different from stronger types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA. At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy used by cell phones and towers are much lower. When a person makes a cell phone call, a signal is sent from the phone’s antenna to the nearest base station antenna. The base station responds to this signal by assigning it an available radiofrequency channel. RF waves transfer the voice information to the base station. The voice signals are then sent to a switching center, which transfers the call to its destination. Voice signals are then relayed back and forth during the call. How are people exposed to the energy from cellular phone towers? As people use cell phones to make calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The RF waves produced at the base station are given off into the environment, where people can be exposed to them. The energy from a cellular phone tower antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy decreases rapidly as the distance from the antenna increases. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna. Public exposure to radio waves from cell phone tower antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly. At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower. When a cellular antenna is mounted on a roof, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited. The level of RF energy inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside, depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about 10. The energy level behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits. 1-800-227-2345 www.cancer.org Cellular Phone Towers :: Print Preview Page 1 of 5 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers 6/29/2015 Attachment 7 99 Do cellular phone towers cause cancer? Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer. First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer. A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body. Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low – well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer. Studies in people Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk. In one large study, British researchers compared a group of more than 1,000 families of young children with cancer against a similar group of families of children without cancer. They found no link between a mother’s exposure to the towers during pregnancy (based on the distance from the home to the nearest tower and on the amount of energy given off by nearby towers) and the risk of early childhood cancer. In another study, researchers compared a group of more than 2,600 children with cancer to a group of similar children without cancer. They found that those who lived in a town that could have exposed them to higher than average RF radiation from cellular phone towers in the previous 5 years had a slightly higher risk of cancer, although not of any certain type of cancer (like leukemia or brain tumors). This study estimated the children’s possible exposure based on the number of towers in their town and how strong the signals were from the towers. It did not look at actual exposure of any individual child based on how far their home or school was from a tower. This limitation reduces confidence in the results of the study. One study looked for signs of DNA and cell damage in blood cells as a possible indicator of cancer-causing potential. They found that the damage was no worse in people who lived near a cell phone tower as compared with those didn’t. The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower is typically many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. About 30 studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research. For more information, see the document, Cellular Phones. Studies done in the lab Laboratory studies have looked at whether the types of RF waves used in cell phone communication can cause DNA damage. Most of these studies have supported the idea that the RF waves given off by cell phones and towers don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Some scientists have reported that the RF waves may produce other effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, these studies have not been verified, and these effects weren’t seen in a study that looked at the blood cells from people living near a cellular phone tower. Several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion. Research in this area continues. What expert agencies say About cell phone towers Cellular Phone Towers :: Print Preview Page 2 of 5 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers 6/29/2015 Attachment 7 100 The 3 expert agencies that usually classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens) – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – have not classified cell phone towers as to their cancer-causing potential. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said this about cell phone towers near homes or schools: “Radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS [personal communications service] transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.” About RF radiation Some of the agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures have, however, made statements about radiofrequency radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see our document, Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) IARC also noted that exposure to the brain from RF fields from cell phone base stations (mounted on roofs or towers) is less than 1/100th the exposure to the brain from mobile devices such as cell phones. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states: “At very high levels, RF energy is dangerous. It can heat the body's tissues rapidly. However, such high levels are found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters. Cellphones and wireless networks produce RF, but not at levels that cause significant heating. In addition, RF energy decreases quickly over distance. At ground level, exposure to RF from sources like cellphone towers is usually very low. Some people are concerned about potential health effects, especially on the developing brains and bodies of children. Some studies suggest that heavy long-term use of cellphones could have health effects. Other studies don't find any health effects from cellphone use. Long-term studies on animals exposed to the RF found in wireless networks (Wi-Fi) have, so far, found no health effects. Scientists continue to study the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF.” Can I limit my exposure? Cell phone towers are not known to cause any health effects. But if you are concerned about possible exposure from a cell phone tower near your home or office, you can ask a government agency or private firm to measure the RF field strength near the tower (where a person could be exposed) to ensure that it is within the acceptable range. What should I do if I’ve been exposed to cellular phone towers? There is no test to measure whether you have been exposed to RF radiation from cellular phone towers. But as noted above, most researchers and regulatory authorities do not believe that cell phone towers pose health risks under ordinary conditions. If you have additional health concerns, you might want to talk with your doctor. Additional resources More information from your American Cancer Society The following related information may also be helpful to you. These materials may be viewed on our Web site or ordered from our toll-free number, at 1-800-227-2345. Cellular Phones Does This Cause Cancer? Known and Probable Human Carcinogens Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation National organizations and Web sites* Cellular Phone Towers :: Print Preview Page 3 of 5 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers 6/29/2015 Attachment 7 101 In addition to the American Cancer Society, other sources of information and support include: Environmental Protection Agency Home page: www.epa.gov Understanding radiation: www.epa.gov/radiation/understanding-radiation-overview.html Federal Communications Commission RF Safety Program, Office of Engineering and Technology Web site: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety Food and Drug Administration Home page: www.fda.gov Radiation-emitting products: Cell phones: www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm National Cancer Institute Toll-free number: 1-800-422-6237 (1-800-4-CANCER) Home page: www.cancer.gov Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Home page: www.niehs.nih.gov Electric and magnetic fields: www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm World Health Organization Electromagnetic fields and public health: base stations and wireless technologies Web site: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html * Inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement by the American Cancer Society No matter who you are, we can help. Contact us anytime, day or night, for information and support. Call us at 1-800-227-2345 or visit www.cancer.org. References ANSI-C95.1, 1982, American National Standards Institute. American national standard safety levels with respect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 300 kHz to 100 Ghz. New York: IEEE. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):624-626. Elliott P, Toledano MB, Bennett J, et al. Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case-control study. BMJ. 2010;340:c3077. [Epub] Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology. Radio Frequency Safety. 6/25/2012. Accessed at www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html on January 16, 2013. IEEE-C95.1, 1991, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 Ghz. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Human exposure to RF emissions from cellular radio base station antennas; Washington, DC: 1992. ICNIRP: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Issues related to the use of hand-held radiotelephones and base transmitters. Health Physics. 1996;70:587-593. IRPA, 1988, International Radiation Protection Association. Guidelines on limits of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. IEEE United States Activities, COMAR, Washington, DC. Li CY, Liu CC, Chang YH, Chou LP, Ko MC. A population-based case-control study of radiofrequency exposure in relation to childhood neoplasm. Sci Total Environ. 2012 Oct 1;435-436:472-478. NCRP, 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection. Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Report 86, (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) pp. 1-382. Cellular Phone Towers :: Print Preview Page 4 of 5 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers 6/29/2015 Attachment 7 102 Repacholi M, van Deventer E, Ravazzani P, eds. Base stations and wireless networks: exposures and health consequences. World Health Organization. Accessed at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595612_eng.pdf?ua=1 on November 11, 2014. Röösli M, Frei P, Mohler E, Hug K. Systematic review on the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations. Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Dec 1;88(12):887-896F. Rothman KJ, Chung-Kwang C, Morgan R, et al. Assessment of cellular telephone and other radio frequency exposure for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1996;7:291-298. United States Environmental Protection Agency. RadTown USA: Non-ionizing radiation from wireless technology. Accessed at www.epa.gov/radtown/wireless-technology.html on November 11, 2014 Valberg PA. Radio frequency radiation (RFR): the nature of exposure and carcinogenic potential. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8:323-332. Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Int J Cancer Prevention 2004;1:123-128. Yildirim MS, Yildirim A, Zamani AG, Okudan N. Effect of mobile phone station on micronucleus frequency and chromosomal aberrations in human blood cells. Genet Couns. 2010;21(2):243-51. Last Medical Review: 12/02/2014 Last Revised: 12/02/2014 Cellular Phone Towers :: Print Preview Page 5 of 5 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers 6/29/2015 Attachment 7 103 Health and Food Safety Does electromagnetic field exposure endanger health? New SCENIHR opinion examines latest data on health impact of latest technologies  WHAT ARE ELECTROMAG- NETIC FIELDS? An electromag- netic field (EMF) is a physical field produced by sta- tionary, spinning or moving elec- trically charged particles. EMF is not a recent phenomenon of our cell phone and computer culture: electric and magnetic fields exist in nature. Although they are invisible, you can see proof of their exist- ence in a bolt of lightning and the spinning of a compass needle. EMF is also a by-product of electric devices and new technologies. It is the omnipresence of these new technologies (in- cluding laptops, cell phones, induction cooktops and Wi-Fi) that has raised concerns about how EMF exposure might impact our health.  ARE THERE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EMF? The term EMF generally refers to electromagnetic frequencies lower than that of visible light, which are the focus of this fact sheet. The entire electromagnetic spectrum, however, ranges from extremely low frequencies (like electric power) to higher frequencies (like microwaves, optical frequencies and, even higher, x-rays). The frequency is related to the wavelength: the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency.  IS EMF EXPOSURE DANGEROUS FOR YOUR HEALTH? The results of current scientific research show that there are no evident adverse health effects if exposure remains below the levels set by current standards. Some studies suggested an association of EMF produced by mobile phones with an increased risk of cancer of the auditory vestibular (acoustic) nerve and of brain tumours. However, other studies did not confirm this association and one finding in particular suggests precaution on the interpretation of this association: the rates of incidence of the corresponding tumours have not increased since the introduction of cell phones. Previous studies also suggested an association of EMF with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. New studies on that subject did not confirm this link. Epidemiological studies link exposure to Health and Safety FCC Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS (personal communication service) cell sites have shown that ground-level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards used by the FCC. (FCC Consumer Facts) FCC guidelines are based on federal health and safety agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and non-governmental organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). WHO Recent surveys indicate that RF exposures from base stations and wireless devices in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards.” Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. (World Health Organization Fact Sheet) Wireless technology has been in widespread use since the 1940’s. The technology is constantly reviewed by organizations world-wide. The technology typically operates at a fraction of the power guidelines set by the Federal Communications Commission for safe operation. Attachment 7 105 Wireless Trends In the United States, mobile data traffic will grow 7-fold from 2014 to 2019, a compound annual growth rate of 47%. (Cisco VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2014 – 2019, October 2015) In the United States, mobile data traffic will reach 3.6 Exabytes per month by 2019 (the equivalent of 904 million DVDs each month), up from 531.7 Petabytes per month in 2014. (Cisco VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2014 – 2019, October 2015) In the United States, mobile data traffic will reach an annual run rate of 43.4 Exabytes by 2019, up from 6.4 Exabytes in 2014. (Cisco VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2014 – 2019, October 2015) U.S. mobile data traffic will grow 3 times faster than U.S. fixed IP traffic from 2014 to 2019. (Cisco VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2014 – 2019, October 2015) In the United States, mobile data traffic by 2019 will be equivalent to 220x the volume of U.S. mobile traffic ten years earlier (in 2009). (Cisco VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2014 – 2019, October 2015) In the US there are 355 million wireless devices for 319 million residents. (CTIA, “Facts and Infographics, June 2015) 70% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone (FCC, March 2015) More than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong cellular connections (RootMetrics, June 2015) 35% of Americans reach for their smartphone first in the morning (CTIA, July 2015) More than two-thirds of adults aged 25–29 (69.2%) and aged 30-34 (67.4%) lived in households with only wireless telephones. (CDC’s Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July- December 2014) Machine-to-machine connections are projected to rise from 36 million in 2013 to 263 million in 2018. (Cisco, VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights 2013-2018, at “United States – 2018 Forecast Highlights and 2013 Year in Review) Attachment 7 106 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK MAJOR AMENDMENT CONTINUATION STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a continuation of the Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, which is the formal name and location of the Gardens on Spring Creek. APPLICANT: John Beggs, Senior Landscape Architect Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for February 8, 2016. Staff recommends making a motion to continue the hearing for this Major Amendment to the P&Z regular meeting on March 8, 2016. The content of the neighborhood meeting mailing is as follows: Front: YOU’RE INVITED Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan, Major Amendment Open House Monday, February 8th, 2016 6 – 7:30 p.m. Gardens on Spring Creek Classroom: 2145 Centre Ave Fort Collins, CO 80526 Back: 107 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 The City of Fort Collins requests your company at a meeting to discuss neighborhood mitigation efforts addressing concerns regarding the Gardens on Spring Creek amended master plan, which includes a multi-use/music venue for a maximum of 1,500 attendants. The Planning and Zoning Board has continued the December 2015 public hearing on this project to allow additional time for the City and neighbors to further discuss concerns and mitigation ideas. Plans and other information for previous neighborhood meetings can be found here: fcgov.com/gardenspastmeetings. Documents presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at the December 17, 2015 hearing can be found here (agenda item 5, beginning on page 125): fcgov.com/planning-zoning. Presentation begins at 6 p.m. For questions contact: Ginny Sawyer gsawyer@fcgov.com | 970-224-6094 108 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME BROOKFIELD SECOND FILING TRACTS D AND E PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAFF Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan for Brookfield Second Filing Tracts D and E, located at the northeast corner of Precision Dr. and Brookfield Dr. The proposal calls for changes to 2 building types from a previously approved, but expired, plan. The stacked ranch condos originally approved are now proposed as townhome-style condos. There are 12 buildings proposed with a total of 68 units; the overall density of the site is 11.1 dwelling units per acre. The parcels are located in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district. APPLICANT: Jason W. Sherrill Morningside Land Company, LLC 1170 W. Ash St., Ste 100 Windsor, CO 80550 OWNER: Same as applicant RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Brookfield Second Filing Tracts D and E complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration, which includes a waiver of the required neighborhood meeting. • The Project Development Plan complies with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan (Seventh Amendment). • The Project Development Plan complies with the relevant Harmony Corridor District standards in Division 4.26 of the Land Use Code. • The Project Development Plan complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. 109 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 110 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Harmony Corridor (HC) Vacant land (unplatted) South Harmony Corridor (HC) Residential - Multi-Family/Single-Family Attached; platted as Brookfield Subdivision East Harmony Corridor (HC) Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch; vacant land (unplatted) West Harmony Corridor (HC) Vacant land; platted as Brookfield Replat • The property was annexed in December 1999 as part of the Brookfield Annexation. • The subject property is on Tracts D and E of the Brookfield Subdivision, originally approved in 2002 as a combination of multi-family and single-family attached residential (see Attachments 1 and 2). The vested rights for Tracts D and E have expired, so the project must be considered again through the development review process. • This property is included in the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan (ODP), which was most originally approved in 2007 and most recently amended in 2014 (see Attachment 3). 2. Compliance with Applicable Harmony Corridor District Standards: The project complies with all applicable Harmony Corridor standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 4.26(B)(3)(a) - Permitted Uses Single-family attached and multi-family dwellings are permitted uses, subject to a Type 2 Planning and Zoning Board review. The project proposes a change in building type from what was originally approved for the Brookfield Subdivision, but the use originally envisioned for the site in 2002 has not changed. B. Section 4.26(D) - Land Use Standards The proposed residential uses are considered secondary uses in the Harmony Corridor zone. However, the project complies with the Harmony Technology Park ODP (Seventh Amendment), which identifies this area to be dedicated to secondary uses. The project is in compliance with the dimensional standards, which limit the maximum building height for residential uses to three stories. The project also complies with the density/intensity standards, which require an overall minimum average density of seven dwelling units per net acre of residential land; the proposed density is 11.1 dwelling units per acre. The project complies with the requirements for a mix of housing type and lot sizes/dimensions (see Attachment 6 - Site Plan). Requirements for access to a park, central feature or gathering place are met by providing public access to the trail and greenbelt along the eastern edge of the property. The trail connects to an existing path to the south and provides for an eventual connection to the north. C. Section 4.26(D)(3) - Development Standards This project integrates with the pattern of streets, outdoor spaces, building styles and land uses of the 111 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 4 development to the south, as required in the Harmony Corridor district. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping This project provides groves and belts of trees throughout the site, including a consistent pattern of street trees along all public streets (see Attachment 7 - Landscape Plan). All landscape areas have been properly treated with a mix of trees, shrubs, perennials, turf areas and native areas, in accordance with Section 3.2.1(E)(2). Adequate landscaping is provided along the building foundations, in compliance with Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). The project complies with the water conservation and xeriscape standards in Section 3.2.1(E)(3). B. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking Per Section 3.2.2(K)(1) and 3.2.2(C)(4), A minimum of 125 vehicle parking spaces and 158 bicycle parking spaces are required for the 158 bedrooms included in this project. The project satisfies these requirements by providing 159 vehicle parking spaces and 183 bicycle parking spaces (158 located in garages). Two handicap parking spaces are provided in shared parking areas on the site. C. Section 3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features The site is located within 500 feet of significant natural features, including the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID) and small isolated wetlands along the ditch and in a ravine to the south of site. Based on the assessment and recommendations of the Ecological Characterization Study, a natural habitat buffer zone will be established along the FCRID (see Attachment 8). The buffer zone is an average of 50-feet from the top of bank for the FCRID and follows the eastern edge of the pedestrian path. Groupings of native trees and shrubs, as well as a native grass and perennial seed mix, will be planted throughout the buffer zone to provide enhanced wildlife habitat, in accordance with Section 3.4.1(E). Per Section 3.4.1(F)(2), the natural habitat buffer zone connects to and serves as an extension of a natural habitat area to the south. D. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility The architectural design of this project is very similar to the residential development to the south, which were also part of the original Brookfield Subdivision. The size, scale, and design of this project comply with the requirements of Section 3.5.1 (see Attachments 9 and 10). E. Section 3.5.2 - Residential Building Standards Section 3.5.2 requires residential buildings to place a high priority on pedestrian accessibility and the relationship of buildings to the street. All of the building entrances for this project front on sidewalks, with garages located in alleyways behind the units. Three different housing models are included, in accordance with Section 3.5.2(C)(2). F. Section 3.8.30 - Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards All blocks in this project are bound by a framework of streets, alleyways, and sidewalks and comply with the block requirements in Section 3.8.30(D). All buildings (both single-family attached and multi-family) are set back at least 9-feet from the right-of-way, per Section 3.8.30(E). All buildings meet the variation and design standards in Section 3.8.30(F). 112 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 5 4. Neighborhood Meeting As a Type 2 project, a City neighborhood meeting is typically required unless the development proposal is determined to not have significant neighborhood impact. In this case, the neighborhood meeting requirement was waived, because the anticipated impacts of the project are similar to what was originally approved. The majority of the residences within the notification area were included in the original Brookfield Subdivision. No correspondence from affected property owners regarding this project has been received to-date. 5. Findings of Fact When considering the Brookfield Second Filing Tracts D and E Project Development Plan (FDP150025), staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan (Seventh Amendment). C. The Project Development Plan complies with the relevant Harmony Corridor District standards in Division 4.26 of the Land Use Code. D. The Project Development Plan complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of the Brookfield Second Filing Tracts D and E Project Development Plan based on the Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Original Brookfield Plat - 2002 (PDF) 2. Expired Site and Landscape Plans (PDF) 3. Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan (PDF) 4. Planning Objectives (PDF) 5. Brookfield Replat (PDF) 6. Site Plan (PDF) 7. Landscape Plan (PDF) 8. Ecological Characterization Study (PDF) 9. Building Elevations (PDF) 10. Building Materials (PDF) 113 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME BUCKING HORSE MULTI-FAMILY, FOURTH FILING, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PDP #150026 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 322 multi-family units on 23.06 acres located within the Bucking Horse development. There would be a mix of two housing types: 13 multi-family buildings (304 units) and nine two-family buildings (18 units). There would be a total of 586 bedrooms served by a total of 573 parking spaces for a ratio of .97 spaces per bedroom and five spaces would be assigned to the leasing office. Parking would be divided among surface, covered and garage spaces. A clubhouse, pool, central green and community garden are provided. Primary access would be gained via Yearling Drive and Miles House Avenue. In addition to two buildings fronting on Gooseberry Lane, there would be two other access points from Cutting Horse Drive and a private driveway off Nancy Gray Avenue. The parcels are located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) and Urban Estate (UE) zone districts. Multi-family dwellings, at the proposed density, the number of units per building and the size of the buildings are permitted by granting of an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with the Overall Development Plan in 2012. APPLICANT: Bellisimo, Inc. c/o Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Bellisimo, Inc., LLC c/o Mr. Gino Campana 3702 Manhattan Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80526 RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to one condition. 114 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. is compliance with the Bucking Horse Overall Development Plan, approved in 2012. The parcel is a replat of Bucking Horse Filings One and Three and is located in two zone districts, L-M-N and U-E. Also in 2012, in conjunction with the O.D.P., the P & Z Board granted an Addition of Permitted Use to allow Multi-Family on the subject parcel which is identified on the Overall Development Plan as containing approximately 24 acres. In accordance with the Addition of Permitted Use, the density, number of units per building and size of buildings are allowed per the multi-family development standards of Section 3.8.30. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. The site is within two zone districts, L-M-N and U-E. The development standards of these two zone districts are found to be non-applicable given the granting of the Addition of Permitted Use for Multi- Family per the O.D.P. Instead, the multi-family development standards of Section 3.8.30 supersede the standards associated with these two individual zone districts. A condition of approval is recommended that addresses the architectural elevation of the 13 multi-family buildings to ensure variety among repeated buildings. 115 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Zoning Project North L-M-N Bucking Horse 1 st Filing Single Family North I Midpoint Industrial Park South U-E Bucking Horse 2 nd Filing Single Family Cluster Plan East I Midpoint Industrial Park East R-C Drake Water Reclamation Facility West L-M-N Sidehill 1 st Filing Single Family West L-M-N Cargill Specialty Canola Oil Research Facility 2. Zoning History: The P.D.P. was included as part of the larger 435 acre Timberline Annexation and annexed in November of 1997 as an enclave. The area was placed into the T, Transition zone district. In 2001, in anticipation of the Johnson Property O.D.P., T, Transition zoning was replaced with the following: Urban Estate 85.51 acres Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood 97.03 acres Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood 30.09 acres Industrial 14.05 acres Johnson Property O.D.P. approved in April of 2002, 227 acres Johnson Property Amended O.D.P. approved in February of 2003, 227 acres. Sidehill Filing One (partially completed, and not a part of the Bucking Horse O.D.P.) was approved in November of 2003 and contains 218 acres. Sidehill Filing Two (partially completed with vacant portions now included in Bucking Horse O.D.P.) was approved in August of 2005 and contains 179 acres. Sidehill Filing Three was a replat of Sidehill Filing One and contains only 19 lots. On May 17, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with conditions, the Bucking Horse request for eight Additions of Permitted Use and an Overall Development Plan which was divided among three zone districts and included a Modification of Standard to allow a neighborhood center exceeding five acres to be located in the Industrial zone (Artisan Village at the Jessup Farm). 116 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 4 On June 21, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Bucking Horse P.D.P., First Filing which consisted of a 51-acre mixed-use project featuring: 1. 126 single family lots on 30 acres, zoned L-M-N; 2. 78 Townhomes and 12 single family lots on 8.14 acres zoned L-M-N; 3. Jessup Farm Artisan Village consisting of a variety of non-residential uses located on 13 acres zoned Industrial. In December of 2012, Bucking Horse P.D.P., Second Filing was approved which consisted of: 1. 65 single family lots on 20.33 acres within an Urban Estate Cluster Development Plan that included 34.7 acres of open space; 2. Conversion of the Johnson Farmstead into professional office on 2.08 acres zoned U-E; 3. Three single family lots (alley loaded) on 0.44 acres zoned L-M-N. In August of 2014, Bucking Horse Filing Three was approved which consisted of 19 single family lots located in both the U-E, and L-M-N zone districts. 3. Compliance with O.D.P. and the Addition of Permitted Use: On the O.D.P., the subject parcel is located on a parcel designated as: “Condominium / Apartment Area” and is further described as: “Area of Additional Permitted Use: Multi-Family Density Cap – No More Than 14 d.u./ac and Greater Than 12 Units/Building and Greater Than 14,000 SF/Bldg +/- 23.5 Acres.” The Addition of Permitted Use states: The multi-family dwellings shall be included on a Project Development Plan that does not exceed 24 acres and the number of dwelling units shall be capped such that the density on this site specific development plan does not exceed 13 dwelling units per acre. Further, for the entire portion of Bucking Horse O.D.P. zoned L-M-N, including the parcel devoted to multi-family as the addition of a permitted use, the overall density shall not exceed the maximum allowable density of 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre. Finally, at the time of submittal for a P.D.P., the multi-family use shall be reviewed by the land use and development standards contained in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. As stated in the project description, the P.D.P. consists of two housing types: Multi-Family Dwellings (304 dwelling units) and Two-Family Dwellings (nine buildings, 18 dwelling units) located on 23.06 acres. 117 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 5 In evaluating compliance with the O.D.P. and the parameters of the Addition of Permitted Use, it is important to note that Multi-Family Dwellings are a permitted use in the underlying L-M-N zone district. It is the proposed extent of the Multi-Family, however, that required the A.P.U. in that Bucking Horse features Multi-Family buildings that exceed the following three L-M-N maximum allowances: • No greater than 12 units per building; • No greater than 14,000 square feet per building; • No greater than 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre. As a permitted use in the L-M-N, a project of this scope would be eligible to seek Modifications of Standard. With the proposal to exceed these three standards, however, staff determined that the project begins to take on the characteristics of a project in the M-M-N zone. Since it is staff’s policy not to use the Modification procedure to advance into a more intense zone district, the Addition of a Permitted Use was considered by all the parties to be a more straightforward approach. As a result, the ability to proceed and exceed these maximum allowances is permitted by the designation on the O.D.P. and the conditions of the A.P.U. For the Two-Family Dwellings, it is important to note that this housing type is a permitted use in both the underlying L-M-N and U-E zone districts. In fact, if the proposed Two-Family Dwellings were included in Bucking Horse Filing Two, as part of the Urban Estate Cluster Plan, these dwelling units would have been permitted as part of that Cluster Plan. This is because the amount of the open space that was set aside for the Filing Two Urban Estate Cluster Plan exceeded the minimum required 50% by a margin that would have allowed the increase in density gained by the additional 18 units (and their acreage) so as to not exceed the maximum allowable 2.00 dwelling units per gross acre. Consequently, the allowance of the Two-Family Dwellings as a permitted land use is not dependent on the Addition of Permitted Use. Note that the condition of the A.P.U. indicates an estimated parcel size of 24 acres with a maximum allowable density of 13.00 dwelling units per acre yielding 312 units. In contrast, the O.D.P. indicates a parcel size of 23.5 +/- acres with a density of 14.00 d.u./a yielding 329 units and increase of 17 units. As mentioned, the P.D.P. consists of 23.06 acres at a density of 13.96 units per acre yielding 322 units. As noted above, the O.D.P. and A.P.U. anticipated that the entire area would develop as multi-family. Per the P.D.P., however, there would be only 304 Multi-Family units and 18 Two-Family Dwellings. The reason for these discrepancies in gross acreage is that as additional surveys were performed for establishing the outer boundaries of Filings One, Two and Three, land area needed for public rights-of- way, utility easements, stormwater detention and the like had the effect of reducing the amount of gross acreage originally indicated for the multi-family area. It is not unusual for the broad parameters of the O.D.P. (and in this case the A.P.U.) to be further refined as a large, multi-phased project progresses from master planning to individual filings. Note also that the condition of the A.P.U. indicates the evaluation of a Multi-Family P.D.P. would be by the criteria of the M-M-N zone. Subsequent to the granting of the A.P.U., these standards were moved to a new Land Use Code General Development Supplemental Regulation, 3.8.30, so that the standards 118 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 6 would apply to multi-family projects on a city-wide basis and not just to projects located within the M-M-N zone. The condition of the A.P.U. also requires that for the L-M-N portion of Bucking Horse, the overall gross residential density not exceed 9.00 dwelling units per acre, the upper density limit in the L-M-N per Section 4.5(D)(1)(b). There are 62 acres of Bucking Horse zoned L-M-N. Within this area, there are a total of 472 dwelling units (including the subject P.D.P.). This results in an overall density of 7.6 dwelling units per acre thus not exceeding the allowable maximum of 9.00. On a side note, with the subject P.D.P. including the second housing type (two-family dwellings), the overall residential portion of Bucking Horse now features five housing types versus the four that are required. These are: • Single family detached • Single family detached, alley loaded • Single family attached • Two-family dwellings • Multi-family Staff finds that the proposed P.D.P. complies with both the designation and parameters of Bucking Horse Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use. 4. Compliance with Applicable L-M-N and U-E Standards: As mentioned, while the parcel is located within two zone districts, the O.D.P. and Addition of Permitted Use specifically call for the P.D.P. to be reviewed as if it were a multi-family project, subject to the criteria of the M-M-N zone, which is now superseded by Section 3.8.30. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) – Landscaping – General Standard and Tree Planting: Street trees are provided along both public street frontages (Gooseberry Lane and Nancy Gray Avenue). In addition, street trees are arranged along the three internal street-like private drives. All buildings feature foundation shrubs. A landscape buffer along the east property line will contribute to mitigating the impacts associated with the railroad traffic. Similarly, a buffer is provided behind eight of the two- family dwellings as a land use transition between the P.D.P. and the adjoining single family homes that front on Nancy Gray Avenue. A diversity of species is provided in accordance with the minimum requirements to avoid a monoculture. The sizes of all trees and shrubs comply with minimum standards. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) – Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities: As mentioned, to the southwest of the eight two-family dwellings, there is an adjoining a private alley serving single family homes fronting on Nancy Gray Avenue. While it is debatable that the juxtaposition between the proposed two-family dwellings and the single family homes to the southwest does not rise to the level of being considered in need of a buffer yard, it is worth noting that this buffer features a 119 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 7 generous amount of trees as well as two connecting walkways that link the P.D.P. to Nancy Gray Avenue. Due to grading, and a desire to create a unified neighborhood, there will be no fencing in this buffer. The distance between the back of the two-family dwellings and the rear property lines of the single family homes ranges from 45 to 65 feet thus ensuring privacy for all residents. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: The P.D.P. is specifically designed to place garages at the perimeter, not surface parking lots that need screening. All surface parking is internal to the site and not exposed to any of the surrounding public streets. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping: Parking is well-distributed throughout the project and divided in the following manner: • 354 surface • 88 covered • 131 garage There are no rows that exceed 15 spaces without a landscaped island. All parking lots comply with the minimum required amount of landscaping. E. Section 3.2.1(F) – Tree Protection and Replacement: Historically, the area was cultivated and known as the Jessup Farm and the Johnson Farm. As a result, there are no significant trees that require mitigation. F. Section 3.2.1(H) – Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements: The Landscape Plan demonstrates compliance with this standard by arranging the plant material in logical locations to fulfill specific functions. For example: • Trees are formally arranged around the central green highlighting the common open space; • The clubhouse and pool areas feature a dense variety of trees and shrubs for shade and active and passive recreation; • The two buffer yards include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees for variety and interest; • Foundation shrubs are provided along the back sides of perimeter garages. • Parkways with street trees are provided along the three internal street-like private drives. • Landscape islands break up surface parking lots; and • Buildings feature foundation shrubs. 120 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 8 G. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard: The internal vehicular access system is framed by three street-like private drives: • Calabrese Street runs generally east-west and connects two public streets: Yearling Drive and Miles House Avenue. • Lusitano Lane also runs generally east-west and connects two public streets: Cutting Horse Drive and Nancy Gray Avenue. • Andalusian Street runs generally north-south and connects Calabrese Street and Lusitano Lane. All three feature street trees, sidewalks and segments of diagonal and parallel parking (like public streets) but no head-in parking. These streets contribute to the creation of blocks, all of which are less than seven acres. The design of the internal system is to provide multiple connections to the larger neighborhood to integrate the project and not isolate the multi-family as a separate entity. (Note that per the Master Street Plan, Nancy Gray Avenue is planned to extend north, across the railroad tracks, to Sharp Point Drive which ties into East Prospect Road.) As mentioned, internal sidewalks frame the street-like private drives. In addition, there are multiple sidewalks that connect to the surrounding public street system. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities: This standard requires that the minimum number of bike parking spaces is no less than the number of bedrooms and that no less than 60% are enclosed and the others may be outside in fixed racks. There are 586 bedrooms and there are 688 bike parking spaces. Of the total spaces, 546 (79%) are enclosed and 142 (21%) are outside in fixed racks. Parking is distributed in the following manner: • 284 enclosed stairwells • 282 enclosed garages • 142 fixed racks I. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) – Vehicle Parking: Based on the mix of three bedroom, two bedroom and one bedroom units, a total 549 parking spaces are required. A total of 573 spaces are provided thus exceeding the standard. Five of the extra parking spaces are assigned to the clubhouse. The ratio between the number of total parking spaces, excluding clubhouse parking (568) and the number of total bedrooms (586) equals .97 spaces per bedroom. # of Units by Type Parking Required per Unit Parking Required 38 3-Bedroom Units 2.00 76 152 2-Bedroom Units 1.75 266 114 1-Bedroom Units 1.50 171 18 Duplex, 3-Bedroom Units 2.00 36 Total Parking Required - 549 121 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 9 Parking is distributed in the following manner: Surface 354 Covered 88 Garage 131 J. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting: All light fixtures will be fully shielded and down-directional. In order to avoid the overly harsh glare associated with typical L.E.D. lighting, all Kelvin temperatures are specified to be a maximum of 3,000 degrees which provides a warmer tone that is more appropriate for residential settings. There are no particular areas of concern where house-side shields would be required. K. Section 3.5.1(B) – Building and Project Compatibility – General Standard: This standard requires that if there is an established architectural character in the adjacent neighborhood, then the new buildings must be architecturally compatible with that character. The P.D.P. carries forward the broad architectural theme that has been established in parts of the Bucking Horse neighborhood. This broad theme includes elements of the Craftsman style accented with agricultural/industrial elements. This is evidenced by the following: • Bucking Horse and Sidehill clubhouse and pool building • Jessup Farm Artisan Village – (new buildings only) • Bucking Horse Townhomes All of these buildings feature a unique gable roof detail that is distinguished by a long sweeping roof that includes two pitch angles. In fact, the distinctive west-facing gable on the clubhouse on Nancy Gray Avenue is predominantly featured and repeated among the 13 multi-family buildings. Overhangs, brackets and columns that are found on the townhomes (63 units divided among three blocks located along Timberline Road) are also included on the multi-family buildings. Even the two-family dwellings feature these details, although to a lesser degree due their smaller scale. This level of compatibility among the various housing types and uses across a large-scale neighborhood follows a tradition in Fort Collins of establishing a cohesive unifying theme as demonstrated by such neighborhoods as Scotch Pines, Stonehenge, Parkwood, The Landings, Miramont and Provincetowne, among others. L. Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition: To the southwest, the 13 multi-family buildings are separated from the single family homes that front on Nancy Gray Avenue by the eight of the nine two-family dwellings. In addition, behind these eight buildings, there is a landscape buffer and a private alley serving the single family homes. To the north, along Gooseberry, the two street-facing multi-family buildings have been reduced to two stories at their ends to help mitigate their height and mass. 122 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 10 M. Section 3.5.2(D) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking: For the 13 multi-family buildings, the P.D.P. complies with this standard in the following manner: • Buildings 1,2,3,4,7,8 & 10 front on Lusitano Lane, a street-like private drive; • Buildings 6 and 11 front on Gooseberry Lane, a public street; • Buildings 12,14 and 15 front on Calabrese Street, a street-like private drive; and • Building 13 fronts on Andalusian Street. For the nine two-family dwellings, the P.D.P. complies in the following manner: • Building 5 fronts on Lusitano Lane; and • Buildings 16 – 23 do not front on either a public street or a street-like private drive but are all within a range of 55 – 80 feet from the detached sidewalk along Calabrese Street, well under the 200 feet allowed by the standard. N. Section 3.5.2(G) – Rear Walls of Multi-Family Garages: As mentioned, the overall site plan minimizes the exposure of both surface parking and garages in relation to the adjacent public streets. There are two garages, however where the rear walls face Nancy Gray Avenue. Building Five is a two-family dwelling with a four-car garage with 48 feet of exposure and there is a free-standing garage/storage unit building with 40 feet of exposure. Both rear walls are articulated in a manner that complies with the standard. O. Section 3.6.2(N)(c) – Street-Like Private Drives: As mentioned, the site is served by three street-like private drives. All three streets feature the following in compliance with the standard: • Serve a larger, cohesive development plan; • Allow for two-way traffic; • Include sidewalks in a mix of detached and attached configurations; • Tree-lined on no greater than 40-foot intervals; • Include either parallel or diagonal parking but no head-in parking; • Streets are named and are similar in overall function to public streets; • Buildings front on, and take addresses, off these streets; and • Use of this type of street does not diminish compliance with other standards. P. Section 3.6.3 – Street Pattern and Connectivity: In compliance with the standard, the public and private street system provides multiple direct connections to and between local destinations such as the future neighborhood park (purchased by the City of Fort Collins but not yet developed), shopping (Artisan Village at Jessup Farm) and the surrounding network of collector streets (Nancy Gray Avenue and Mile House Drive) and the arterial streets (Timberline Road and Drake/Ziegler Roads). As indicated, this network is planned to create a new access to East Prospect Road by the extension of Nancy Gray Avenue, over the future crossing of the Great Western Railroad tracks, to Sharp Point Drive. Such extension will allow the Bucking Horse neighborhood access to three arterial streets. 123 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 11 Q. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements: The O.D.P. was approved in 2012 and included a Transportation Impact Study that outlined how the overall development would meet the Transportation Level of Service Requirements. Roadway network improvements including the access points, auxiliary lanes, signalization at Nancy Gray and an additional right turn lane from westbound Drake to Timberline have been constructed. The original O.D.P. assumed 300 multi-family dwelling units on the site of this application. This P.D.P. now includes 322 dwelling units, a change of 7%. The difference in the calculated trip generation between the 2012 T.I.S. and the current P.D.P. is 132 additional daily trip ends, 11 more morning peak hour trip ends and 11 more afternoon peak hour trip ends. The change in overall trip generation for the entire Bucking Horse development due to the additional units is 2.2%. A supplemental TIS memo with this application indicates that the change is not significant, and the conclusions in the original TIS that Transportation Level of Service requirements are met remain valid. There have been some neighbor concerns regarding other traffic issues such as the potential to modify accesses on Timberline for the new commercial development, pedestrian crossings on Drake, speeding on Nancy Gray, and pedestrian access to the pool. These issues are not related to specific Transportation Level of Service Requirements for this P.D.P. These concerns, however, are being addressed through the newly formed Bucking Horse Neighborhood Transportation committee and the City’s Traffic Operations Department. R. Section 3.8.26 – Residential Buffering: This standard is applicable because the Midpoint Industrial Park, zoned industrial, is located to the northeast of the P.D.P. This industrial area is classified as “light industrial” and, as such requires compliance with Buffer Yard B. (This standard is applicable even though there is a 100-foot railroad right-of-way separating the P.D.P. from the industrial park. Buffer Yard B is a performance standard that requires a buffer yard ranging from 15 to 45 feet in width, depending on the amount of landscaping. The P.D.P. indicates a buffer yard ranging from 100 to 115 feet thus exceeding the standard. S. Section 3.8.30 – Multi-Family Development Standards: (1.) Section 3.8.30(B) – Mix of Housing Types: This standard requires that for projects between 16 and 30 acres, a minimum of two housing types are required. As mentioned, the P.D.P. consists of Multi-Family Dwellings (304) and Two- Family Dwellings (18). (2.) Section 3.8.30(C ) – Access to Park, Central Feature, Gathering Place: The P.D.P. complies on two levels. The Clubhouse and common open space associated with the central green qualifies under the applicable criteria for private open space. In addition, Bucking Horse O.D.P. includes a six-acre public neighborhood park that has been conveyed to, but not yet developed by the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department with all units being within approximately 1,320 feet (one quarter mile). 124 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 12 (3.) Section 3.8.30(D) – Block Requirements: The P.D.P. is contained within the existing network of public streets serving larger Bucking Horse neighborhood. In addition, the Great Western railroad tracks act as a constraint to the block pattern along the entire northeast boundary. This results in three true blocks and two polygon- shaped block-like parcels none of which exceed seven acres. (4.) Section 3.8.30(E) – Buildings: All buildings comply with the standard that the front setback is no less than nine feet along all non-arterial streets and, in this particular case, street-like private drives. (5.) Section 3.8.30(F)(2-7) – Variation Among Buildings, Color, Entrances, Roofs, Facades and Walls, Colors and Materials: This standard requires that for the 13 multi-family buildings, three distinct building styles are required. (This standard does not apply to the nine two-family dwellings or to the clubhouse/leasing office.) The P.D.P. includes three distinct multi-family buildings and compliance is found in the following manner: • Building Type: A-1, 24-plex, three-stories, quantity – 5, entry options – 4, two large street- facing gables, various mix of cultured stone, horizontal and vertical lap siding, variety of rooflines and a variety of paint colors. • Building Type: B, 24-plex, three stories, quantity – 6, entry options – 4, one large street- facing gable, a mix of cultured stone, horizontal and vertical siding that differs from Buildings A-1 and A-2, variety of rooflines and a variety of paint colors. • Building Type: A-2, 20-plex, three story center, two story ends, quantity – 2, entry options – 2, two large street-facing gables, a mix of cultured stone, horizontal and vertical lap siding that differs from the aforementioned, variety of rooflines and a variety of paint colors. The three multi-family building types are not repeated in sequence along any block face. The four entry options would be distributed among all 13 buildings and not repeated in sequence. One of the key attributes in achieving variety is that four buildings, plus the clubhouse/leasing office, are arranged around a central green. This core is well-landscaped and features multiple connecting walkways and will act as the hub of the project. The remaining nine multi-family buildings are distributed along the public and private streets. This distribution of buildings has the effect of minimizing repetition among various buildings. While all the necessary components are in place to make each of the 13 multi-family buildings individually attractive, staff is concerned that, on an overall basis, the architectural diversity needs to be further enriched and defined in order to add the necessary differentiation and interest to address the variation among repeated buildings, especially given the consistency in building footprints. For example, presently, there is only one kind of masonry; there is an over- 125 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 13 reliance on the four-over-one window; and the open stairwells are not distinguished over the 13 buildings. Further, the Planning and Zoning Board recently approved (December) a multi-family project of comparable size where six individual entrances would be divided among 15 multi-family buildings. Bucking Horse Multi-Family Apartments would benefit from an equivalent ratio by increasing the number of entry options from four to five to be divided among 13 buildings. Staff, therefore, recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of submittal for the Final Plan, the architectural elevations for the 13 multi-family buildings shall be further defined to include a greater variety of exterior materials, window patterns, stairwell treatment and at least one additional entry feature. Further, the mix of entry features, paint colors and exterior materials must be assigned to each individual building to ensure variation and avoid repetition. 6. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on October 26, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. The primary concerns raised by those in attendance, and the applicant’s response, are briefly summarized as follows: A. Traffic The project will generate additional traffic. Speeding and safety are chief concerns, especially with the neighborhood pool and clubhouse located in the middle of Nancy Gray Avenue. A segment of Yearling Drive looks like it will be impacted. In response, the traffic will be distributed in two directions, Nancy Gray Avenue and Miles House Drive. In the next few years, the Nancy Gray extension over the tracks to Sharp Point Drive will introduce a third direction. These two streets are classified as collector roadways. As such, the anticipated traffic volumes are within the acceptable levels of trips per day as established by the City Engineering and Traffic Operations Departments. The Traffic Operations Department has a Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program that allows neighborhoods to discuss the feasibility of adding traffic calming devices, subject to qualifications should the need arise. Adding signage at the crossings of Nancy Gray at the pool and clubhouse can be investigated. As mentioned, traffic calming for the entire neighborhood are being addressed through the newly formed Bucking Horse Neighborhood Transportation committee and the City’s Traffic Operations Department. 126 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 14 B. Density The project represents a level of density that is higher than the surrounding neighborhood. In response, a multi-family component of a large, master-planned community is typically found across the City. The City has had a policy over the decades to distribute multi-family housing on a community-wide basis versus concentration in one geographic area. The arrangement of the multi-family is partially mitigated by the nine duplexes. The railroad tracks make for a logical transition to the industrial park. The challenge for the applicant is to design a project that complies with the City’s Land Use Code. C. Parking There is a concern about spillover parking impacting the surrounding streets. In response, the project exceeds the required minimum number of spaces based on the mix of bedrooms per unit. Spillover parking can be monitored and addressed if it becomes a problem. The City’s Residential Parking Permit Program can be implemented should off-site parking become a problem for the neighborhood. 7. Findings of Fact and Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Bucking Horse Multi-Family P.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with the requirements of the Addition of Permitted Use and the Overall Development Plan in the following manner: (1.) The parcel is designated as “Condominium /Apartment Area.” (2.) The number of units, parcel size and resulting density complies with the parameters established on the O.D.P. (3.) The P.D.P. was reviewed by the governing multi-family standards of 3.8.30. (4.) The overall L-M-N density in the Bucking Horse neighborhood (7.6 dwelling units per acre) does not exceed the maximum allowed 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development standards. C. A Condition of Approval is recommended to enrich the architectural variety among the 13 multi- family buildings, and to further define the architectural characteristics on a per building basis at the time of submittal for Final Plan. 127 Agenda Item 8 Item #8 Page 15 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board make a motion to approve Bucking Horse Multi-Family, Fourth Filing, #PDP150026, subject to the following condition, and based on the Findings of Fact on pages 16-17 of the Staff Report: At the time of submittal for the Final Plan, the architectural elevations for the 13 multi- family buildings shall be further defined to include a greater variety of exterior materials, window patterns, stairwell treatment and at least one additional entry feature. Further, the mix of entry features, paint colors and exterior materials must be assigned to each individual building to ensure variation and avoid repetition. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Architectural Elevations & Perspectives (PDF) 4. Applicant's Planning Objectives (DOCX) 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 6. TIS Memorandum (PDF) 7. Citizen Emails (PDF) 128 Attachment 1 129 Attachment 1 130 Attachment 1 131 Attachment 1 132 Attachment 1 133 Attachment 1 134 Attachment 1 135 Attachment 1 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 TIMBERLINE ROAD Johnson Farm Innovation Campus Working Farm CSA Future City Park GREA T WESTERN RAILROAD Neighborhood Park and Pool Jessup Farm Artisan Village Bucking Horse Apartments - Filing 4 NANCY GRA Y AVE MILES HOUSE AVE Open Space and Trail System DRAKE ROAD 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 0 480 960 1440’ 0 160 320 480’ Bucking Horse Master Plan 143 Outdoor Picnic and Grilling Area (typical) Site Information: Total Area: 23.06 AC Current Zoning: UE and LMN Open Space / Community Areas: 2.84 AC Density: Total Units: 328 Gross Density: 14.22 du/AC Net Density: 16.22 du/AC Building Breakdown: (5) Building ‘A’: 24-plex - (6) 3bd, (12) 2bd, (6) 1bd (2) Building ‘A2’: 20-plex - (4) 3 bd, (10) 2 bd, (6) 1 bd (6) Building ‘B’: 24-plex - (12) 2bd, (12) 1bd (9) Building ‘C’: 2-plex - (2) 3bd (1) Building ‘D’: Clubhouse Car Parking: Open Air Parking (9’x19’): 354 spaces (12 Handicap) Covered Parking (9’x19’): 88 spaces Garage Parking (12’x22’): 131 spaces Total = 573 spaces (554 required) Bike Parking: Fixed Bike Racks: 142 bikes Enclosed Bike Parking (Garages): 262 bikes Enclosed Bike Parking (Stair Wells): 284 bikes Total = 688 bikes (586 total required) Other: 5’x5’ Storage Lockers: 55 24’ NANCY GRA Y AVENUE MILES HOUSE AVENUE CUTTING HORSE DRIVE BL UE YONDER DRIVE YEARLING DRIVE GOOSEBERRY LANE Central Lawn Urban Estates Lots Single Family Lots GREA T WESTERN RAILROAD Future Connection to Sharp Point Drive Filing 3 SF Lots NANCY GRA Y AVENUE Garage (typical) Covered Parking (typical) 51’ ROW A A2 A2 B B A B Clubhouse Main Entrance Secondary Entrance 21 Parking Space Lot Trash/ Recycling Enclosure Pool Wet Deck Hot Tub Outdoor Bar Stool Eating Fire Pit and Lounge Chairs Central Lawn Raised Community Garden Beds Raised Community Garden Beds Outdoor Kitchen with Community Table, Grill and Sink Gated Entry Bike Parking Picnic and Grill Area 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 0 60 120 180’ Pool and Clubhouse 145 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Nancy Gray and Building ‘C’ Section 146 Parks , Gathering Areas and Open Space Trail Neighborhood Connection Point Future City Park CSA Apartments Working Farm Jessup Artisan Farm Neighborhood Park TIMBERLINE ROAD DRAKE ROAD 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Open Spaces, Parks and Trail Connections 147 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Building ‘A’ 148 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Building ‘A2’ 149 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Building ‘B’ 150 Street Side Park Side 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Building ‘C’ 151 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 Building ‘D’ - Clubhouse 152 Attachment 4 Bucking Horse Filing Four PDP Statement of Proposed Planning Objectives November 24, 2015 This project shall be titled Bucking Horse Filing Four - consisting of the following components: • Multi-Family Attached (322 units) This project is the fourth filing for the approved Bucking Horse ODP for this development and is located in the Condominium/Apartment Area designated in the ODP. Site Area Information Multi-Family Boundary Size: 795,435 SF (18.26 AC) Right-of-Way Improvement Area: 0 Parking and Drive Area: 248,550 SF (5.7 AC) Landscape Area (turf, seed, garden & shrub areas): 291,687 SF (6.69 AC) Dwelling Units: 322 Gross Density: Per ODP Boundary: 13.96 DU/AC, 2015 Multi-Family Boundary: 17.63 DU/AC Net Density: 2015 Multi-Family Boundary: 21.71 DU/AC Project Description Bucking Horse Filing Four is located on Nancy Gray Avenue and is bounded by the Great Western Railroad, and Gooseberry Lane in Bucking Horse housing development. It is located in the LMN and UE zones with additional permitted use for Multi-Family. This constitutes the fourth housing type in the development. The main tenant access is provided from Nancy Gray Avenue. The development connects with street-like private drives to Yearling Drive and Cutting Horse Drive. The development provides permeability with the surrounding development and offers many connections to the street sidewalks, and a walking trail. The development has a central lawn as an open space amenity for the tenants as well as a clubhouse and pool. The buildings are comprised of 13 apartment buildings in total with (11) three-story buildings, and (2) three-story buildings with two-story step downs on either end. Additionally, there are (18) two-story apartments that bookend three garages. The development includes 322 multi-family attached units that are broken down as follows: (5) Building ‘A’: 3-story, 24 plex: (6) 3 bedroom, (12) 2 bedroom, (6) 1 bedroom (2) Building ‘A2’: 3 story center, 2 story end, 20 plex: (4) 3 bedroom, (10 2 bedroom, (6) 153 Attachment 4 1 bedroom (6) Building ‘B’: 3 story, 24 plex: (12) 2 bedroom, (12) 1 bedroom (9) Building ‘C’: 2 story, 2 plex: (2) 3 bedroom (1) Building D: Clubhouse Architectural Description Apartment Building Type A & A2 - 24 & 20 plex Building Type A is a 3-story, garden style walk-up apartment with a mix of six 3- bedroom, twelve 2-bedroom (in two different unit floor plan types) and six 1-bedroom units. These units are accessed via two breezeways that provide connections to the site on either side of the building. All units have an exterior patio or balcony with access to a storage closet. The breezeways will have vertical bike racks to provide secured, covered bike parking. The architectural design is based on a modern interpretation of agrarian vernacular with use of simple gable roof forms, with broken roof pitches and use of shed roofs extending from these gable roofs. The perimeter of the building has been modulated to provide articulation in the wall planes and roof forms that reduce the overall scale of the building. A variety of single hung and smaller square windows placed in single and double configurations are adorned with traditional trim boards to enrich the overall composition of the building facades. The proposed materials of synthetic stone, cement fiber lap siding and cement fiber vertical siding have been strategically placed on the facades to accentuate the wall projections while stepping up and down to help mitigate the overall scale. Entries into the breezeway at the main level include small roof awnings to provide human scale and a welcoming sense of entry. Building Type A2 is similar to Building A from an overall floor and unit plan standpoint, but is a 2 and 3-story building with the upper two 3 and 2-bedrrom units on each end of the building eliminated. This building is being used at the northwest side of the project directly adjacent to the existing single family neighborhood across from Gooseberry Lane. Apartment Building Type B - 24 plex Building Type B is a 3-story garden style, walk-up apartment with a mix of twelve, 2- bedroom and twelve 1-bedroom units. While the architectural design concept, materials and detailing are similar to Building Type A, this building does have a unique floor plan, roof forms and wall articulation that clearly define it as a different building type. Apartment Building Type C - 2 plex with 4 attached garages Building Type C is a hybrid building with two, 2-story 3-bedroom apartments on each side of four attached single car garages. The single car garages are intended to be utilized by any resident in the apartment complex including those residing at the attached end apartment units. The design of this building is consistent with the other larger apartment buildings with use of the agrarian vernacular architecture and detailing. 154 Attachment 4 The building provides a wrap-around covered porch at the main level that leads residents to the entry on the sides of the building with a private covered patio at the backside of the building. Clubhouse Building Type D Building Type D is a 1-story, 4,784 S.F. Clubhouse building that houses a leasing and manager's office, maintenance storage, pool equipment, restrooms, lounge, kitchen, living room, fitness room, movie theater, and dog wash amenities. The building has been design with dynamic roof forms, extensive use of glazing and voluminous interior spaces that create a focal gathering place for residents to enjoy. Adjacencies The project site is currently a vacant undeveloped parcel, with single family houses to the north-west on Gooseberry Lane, the Great Western Railroad to the north-east, Nancy Gray Road for a port of the south-east side and yet to be constructed single family homes on the southern to south-west adjacency that are services by an alley. Access, Vehicular/Pedestrian Circulation and Parking Primary vehicular access is provided from Nancy Gray Avenue. Vehicular access is also provided via the street-like private drives to the neighborhood to the north. Narrowed thresholds have been created to discourage the neighborhood access. Pedestrian paths connect with all streets and continue through the street-like private drives for seamless integrated pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian connection are also provided from Nancy Gray to the south of the development wide trail system. The perimeter trail will be provided to the north-east that runs adjacent to the railroad line with a series of connections into the development being provided. • Private drives have a 24’ drive with diagonal parking on one side for the western drive. The eastern drive has parallel parking. • Street trees and sidewalks are provided along all private drives. The sidewalks are detached when there is not any parking. • 688 bike parking spaces are provided with 546 (79%) enclosed • A total of 549 parking spaces are required for the project. 573 parking spaces are provided. 354 spaces are open, 219 spaces are covered or garaged (38%), and 12 spaces are handi-cap (1 a van accessible space). Stormwater/Detention Drainage for Bucking Horse Filing Four will continue to follow the overall drainage concepts established with the first three filings of Bucking Horse as well as Sidehill Filings One and Two. In particular, drainage from the site will be conveyed via swales, roads and storm sewers to a large drainage channel that parallels the Great Western Railroad tracks on the east side of the project. The channel will then convey stormwater to the large detention pond located at the southeast corner of Filing 2. The pond will 155 Attachment 4 provide both stormwater detention volume and water quality volume for the Bucking Horse Apartments, and was designed with adequate volume to perform both tasks. 1. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES ACHIEVED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN City Plan LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. Access points, sidewalks and street trees/roadway landscaping within the project will be paid for by the developer. LIV 5.4 – Contribute to Public Amenities This site will provide pedestrian connection to trails networks and the residential areas . LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Located in the the Bucking Horse Development, the architectural design shall be in context with the housing architecture built to date. Transitional areas assist in compatibility with height such as the garages on the southern wide and the stepped buildings on Gooseberry Lane. Compatibility through the buildings shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass, similar window pattern, use of materials that have similarity on color shade and texture. LIV 7.1– Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Multi-family attached housing will provide an additional housing type and the required fourth housing type for this development. LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Well lit private drives and pedestrian walkways with low-water use planting and street trees are included within the development. LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Street trees line all private drives at 40’ o.c. LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features The central lawn provides a unique public amenity within the development. LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, emphasizing foundation planting. LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Native and adaptive planting and Enviroturf turf areas will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds will be maintained without excessive pruning or ‘snow-balling’ of shrubs. LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The street and pedestrian network will allow access from the neighborhoods, and the development trail network. LIV 21.4 – Provide Access to Transit 156 Attachment 4 The sidewalks connect to the boarded development street pattern and sidewalks that link with Drake Road the bus services provided here that links with Max and the Mason Street Corridor. LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets or Spaces All building front a street or street-like private drive. LIV 22.5 – Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes With native landscape and street trees the streetscape on all the street-like private drives will be visually interesting and will provide foundation planting, anchoring for the buildings on the site. LIV 23.1 – Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces With project connects to the neighborhood park on Nancy Gray and also the proposed future City provided park amenities to the south-west on Miles House Avenue. Open space areas have been provided within the development and the large central lawn area provides open space amenities. The club house provides outdoor kitchen, fire pit and gathering spaces for all residents. A pool will also be provided for the tenants. LIV 26.3 – Promote Compatibility of Uses The multi-family attached building provides a compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential uses to the north-west and south through transitional size from the south from garages and two story apartments to the three story apartment buildings. The building step downs on the north-east also breaks down the mass. Building materiality, articulation and design is also compatible to the neighborhood housing architecture. step backs, massing and residential scale elements. The landscaping buffer at the southern portion of the site also establishes effective buffering and transitioning between the site and the future single-family home. LIV 30.2 –Connect to Surrounding Neighborhoods Sidewalk connections enhance pedestrian connectivity and bicycle connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood and trails. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE, WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, CIRCULATION, TRANSITION AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERING ON SITE AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROJECT. The current site has limited natural habitats or natural features as it a open parcel, that does not have any stands of trees or significant vegetation located on it. The site plan proposed numerous trees that will be both shade trees and ornamentals that will attract various bird life. The site circulates in a very permeable way. People can flows throughout the site along the street like private drives, as well as through building breezeways, or between buildings to reach either end of the site and connect to the neighborhood streets or the trail network. The site has a vegetation buffering area to the south of the garages and two-story single apartment that resemble townhomes. This buffer helps transition from the alley loaded single-family homes on Nancy Gray Avenue. The single story garages and two story apartments that resemble townhomes are a compatible scale to the adjacent houses. 157 Attachment 4 The two apartment buildings on Gooseberry Lane have a central three story portion that steps down either side to two story ends. This adjustment helps transitioning into the single family homes on Gooseberry. The houses on Gooseberry are two story structure on elevated front entrances for the portions opposite the apartments. The lots to the north has a single story home. Opposite this home is the open space shown to the south of the entrance off Cutting Horse Drive. A buffer area has been developed for the garages on the north edge of the development. Open space enhancements are provided along the pedestrian and bike access on the east side of the property and within the proposed detention area at the northeast corner of the property. These include a picnic table, native seeding, and low-water use plantings and trees. Visual buffering and transitional landscapes on the north and west property edges are accomplished with 6’ privacy fencing and columnar evergreen and deciduous trees, providing a buffer between the single-family to the west and multi-family attached residential uses to the north. 3. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS The property owner or property manager shall perform all maintenance on the site. In addition, the property manager shall maintain all sidewalks and landscaped common areas, and any other non-private amenity and or feature. The City of Fort Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of infrastructure and snow removal within the adjacent public roadway, such as Nancy Gray Avenue and Gooseberry Lane. Storm water infrastructure Landscape maintenance and trash removal within storm water infrastructure including detention areas, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the property manager. This maintenance shall include all required mowing, weeding, cleanout, removal of trash and debris and other typical maintenance required in order to ensure storm water infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent. Landscape - All landscape maintenance within the property and adjacent row to Nancy Gray and shall be the responsibility of and performed by the property manager. Snow Removal - The property manager shall perform snow removal within all common areas, trails, private drives and open space on the property. Trash - All trash removal will be by property management. 4. ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES. 158 Attachment 4 N/A. 5. DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES MADE BY THE APPLICANT. N/A 6. EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA. N/A. 7. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF HOW CONFLICTS BETWEEN LAND USES OR DISTURBANCES TO WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES AND OR WILDLIFE ARE BEING AVOIDED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE OR ARE MITIGATED. The site is a flat parcel that had a cover of wheatgrass and does not have any trees. 8. WRITTEN NARRATIVE ADDRESSING EACH CONCERN/ISSUE RAISED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(S), IF A MEETING HAS BEEN HELD. Concerns were raised about tenants using the local streets to the north-west to access Timberline Road. There was concern about traffic and the amount of cars that would choose that route. There was a broader discussion about traffic calming measures throughout the development for some street. The design has responded to this concern by creating a narrower entry condition at both of the street-like private drives that connect to Yearling Drive and Cutting Horse Drive. The main entrance that connects to Nancy Gray Avenue is wider and encourages ease of access for tenants. The design is able to meet the land use code requirement for connectivity of street-like private drives to the adjacent street grid and sidewalk patterns. There was a concern of three story buildings on Gooseberry Lane and parking along Gooseberry Lane. These building have been changed to include two story step downs on either end of the apartment building to break down the scale. This also reduces the unit count and therefore reduces parking needs in this immediate area. The overall internal parking count is over the required parking totals. 9. NAME OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS ANY PREVIOUS NAME THE PROJECT MAY HAVE HAD DURING CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. This project shall be titled Bucking Horse Filing Four. 10. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Earthwork/Grading/Utilities May 2016 Drive And Sidewalk Construction Sept 2016 Residential Construction November 2016 – May 2018 159 Attachment 5 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Bucking Horse Multi-Family Apartments LOCATION: The Multi-Family Portion of Bucking Horse O.D.P. DATE: October 26, 2015 APPLICANT: Mr. Gino Campana, Belisimo Development CONSULTANTS: Paul Mills, Russell + Mills Studios Ian Schuff, ALM+2S Architects Matt Delich, Delich and Associates Nick Haws, Northern Engineering CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Description of the Proposed Project: As proposed, this is a request to construct 328 multi-family units on a 23-acre parcel within the Bucking Horse development. There will be a mix of two and three story buildings. A total of 597 parking spaces will be provided and divided between surface parking and garages. A clubhouse, pool, central green and community garden are provided to serve this development. Primary access would be gained via Miles House Avenue. There would be three other access points. The parcels are located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) and Urban Estate (UE) zone districts. Multi-family dwellings have been permitted with the granting of an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with the Overall Development Plan. This proposal will be subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type II) review. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant and consulting team. Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. I live on Nancy Gray and I’m concerned about the number elementary school children that this project will generate and the impact on Riffenburgh School. This school is at near capacity and will soon convert to the I.B. curriculum. This is a popular curriculum so more students from outside the boundary area will want to “choice in” potentially causing over-crowding. 160 Attachment 5 2 A. Bucking Horse is within the Riffenburgh boundary area so students from this neighborhood will have priority over students that want to choice in. 2. Will these units be under condo ownership or for rent? A. These units will be for rent. 3. I recently bought a home from D.R. Horton. I don’t recall seeing multi-family apartments at the sales office. Had I known that this area was designated for multi-family, I might have made a different decision about moving into this neighborhood. A. We have always shown this area to be a multi-family apartment parcel based on the approved Overall Development Plan. We are sorry to hear that D.R. Horton did not convey this information accurately. 4. Have you thought about putting the townhome-like apartments (two-story) instead of the 24-plex (three-story) along Gooseberry to help buffer the single family homes? A. We have the two-story units behind the houses that front on Nancy Gray primarily because of the existing grade so the three-story buildings do not loom over the single family. On Gooseberry, the grade is lower and flatter so we thought this would be a good location for the three-story buildings. 5. I see where the future extension of Nancy Gray will extend east over the railroad tracks. Does this mean that every time a train crosses Nancy Gray, the train horn will blast away? A. We are working with the City to make construct this crossing with the crossing gates. This should qualify the crossing as a quiet zone not needing the train to sound the horn. 6. We are concerned about spillover parking. Do you have enough parking? Looks to me like you may need some more parking. A. The City’s Land Use Code requires a minimum number of parking spaces based on the mix of bedrooms per unit. Based on our mix, we have 18 spaces over the required minimum. 7. What are the minimum required parking ratios? A. 1.5 spaces per studio and one-bedroom unit; 1.75 spaces per two-bedroom unit; and 2.00 spaces per three-bedroom unit? 8. Will there be any four-bedroom units and do you rent by the unit or bedroom? 161 Attachment 5 3 A. There will not be any four-bedroom units and we rent by the unit, not bedroom. 9. What is the density of the project? A. We come in at about 14 dwelling units on a per gross acre basis which includes the clubhouse, pool, garden and open space. 10. Are the streets public or private? A. The internal streets are all private. The Land Use Code requires that if the streets are private, they must be constructed as “street-like private drives” which means they must connect to the public streets, and include sidewalks and street trees. 11. Can you park on these private streets? A. Yes, you can provide either parallel or diagonal parking but not 90-degree head- in parking. 12. So these streets are operating more like a public street than a typical parking lot? A. Yes, that’s correct. In fact, by utilizing these private streets, we are actually losing parking lots and parking spaces. 13. The surrounding public streets do not seem to be well-coordinated with the project. A. By purchasing the property from the bank, we inherited the surrounding public street system. Most all of these streets had utilities placed underground so it would have been extremely expensive to re-design the public streets. 14. The problem with the street system is that Nancy Gray is a collector and the clubhouse and pool are placed in the middle requiring kids to cross a busy street. This seems like a serious design flaw. N.G. may need speed tables and cross- walks. A. We agree. But, as we stated, we bought a fully platted subdivision that was mostly developed by the previous developer. 15. There is speeding on N.G. Also, there is a lot traffic that goes the wrong way on the one-way lanes around the clubhouse and pool island. 16. I live on Yearling Drive. I see nothing but more traffic due to these apartments. 162 Attachment 5 4 A. Yes, there will be traffic on Yearling that is generated by the apartments but we are also providing three other access points, four total, to help distribute traffic away from Yearling. We will look at ways to mitigate this traffic. 17. Traffic in the whole neighborhood is too fast. A. Response from City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer: We can look at a variety of traffic mitigation measures. We have a neighborhood program for putting in speed tables but we need a majority of the folks in the neighborhood to agree. Sometimes we can install the speed radar feedback signs as a deterrent to speeding. As far as traffic on N.G., we will continue to monitor traffic volumes. As far as violations of the one-way system around the clubhouse, we perhaps can address this with signage. 18. It seems like the D.R. Horton construction traffic is the major violator of the one- way system. 19. I think we can all agree that this apartment project will generate a significant amount of new traffic. Given this fact, let’s discuss how to implement traffic mitigation measures ahead of time. Let’s not wait for the new traffic to become such a problem that we have to endure the impacts before anything is done about it. We need a comprehensive traffic calming plan now. A. Response from City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer: We appreciate your concern. Our approach to neighborhood traffic calming is to be very judicious in its implementation. We do not want to install traffic calming devices unless the traffic volume and speeding problems warrant such installation. For example, our estimate is that N.G. has about 600 vehicle trips per day and we generally wait until we hit 1,000 trips per day before installing traffic calming. Keep in mind that we continue to monitor the traffic volumes on collector streets on a city-wide basis. 20. How many lots are left? A. For Belisimo, we have 36 lots left. I can’t speak for D.R. Horton. 21. How many lots do you have up on the ridge, and about how big will these homes be? A. We have about 21 lots and the houses will range in size from 1,600 – 2,000 square feet depending on floor plans and options. 22. I live on Cutting Horse and Gooseberry. Is Cutting Horse designed to feed into the apartments as if it were a street extension? Won’t this just encourage more traffic on Cutting Horse. 163 Attachment 5 5 A. We are intending that, within our project, there is a clear delineation that Cutting Horse is not an extension of a public street. Our street will be a street-like private drive as required by the Code. It will be narrower and include curves so as to create the impression to the driver that you are entering a private street system. In terms of adding traffic, yes, this project will add traffic to the neighborhood but we think the added traffic stays within the tolerances for traffic volumes on both local and collector streets. Also, as we have mentioned, there is a deliberate design to provide four access points to distribute the traffic. If we reduce an access point, then that will just load up the other three. 23. In looking at your buildings and their orientation, will a tenant be able to access the building from either side? A. Yes, on the long side of each building (townhome-like apartments excluded), there will be a breezeway that allows entrance from both sides. 24. Will this be a student-oriented apartment complex? A. No, we anticipate a mix of tenants, not just college students. 25. Will Belisimo manage the project after construction? A. Yes. 26. Would our neighborhood be eligible for RP3? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Yes. Please contact the City’s Parking Department for further information. 27. How long will the site be under construction? A. We would like to begin in Spring of 2016 with our site work. Site work could take up to six months. Then it takes about nine months to complete a building. We then look at our absorption rates. We anticipate that there could be approximately 30 to 40 days between completion of each building. 28. Could construction traffic stay off the local streets and just use the collectors? A. Yes, we can work with the City on this. 29. Would a traffic signal be warranted as a result of this project at Miles House and Drake/Ziegler? A. Response from the City Traffic Engineer: As a result of this project, a traffic signal would not be warranted. While it will be difficult to turn left from the neighborhood during peak times, the approach volumes do not warrant a traffic 164 Attachment 5 6 signal. Having said that, please note that we continually monitor the conditions so our data stays current. 30. Are you considering converting rental to condo ownership in the future? A. No, we are not planning on converting to condos. Please note that we are not constructing the buildings any different whether they are condos or not. 31. What will the houses along Nancy Gray look like? A. We are working on variations on our “Modern Farmhouse” theme. At this time, we have about 18 different models. 32. Could you make Blue Yonder a cul-de-sac so it doesn’t intersect with Gooseberry? A. No, the Land Use Code requires local streets within a neighborhood to connect. 33. Is multi-family a done deal? A. Multi-family has consistently been indicated on this parcel since before the adoption of the Overall Development Plan. 34. The project is too dense for the neighborhood. A. We acknowledge that the project represents multi-family housing at a higher density than the single family and townhomes. But, please bear in mind that we are less dense than The Trails at Timberline located at the northwest corner of Timberline and Drake. 35. Will the apartments become part of our H.O.A.? A. No, this project will have its own pool, clubhouse, garden and open space. But, please note that there may be an exception. If the H.O.A. Board approves, the apartment could enter into a shared amenities agreement where tenants could use the H.O.A. amenities based on compensation and / or other consideration. 36. It looks like Yearling Drive will take the bulk of the traffic from this project. Could another access to Nancy Gray or to the alley behind the houses on N.G. be provided? A. No, there is a significant grade differential between Nancy Gray and the apartments, especially at the west end. Also, please note that the alley is too narrow to be considered a street. 165 Attachment 5 7 37. Could you take a look at measures that would mitigate the impact on Yearling? Could the buildings along Gooseberry be lowered from three to two stories? A. We will take a look at options that address traffic on Yearling. 38. Looks like extending N.G. over the tracks to Sharp Point would help alleviate traffic in the neighborhood. Do you know when this crossing would be completed? A. In talking to the City Engineering Department, this crossing could be made in 2018. This would be roughly equivalent to completion of the project. 39. Are you required to have a mix of housing types? A. Yes, because of the overall size of Bucking Horse, we are required by the Land Use Code to have a minimum of four housing types on a neighborhood-wide basis. We are also required to have two housing types within the multi-family project itself. 40. Would you consider these apartments to be on the upper end of the market? A. Yes, we consider these to be Class A apartments but we do not know what the rents will be yet. 41. At full build-out, how do you see the traffic distribution and volumes? A. At full build-out of Bucking Horse, including the apartments, there could be up to 5,000 vehicle trips per day on N.G. and about 2,400 on Miles House. While 5,000 trips per day seems high compared to the volumes you see today, the number is within the acceptable range for a collector street. For example, these volumes are found on West Stuart Street between Shields and Taft and on Manhattan south of Horsetooth. Also, we see these volumes on Clearview Street and Cherry Street. Note that Manhattan features a raised cross-walk near the school as a traffic calming device. 42. As you continue to analyze the traffic impacts, I urge the applicant’s consultant and the City Traffic Engineer to keep in mind that our clubhouse and pool are essentially in the median of a collector street (soon to have 5,000 vehicle trips per day). A. We are aware of this unusual condition. 43. How many trips are generated by the apartments? A. We estimate that based on the unit count, between 2,000 and 2,200 vehicle trips per day generated by the apartments. 166 Attachment 5 8 44. Will the City be installing a southbound Timberline left turn onto Blackbird? This will help keep Jessup Farm traffic out of the neighborhood in front of the townhomes. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Yes, as part of the larger Timberline / Prospect capital improvement project, the existing median will be cut back to allow a southbound left-in turn onto Blackbird. But please note, however, that left turn out movements from Blackbird onto Timberline will not be permitted. This project will be in 2016. 45. We have a problem at the Timberline / Prospect intersection. There needs to be a No U-Turn sign that prevents northbound traffic on Timberline from doing a u- turn to go back south on Timberline. This u-turn conflicts with cars going east on Timberline wanting to make a right turn to go south on Timberline. I’ve seen some close calls near misses that could be prevented. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Thank you for this comment and we will look into this. 46. I recommend that the project include a children’s playground so the apartments will attract families. A. Thank you for this suggestion. 167 Attachment 6 168 Attachment 6 169 Attachment 6 170 Attachment 6 171 Attachment 6 172 Attachment 6 173 Attachment 6 174 Attachment 6 175 Attachment 7 From: Andrea Wotan [mailto:andreawotan@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 12:26 PM To: Ted Shepard Cc: Dorothy Wotan; Leo Wotan Subject: Concern about multi-family proposal in Buckinghorse Dear Ted, I am Andrea Wotan, owner of 2169 Nancy Gray Avenue. We just spoke over the telephone. I want to thank you for taking the time to thoroughly answer my questions and provide me with a better understanding of the proposed multi-family project in Buckinghorse subdivision. It sounds like the city planners and engineers have carefully reviewed the proposal and feel comfortable with it. Despite this fact, I want to express concern, as an owner of a home on Nancy Gray Avenue, that adding 500+ cars to the single lane roadway of Nancy Gray will significantly increase car noise, congestion, pollution from car exhaust, and danger to pedestrians on this street. One of the primary reasons I purchased my home was that it was located in a relatively quiet, charming neighborhood far enough from a major roadway (Timberline) to enable myself and renters I may have to peacefully enjoy the home. I am concerned that this right to peaceful enjoyment of my home may be compromised by adding so many additional cars to Nancy Gray Avenue and may even result in traffic jams getting into and out of Buckinghorse. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration and passing them on to the appropriate deciding bodies. Sincerely, Andrea Wotan 176 A B A A B B Bucking Horse Park Natural Open Space and Trail System 38’ 20’ Community Gardens & Picnic Area Pool, Hot Tub, Fire Pit & Outdoor Kitchen Parallel Parking (typical) Diagonal Parking (typical) Filing 3 SF Lots Filing 2 SF Lots Lusitano Lane (S.L.P.D.) Calabrese Street (S.L.P.D) Analusian Street (S.L.P.D.) Trash/Recycling Enclosure (typical) Bucking Horse Trail Bike Parking (typical) Garage with Storage Lockers (typical) D C C C C C C C C 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios January 2016 0 60 120 180’ Apartment Complex Master 144 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) fields, from long-term living in close proximity to power lines for example, to a higher rate of childhood leukaemia, which is a rare blood cancer. This correlation has neither been explained nor supported by animal and cellular studies. So far, research findings were not able to find a possible mechanism to explain this association. More research is needed to confirm or exclude a possible causal association.  CAN SOME PEOPLE BE ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE TO EMF? Some people attribute symptoms such as headache, sleep disturbance and fatigue to EMF exposure. While their health concerns are valid, there is for the moment no conclusive scientific evidence that any of their symptoms are caused by exposure to EMF.  IS EXPOSURE TO EMF CONTINUALLY INCREASING? Not necessarily. While the number of sources is increasing, new telephones, appliances and other EMF sources can emit much lower levels of EMFs than earlier models. This could mean that the amount of exposure could actually be decreasing. However, it is evident that overall exposure depends on one’s lifestyle and location.  WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES’ VIEW IN SUMMARY? The Scientific Committees do not conduct scientific research, but review all relevant scientific data, carrying out metadata analyses to put forth an opinion on various topics pertaining to public health. Thorough examination of all pertinent, recent data has not produced any conclusive evidence about EMF being dangerous, which is reassuring. However, further research should be conducted, particularly as pertains to very long-term exposure and potential risks of exposure to multiple sources. This opinion is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_ committees/emerging/opinions/ index_en.htm This fact sheet is based on the opinion of the independent Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR): «Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)». March, 2015 Attachment 7 104 EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 351.25' 342.20' PERVIOUS PAVERS LOADING Fort Collins, CO A SCALE SOUTH : ELEVATION 3/32"=1'-0" (TYP. ALL DWG's THIS SHEET U.O.N.) B SCALE NORTH : ELEVATION 3/32"=1'-0" (TYP. ALL DWG's THIS SHEET U.O.N.) C EAST SCALE : ELEVATION 3/32"=1'-0" (TYP. ALL DWG's THIS SHEET U.O.N.) D WEST SCALE : ELEVATION 3/32"=1'-0" (TYP. ALL DWG's THIS SHEET U.O.N.) KEYPLAN A D C B ZEIGLER ROAD 1 = ARCH. COMP. 25 YEAR COLOR: TIMBERLINE - 'HICKORY' ROOF 2 3 4 5 7 8 KEY NOTES/ COLORS SIDING WINDOW 6 = CEMENT BOARD SIDING (HORIZ. - 7" REVEAL) MFR: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7045 'INTELLECTURAL GRAY' SIDING SIDING TRIM = CEMENT BOARD SIDING (HORIZ. - 4" REVEAL) MFR: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7406 'ANONYMOUS' = CEMENT BOARD PANEL SYSTEM MFR: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7046 'ANONYMOUS' TRIM = TRIM BOARD - CORNER BOARD COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7068 'GRIZZLE GRAY' FASCIA = VINYL FRAMED INSULATED WINDOW W/ TRIM COLOR: TBD = 2X8 FASCIA W/ CONT. GUTTER COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAM 7068 'GRIZZLE GRAY' = TRIM BOARD - BELLY BAND COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7068 'GRIZZLE GRAY' ROCK CREEK DRIVE 9 STONE = STONE MFR: ELDORADO STONE COLOR: MOONLIGHT ROUGH CUT 10 PTAC = PTAC COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING COLOR, TYP. 11 PTAC = WOOD COLUMN, CEDAR COLOR: STAIN TBD 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 9 9 9 9 10 9 9 9 9 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 24" WIDE. 2 x 6 PTDF STUDS AT16" OC. STONE VENEER PREPARE SOIL UNDER FOOTING PER SOILS REPORT PATIO SLAB 4" CONC. SLAB w/ #4 BARS 48" O.C. E/W SIDING TO MATCH BUILDING 4" OF FREE-DRAINING VDCT NO. 57 AGGREGATE OR EQUAL SCALE: SCREEN WALL 1/2" = 1'-0" P:/DON HARRIS/CO-FORT COLLINS/DETAILS/02870031 24" HIGH EARTH BERM AT PATIO SCREEN WALLS DBL. 2 x 6 PTDF TOP PLATE 2 x 6 PTDF SILL PLATE 8" CONC BLOCK STEM WALL w/ 2 #4 BARS CONT. AT 18" OC AND #4 BARS VERTICAL AT 24" OC 2 x 6 CEDAR TRIM 26 GA ANODIZED METAL FLASHING o/ 2 x PTDF CAP 2 3 4 3 3 SCALE: AS NOTED DATE: 18 Nov. 2015 (SHOWN WITHOUT SCREEN WALL) (SHOWN WITHOUT SCREEN WALL) 25 SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN: BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: PRIVATE SUITES: 7,440 SF SEMI‐PRIVATE SUITES: 9,920 SF TOTAL SUITES: 17,360 SF TOTAL AREA: 38,303 SF ACTIVE RECREATION USE AREA: COURTYARDS: 4,792 SF ENCLOSED YARDS: 3,608 SF TOTAL AREA: 8,400 SF 24 UNLESS WHERE OTHERWISE LABELED FOR GRAVEL MULCH. 3. TREES DO NOT CURRENTLY EXIST ON THE SITE. REFER TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN IN THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S DRAWING SET. 4. INSTALL 4" STEEL EDGING BETWEEN LAWN AND ALL PLANTING BEDS AND BETWEEN BARK AND GRAVEL MULCHED AREAS. 5. REFER TO SHEET L2 FOR PLANTING LEGEND, DETAILS AND NOTES. 6. REFER TO SHEET L3 FOR HYDROZONE PLAN AND WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS. 7. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING PLANS. 8. ALL TREES ARE SELECTED FROM THE C.S.U. "FRONT RANGE TREE RECOMMENDATION LIST AND ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE SELECTED FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANT LIST UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. STREET TREE NOTE A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAI NED FROM THE CI TY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED I N THE PUBLI C RI GHT- OF- WAY. THIS I NCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SI DEWALK AND CURB, MEDI ANS AND OTHER CI TY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECI ES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAI N THIS PERMIT I S A VI OLATI ON OF THE CI TY OF FORT COLLI NS CODE SUBJECT TO CI TATI ON ︵ SECTI ON 27-31 ︶ AND MAY ALSO RESULT I N REPLACI NG OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFI CATE OF OCCUPANCY. Site Landscape Area Site Area: 145,364 s.f. (3.32 ac) Landscape area provided: 53,928 s.f. (37.1%) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Parking Lot Area: 26,002 s.f. Interior landscape area required: 1,560 s.f. (6%) Interior landscape area provided: 4,238 s.f. (16.3%) Canopy Tree Requirement: 1 Canopy tree / 150 s.f. of required interior landscape area Canopy trees required: 1,560 s.f. / 150 s.f.= 10 trees Canopy trees provided: 10 trees CT- Indicates Parking Lot Canopy Tree LANDSCAPE DESIGN STATEMENT Design Parameters:  Provide a pleasing and safe living environment for future Memory Care residents. Plant materials were selected for sensory stimulation, including familiar plants which may have been grown in a home garden and which are safe and non-toxic.  Plants were selected for hardiness and for reasonable maintenance requirements. The majority of the planting area (58%) consist of low and very low water use hydrozones, and lawn areas have been confined to areas of high visual impact to reduce water consumption.  Plants are grouped and planted in masses for a more natural appearance on the perimeter of the building from the public view. The plant masses consist of plants with similar cultural requirements grouped in specific hydrozones. Planting within the interior courtyards have a more residential theme to lend a sense of familiarity to the residents. Overall landscaping was designed to meet requirements while maintaining key view corridors to the building which is important to the Owner. The plant list is comprised of plants almost exclusively from the City of Fort Collins Plant List.  Plant materials are selected and placed to maintain visibility from inside the building for staff to outdoor use areas and for viewing from resident's private windows to the garden areas. Screening has been provided at the service area and low screening at the parking area. Coniferous trees were placed largely to not cast shade onto paved areas.  Stormwater collection and management are designed by others. All stormwater will be collected from building downspouts and catch basins and conveyed either directly or through treatment swales to the two detention pond facilities at the front of the site. Areas have been provided along the paved areas for snow storage. Spreading shrubs and ground covers with vigorous root systems and in sufficient quantity are provided to bind the soil and reduce potential erosion. A 3" mulch layer will be used in all planting beds to reduce erosion, reduce evaporation and to help prevent weed growth.  An automatic, permanent irrigation system utilizing SMART Technology shall be installed providing 100% coverage to all planted areas. The irrigation system will utilize low-volume components or drip irrigation for all trees, shrubs, grasses and perennials wherever feasible. Overhead irrigation will be limited to lawn areas and pop-up heads shall be installed with low-angle, low-precipitation rate nozzles placed and adjusted to prevent over-throw onto paved surfaces. Fort Collins, CO L1-LANDSCAPE PLAN B R I A N D . L I N D Original Date of Licensure 9 9 9 10/01/2012 40'-0" 40'-0" SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 10 20 40 60 DATE: 18 November 2015 rev. 12 January 2016 23