Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/2016 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 May 12, 2016 Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart 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 May 12, 2016 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft April 7, 2016, P&Z Hearing Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the April 7, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for the I-25/SH 392 – Corridor Activity Center Design Standards PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item consists of enhanced landscape design standards within the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center area to address the impacts of new development for the west side of the Interchanged. The proposed Land Use Code changes are needed to be consistent with new design standards for Windsor east of the Interchange. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Agenda 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 April 7, 2016 3. Fort Collins Emergency Center PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a consideration of a project Development Plan to construct a freestanding emergency room located at 4858 S. College Avenue on a 1.15 acre vacant lot in the General Commercial (G-C) zone district. The site will be developed as a 1- story, 8,000 square foot building with 30 parking spaces. Open space will be preserved along the eastern one-third of the lot for drainage and to accommodate a future access circulator road serving businesses along the South College Avenue Frontage Road. APPLICANT: Jerry Davidson Perception Design Group, Inc. 6901 S. Pierce St., Suite 350 Littleton, CO 80218 4. Salud Family Health Center Overall Development Plan – ODP#150003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) located at 1830 Laporte Avenue. The site is approximately 23 acres, including 12.5 acres within the L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district and 10.5 acres within the C-L Limited Commercial zone district. The ODP shows potential future uses for the site, street and trail connections to adjoining properties, conceptual drainage and utilities, and general locations of habitat buffers. The plan divides the site into six future development areas. Lot four is proposed to be the final location for the Salud Family Health Center. Final uses and final design for all lost shall be determined by separate reviews and approvals. APPLICANT: Stephanie van Dyken Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO. 80621 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. River District Block Eight, Mixed-Use Development PDP#140016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a mixed-use project consisting of two buildings located at the southeast corner of Linden and Willow Streets. Building One would face linden Street, be two stories in height and contain 10,251 square feet. This building includes a standard restaurant (2,271 square feet) and various ancillary functions, such as tasting room and retail sales. Building Two would be along Willow Street, range in height between three and four stories and would contain 32,874 square feet for the distilling operation. Offices would be divided between both buildings The development includes a 95-foot-high water tower, grain silos, two courtyards, outdoor patio dining and a second floor bridge connecting the two buildings. The site is 1.16 acres and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 April 7, 2016 APPLICANT: 360 Linden, LLC c/o Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 6. Lake Street Apartments PDP#160007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a five-story, multi-family apartment building consisting of 102 dwelling units. The project consists of demolition and re-development of an existing house at 801 West Lake Street. There would be 388 total bedrooms arranged in a mix of bedrooms ranging from two to five bedrooms per unit. Leasing would be by the unit, not by the bedroom. There would be 253 parking spaces divided among surface, under-structure at-grade and under-structure below- grade. The project includes 403 bicycle parking spaces, clubhouse, indoor amenities, pool and an outdoor courtyard and deck. The site is 2.45 acres and zoned High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N). APPLICANT: Student Housing CSU-LLC c/o Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 7. Downtown Parking Community Dialogue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: During the 2-15-16 BFO process, Parking Services proposed to pilot an on-street paid parking program. At that time, City Council’s perspective was that additional public outreach was necessary, so funding was limited to a community dialogue aimed at exploring the merits of various parking management strategies. The Community dialogue has focused on strategies to achieve the following objectives as identified in the early phases of the Downtown Plan and the 2013 Parking Plan: • Increase the availability, ease of access to, and turnover of on-street parking; • Develop a parking management system that is supportive of businesses, neighborhoods, and visitors; • Provide and communicate a variety of options for parking and for traveling to and around Downtown; • Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to reduce parking demand; and • Identify a sustainable funding source for future access and transportation infrastructure investment. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft April 7, 2016, P&Z Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the April 7, 2016, Planning and Zoning hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 7, 2016, P&Z Minutes (DOC) 4 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 April 7, 2016 Vice Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Schmidt, Holland, Hanson, Shepard, Virata, Frickey, Everette, and Cosmas 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: • 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 and Zoning Board Minutes 5 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience, noting that a request has been made for a presentation of the E. Prospect at Boxelder Creek Annexation and Zoning project. In addition, the Mountain’s Edge Annexation and Zoning has been moved to the discussion agenda. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from March 8, 2016, P&Z Hearing 2. E. Prospect at Boxelder Creek Annexation and Zoning 3. Various Revisions to the Land Use Code Relating to Dust Prevention and Control 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. Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of the E. Prospect at Boxelder Creek Annexation and Zoning project. The applicants were not present to contribute at this time. Roger Hageman, 1809 South County Road 5, asked several questions regarding the boundary parameters of the annexation and what the zoning will be for this property; Chief Planner Shepard and Planning Director Gloss answered these questions, and Mr. Hageman indicated he was satisfied with their answers. No further presentation was requested. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the April 7, 2016, Consent agenda as amended. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. Mountain’s Edge Annexation and Zoning #ANX160002 5. Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center #MJA150006 6 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 3 Project: Mountain’s Edge Annexation and Zoning #ANX160002 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 18.52 acres located at the northeast corner of West Drake Road and South Overland Trail. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The parcel currently consists of one single-family home. The parcel is west of the Brown Farm Subdivision and south of the drive-in movie theater. In accordance with the City Plan’s Structure Plan Map, the requested zoning for this annexation is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave an overview of the highlights of this item, including the recommendation being made by Staff. He confirmed that there is no land development application at the present time. Jeff Mark, representing the Landis Company, a real estate, investment, and development company, also gave a short presentation. Public Input Nathan Hammer, 2435 Compass Court, asked whether there is a minimum green belt distance that must be established between neighborhoods. He also asked about the City plan to prevent flooding from the nearby natural creeks. Michael Ann Comon, 2308 Stover Circle, thinks this neighborhood should be zoned residential instead of light mixed-use; she also has a concern about the traffic issues that accompany this type of zoning. Melissa Stoukle, 2512 Yorkshire Street, asked the Board to consider the intersection in question with respect to bicyclists, pedestrians, and the projected traffic increase. She is concerned that the development may ultimately be multi-family properties rather than just single-family buildings, which could have a detrimental effect on property values. Kelly Reasoner, 2442 Yorkshire Street, has a concern about the intersection of Drake and Overland, the associated sidewalks, and flood control with respect to the gullies and drainage points. He would like to know what the projected population would be, how the roads will connect, and the proposed zoning. Angela Kosek, 2412 Compass Court, asked where the development access areas would be, and she expressed concern about the possible multi-family dwellings being proposed and the effect on housing values. Stacey Phillips, 3036 Garrett Drive, has a concern about the traffic flow coming from the drive-in theater and from Hughes Stadium in addition to the maintenance of property values. Staff Response Mr. Mark responded to some of the citizen comments by saying that, while the development is still being formulated, he is interested to working closely with the residents. His intention is to build only residences, and he wants to ensure traffic and flooding issues will be addressed and will conform to City standards. Chief Planner Shepard added that the citizen issues raised pertain to land development, so it is difficult to address some of these now, as the application has not been developed at this time. Standard land 7 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 4 development procedures will be followed, and the Land Use Codes (LUC) will be applied. He also explained why this parcel has been zoned Low Density Mixed-Use (land on arterials are typically zoned in this manner). He reviewed land transition and buffering, which is dependent on the size of the lot and the number of families allowed. Board Questions Member Hobbs asked whether the property would be developed even if it weren’t annexed into the City of Fort Collins. Chief Planner Shepard confirmed that, if the City chose not to annex it, it would then be eligible for development by Larimer County. He expects the growth within the Urban Management Area to eventually urbanize, which will ensure better services for residents. Vice Chair Hart asked about whether the Hughes Stadium property would move into the private sector at some point and whether there could be imminent changes to surrounding properties and their impact on this project. Planning Director Gloss pointed out that the stadium is not within the Growth Management Area, so its future is unclear. Chief Planner Shepard said the intersection will be improved as development occurs. More discussion continued regarding the number of acres allowed for this zoning type and how the RL zone functions. Chief Planner Shepard explained the procedures followed by the Traffic Operations department, including their traffic studies and the specific criteria required. He mentioned other resources: the online link, which provides an explanation of the development review process, and our Neighborhood Liaison, Sarah Burnett, who is available to meet with neighborhood groups. Vice Chair Hart also asked the difference between gross and net acreage; Chief Planner Shepard explained the items that are excluded from gross acreage. He also explained the reasons behind the proposed density. Board Deliberation Member Hart feels this annexation is appropriate and expected; he stated his issues with the RL designation, and he is looking for a good transition between properties. Member Hobbs feels that the only other alternative would be to allow this property to become a County development; therefore, he feels the neighborhood will be better served by allowing the City of Fort Collins to annex it. Member Carpenter feels this annexation is appropriate also, and she encouraged continuous involvement. Chair Kirkpatrick is in support and agrees that the zoning is proper. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Mountain’s Edge Annexation and Zoning, ANX#160002, and place this property into the LMN zone district; further, he recommended that the Fort Collins City Council place the property in the residential neighborhood sign district, based on the findings of fact on page 3 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Project: Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center #MJA150006 Project Description: This is a 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. The proposed plan reflects the major components outlined in the original master plan, which was approved in 2001. At that time, the master plan included a number of future components, which are 8 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 5 now planned in detail with this amended plan. Specifically, the amended components that are shown with these proposed plans include: • expanded garden areas including – Plant Select Garden, Fragrance Garden, • Rose Garden, Moon Garden, Undaunted Garden, Prairie Garden, Bird Garden, and Foothills Garden; • a stage structure and sound walls for outdoor performances; • modified circulation through the gardens and to the existing Spring Creek Trail; • a parking area for approximately 150 bikes; • small arbor structures at various gardens and one larger structure in the Undaunted Garden; and • operational and management standards for events. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe recused himself due to a conflict of interest; Senior City Attorney Schmidt sat in for him for this project. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave some updates and highlights of this project, including the reason for the major amendment being proposed, the additional neighborhood outreach performed, and the concerns that were previously addressed. He reviewed the various outreach efforts and mediation procedures performed, polling that was done, comments received, and the sound mitigation plan. He showed some slides to indicate the changes to the sound model that were made since the last presentation and how the mitigation has been redesigned. He reviewed the more gradual sound transition, the colors proposed, the landscaping proposed to fill gaps, and details regarding the floodplain regulations and risks. He explained the restrictions tied to the Gardens proposal, the changes that have been made, and the possibility of another amendment process. Top neighborhood concerns: • Sound • Parking • Trespassing/Loitering • Sound and scope • Time limitations to address noise and sound • General enforcement concerns Michelle Provasnik, Director of the Gardens at Spring Creek, recapped the history of this proposed project and the changes that were made since the first presentation last December 2015. The size of the proposed bandstand has increased to 1,400; capacity has increased to 1,500; and the number of concerts would be limited to 8 per year. Her goal has been to establish a maximum capacity to meet the community’s demand while maintaining the character of the community. She showed diagrams of the Great Lawn and how the maximum numbers would look. She also discussed the neighborhood outreach recently performed and how input has been considered and developed into additional solutions. She discussed forming a Neighborhood Advisory Committee and a Neighborhood Plan for dates, parking, etc. She is also proposing a neighbor hotline for real-time issues. Her team has explored several different sound systems; some were cost-prohibitive (for ongoing maintenance and calibration). An additional sound wall would be built to buffer crowd noise and reduce noise level at the property lines (it will have conifers covering it during the summer and will be a neutral color for winter). She confirmed that this project will meet the sound ordinance (< 55 sound decibels). All concerts will end by 8pm, and guests 9 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 6 will be exit the property by 9pm. In addition, all events will be ticketed to control capacity. They do not plan to rent the facility for other concert events. They will ensure there is no parking in neighborhoods during events by providing information on available parking, working with partners to finalize parking strategy, and work with the Advisory Committee on this. Regarding the possibility of loitering, she said that their gates would open early before the show, and there would be security along the trail. In addition, Lilac Park will be addressed by the City’s Park Planning Department, including upcoming neighborhood outreach for planning purposes. Secretary Cosmas reported that 4 emails in support of this major amendment had been received, and 1 email opposing the increase of allowed numbers for events on the Great Lawn. Public Input Mary Kopco, 2126 Friar Tuck Court, is the Executive Director of the Fort Collins Symphony, and she supports this project and praised it for being well thought-out and planned. Larry Kendall, 4007 Harbor Walk Lane, supports this project, and believes the prior concerns have been addressed. He stated that this is another example of how the City is keeping Fort Collins great. Jesse Eastman, 2625 Meadowlark Avenue, is on the Board of Directors of Gardens on Spring Creek and is in favor of this project. He further stated that this plan fits well with the City’s Master Plan, as it is centrally located in mid-town, is the only facility located in this area, and will provide enhancement through arts and botany. Barbara Albert, 603 Gilgalad Way, has concerns that issues are address by City Staff and may not be properly communicated – she feels that all of the concessions should be made part of the plans and notes. She is also concerned about the placement of the wall (that it should be on the Great Lawn rather than not next to the neighborhood properties. Dulcie Willis, 219 N. Overland Trail, supports the project, believes this project represents a good compromise between the various parties involved and that this plan is a good representation of City goals by building community through arts and culture. Bruce Freestone, 701 Pear Street, one of the cofounders of Open Stage Theatre Company, supports this proposal and feels that the community engagement fostered by these outdoor events has been key. Connie Hanrahan, 8334 Coeur D’Alene Drive, supports this project for its educational possibilities and for the botanical benefits. She cited the success of the Lagoon concerts at CSU and stated that there have not been any issues with these events. Stacey Poncelow, 620 Gilgalad Way, opposed this project, and she said that many neighbors did not receive notification of the proposed wall. She is concerned with potential flood issues concerning the proposed wall and also any amplified performances other than concerts. Justin Larson, 424 Stover Street, supports this project and thinks this is an intuitive project; he feels the efforts to control the sound have been excellent. Allison Marshall, 626 Gilgalad Way, opposes this project and would like to see all of the concessions in writing. She has concerns about the future of Lilac Park and the floodplain issues; she would like to see a plan for Lilac Park with consideration to the floodplain limitations. 10 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 7 Steve Newman, 2312 Hampshire Court, supports this project, saying he feels this area provides an excellent teaching tool for his students, and these cultural events enhance the overall CSU experience. Kevin Barrier, 602 Gilgalad Way, opposes this project, saying he is concerned with the zoning proposed for the Lilac Park area. He feels that this project does not support the horticulture and education of the Gardens. He also cited past events when flood water created huge issues in the neighborhood. Jeff Cullers, 2427 Maple Hill Drive, supports this project. He is on the Board for Friends of the Gardens and he feels that this is very special lifestyle project for Fort Collins. Ed Peyronnin, 632 Gilgalad, supports the Gardens and music but does not support this project. He believes that the original attendance numbers proposed were adequate, but he is now concerned with the currently proposed numbers. He also has a concern with the lack of toilet facilities. The Board recessed at 8:00pm – they reconvened at 8:10pm. Board Questions and Staff Response Ms. Provasnik addressed several citizen concerns: • she stated that she is willing to put all items formally on the Plan (she was hoping to keep some flexibility by not detailing all items); and • she stated that the intent in putting up the wall was not meant to be punitive - a sound wall was found to improve the sound control. Planner Holland also addressed some of the concerns by saying: • the purpose of the proposed site plan notes was to have the vast majority of notes and conditions memorialized so that any changes to the Plan would require formal amendments as needed; and • the Plan would provide a framework for mitigation items (they are listed as general standards, like time limitations of events). Member Schneider asked if these items could be consolidated to reduce complexity and to avoid micro- managing the plan. Planner Holland confirmed that the document in question is in fact attached to the Plan. Member Carpenter suggested that changes are noted by Garden Staff and the Advisory Committee, so the neighborhood will be confident that changes will not be arbitrarily made without notice. Planner Holland agreed to this plan. He continued by explaining the adequacy of the distance from the event area to the sound and flood lines. He also confirmed that the mailings were sent to the proper neighborhood residents, that there was no returned mail, and how the City Staff have tried to be thorough with these mailings. He discussed the plans for Lilac Park, which will not be finalized until the other surrounding projects are confirmed. Heidi Hanson, Flood Plain Management, responded to the flood concerns by saying how the flood flow areas have been mitigated since the last big flood, which now meets the City of Fort Collins flood regulations. Regarding the 500-year flood discussions, there isn’t enough information to indicate potential impacts at this time. The proposed wall is not in the flood plain and would not have any effect on flood patterns. Groundwater is not part of the flood plain review, so that is not being considered at this time. Play structures within Lilac Park should be allowed in the future. Permanent toilets are available in the main building and adjacent to the main entrance, which they have found to be sufficient during past events. Planner Holland discussed the landscaping measures to provide buffering for sound in conjunction with the proposed wall. Craig Russell, architect for Russell+Mills, also addressed this question by saying that 11 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 8 an unlimited number of trees could be established, but the walls will also be treated with a sound- absorption material to enhance the reduction of sound. The height of the wall depends on the proximity to the stage (closer to the stage, the higher the wall). Ben Bridgewater, Sound Engineer, stated that the goal was to minimize the impact of the wall (the shorter the better). Member Hansen inquired about the acoustics analysis, and Mr. Bridgewater explained this is based on code interpretation. Member Hobbs questioned the proposal of building a wall relative to the sound monitoring devices. Planner Holland responded that the wall is needed to be in compliance with the LUC at the Gardens property line. More discussion followed on the acceptable sound levels, how to maintain them at the proper levels, why the project has changed since the original presentation to now require a sound wall, and the differences between an HOA entity and a private resident. Other types of walls were discussed, but none appear to be feasible. Other locations were also explored, but any movement will impact both visual and auditory performance. Board Deliberation Member Hart stated that he was under the impression that more outreach was needed after the first hearing; he is concerned that there were subsequent changes made to the overall plan. Member Carpenter said that her only issue now is the newly-proposed wall; she feels that it will be important to properly screen the wall. She also wants to ensure that changes are supported by the community. Member Hansen feels that the wall will cause a disconnect within the community, and he would like the proposed wall to be eliminated from the plan. Senior Assistant Attorney Schmidt stated that the LUC indicates that, if noise source is located on public property, noise will be measured at the property line. Member Hobbs supports the current plan without the inclusion of the wall proposal. Member Hansen added that he feels that the commitment to sound mitigation has been excellent. Member Schneider agreed but questions whether the wall will enable better performances; he acknowledged that the crowd noise may not be mitigated. Member Heinz agreed that the wall detracts from the neighborhood and prefers the monitoring at the origin of the noise. Member Hart agreed with the other Board members. There was more discussion of the noise impacts made only by crowds. Chair Kirkpatrick asked what the impact would be if the proposed wall was discontinued. Planner Holland responded that the project will not meet City code without the wall. Board members appear to be uncomfortable approving this project with this new addition to the project. Ms. Provasnik is not in favor of the wall; however, the design will blend well into the Gardens décor. Compliance with City codes was further discussed. Ms. Provasnik expressed her concern that, without the wall, the sound decibels would have to be significantly lowered, which could significantly impact the event experience. Planner Holland suggested that options could still be developed to ensure code compliance while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Ms. Provasnik is willing to continue working on solutions. Director Gloss added that nominal changes to the site plan could be made that would not alter the intent of the approval; changes should be gauged for materiality. Other solutions were also discussed. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the major amendment for the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, #MJA150006, based on the findings of fact on page 11 of the staff report, adding that the landscape screening of the wall be re-examined and that all of the items in the Summary of Neighborhood Concerns and Plan Changes be addressed by Garden staff and the Neighborhood Advisory Committee. Member Hart seconded the motion. More discussion continued around the LUC application with consideration to the sound wall and the sound mitigation. A friendly amendment was suggested to approve this project without the wall initially, with the caveat that the operation 12 Planning & Zoning Board April 7, 2016 Page 9 complies with the City code and, and, after a period of operation, they may want to re-evaluate the operation by adding the wall, which could pose a separate amendment. Planner Holland suggested an Administrative Interpretation that the wall isn’t needed at some future time. Member Schneider made a friendly amendment to approve this project as presented without the sound mitigation wall. Member Hobbs seconded. After more discussion, Member Hobbs withdrew his friendly amendment. The Board members expressed concerns with approving this project with the current alterations. The Board feels that a friendly amendment is appropriate to allow the applicants to make refinements to the final design, which could also be scrutinized later through an Administrative Interpretation within compliance with the LUC. Senior Assistant Attorney Schmidt counselled the Board against giving up their responsibility to evaluate the plan details. The Board decided the best solution would be to approve the project as it is presented with amendments, if necessary. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the Alternate Review process (there is no longer an appeal process on City-initiated projects); this new process would be initiated by a Council member, and the decision made on this project would then be up for discussion. At that time, there would be a legislative determination whether to move forward with the project in question. Chair Kirkpatrick reviewed the motion still on the table, without the friendly amendment. Vote: 3:4 with Hobbs, Hanson, Heinz, and Schneider dissenting. The motion did not pass. There was more discussion regarding the impact of the newly-proposed sound wall. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, #MJA150006, based on the findings of fact on page 11 of the staff report, to include the amendment on Attachment 3 along with the removal of the sound mitigation wall. The Board has also imposed two conditions for approval: 1.) that the general standards related to time limitations, sound monitoring, and security and safety requirements become part of the overall plan, and 2.) that the proposal to build a sound wall be withdrawn. Member Hansen seconded. More discussion continued regarding the compatibility and ultimate inclusion of the sound wall. In addition, they discussed the criteria for future discussions with this Board. Ms. Provasnik conceded that, if the project is approved without the sound wall, she will retain the option of returning to the Board at such time as she feels the wall is necessary for performance enhancement. Vote: 7:0. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair 13 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE FOR THE I-25/SH 392 - CORRIDOR ACTIVITY CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item consists of enhanced landscape design standards within the I- 25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center area to address the impacts of new development for the west side of the Interchange. The proposed Land Use Code changes are needed to be consistent with new design standards for Windsor east of the Interchange. APPLICANT / OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council regarding an Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to design standards for the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center, specifically for the Fort Collins CAC area located west of I-25. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item consists of enhanced landscape design standards within the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center area to address the impacts of new development, west of the Interchange. Ordinance , 2016 includes revisions and additions to Article Three of the Land Use Code for design standards for the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center. BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION: In 2010, recognizing that the I-25/392 Interchange is an important gateway feature for Fort Collins and Windsor, a Corridor Activity Center (CAC) overlay zone district was created. The CAC area is defined to include zoning boundaries within the immediate area surrounding the Interchange (see Map attached). The CAC established land use and gateway design standards to complement and enhance the 14 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 implementation of the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan (Regional Plan), with the District added to the Land Use Codes of each community. As part of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Town, both Land Use Codes were amended in order to implement the vision and establish a new list of permitted land uses, and establish design standards for this joint planning area. Since the completion of the I-25/SH 392 Interchange project, the Town of Windsor and City of Fort Collins have continued to coordinate development activity within the CAC area. In response to a recent development proposal in Windsor, both jurisdictions have been developing an amendment to the IGA that amends the Permitted Use list, applicable development standards and revenue-sharing within the CAC. The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor are in the process of amending the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/Highway 392 Interchange. An amendment to the IGA includes recommendations from the Windsor Planning Commission and Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, and adoption by the Windsor Town Board and Fort Collins City Council. The proposed amendments to this IGA will be part of a separate action. In an effort to ensure a high quality of site, landscape and building design, the Town and City are considering the adoption of additional standards for future development within the CAC to be consistent for both sides of the Interchange CAC area. The Town of Windsor is in the process of amending their Land Use Code to incorporate new design standards within the Corridor Activity Center, add new definitions and permitted land uses, and revise the revenue sharing approach. This item pertains to proposed new Land Use Code design standards for the CAC area only. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Town of Windsor and City of Fort Collins hosted the following joint meetings as part of the process to consider potential amendments to the I-25 SH 392 IGA: 2015: 11/25/15 Joint Elected Officials meeting 12/7/15 Joint staff meeting 2016: 1/21/16 Open House Meeting in Windsor 4/1/16 Windsor Town Board Work Session 4/11/16 Windsor Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENTS: 1. Citizen Concerns 2. Ordinance 15 Attachment 2 Proposed Land Use Code Revisions – Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor Section 3.9.4(B) Problem Statement: The Town of Windsor has initiated changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins regarding future land development in the Corridor Activity Center. Staff has been tasked with revising its land development standards for this area in order to more closely align with the new standards that have been proposed by Windsor so that both sides of the Interstate Highway will develop in an equal fashion over time. The following revisions reflect this effort. Proposed Solution Overview: The proposed solution is to revise portions of Land Use Code Section 3.9 to be more consistent with the proposed revisions as offered by the Town of Windsor. Related Code Provisions: Section 3.9.4(B) Site Perimeter Landscaping Abutting the I-25 Right-of-Way. 3.9.4 - Landscaping Standards (B) Site Perimeter Landscaping Abutting the I-25 Right-of-Way. (1) Buffers abutting I-25. Developments with a site perimeter which is adjoining the I- 25 right-of-way shall provide a landscaped buffer of at least eighty (80) feet between the building or parking lot edge and the I-25 right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of informal clusters of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs planted in an offset pattern and shall consist of one (1) tree and ten (10) shrubs per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of frontage. (2) Berms. Berms greater than three (3) feet in height shall not be permitted adjoining the I-25 right-of-way if they block long-range views of mountains and open lands for motorists on I-25 (not including motorists on frontage roads or ramps). Notwithstanding, additional berm height may be required to screen the following areas visible to motorists on I-25: parking lots, drive-thru lanes, and service areas, including but not limited to, loading areas, service entrances, and trash and recycling enclosures. 16 Attachment 2 (3) Parking and Service Areas. When berms screening parking and service areas are less than five feet in height, berms and surrounding landscape areas shall be planted with a minimum of eight (8) trees and eight (8) shrubs per one-hundred (100) lineal feet. A minimum of 50% of the required trees shall be evergreens. (4) Additional Screening Elements. In conjunction with the buffering, landscaping and berms, additional elements allowed within the 80-foot buffer may include screen walls in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.9.8(A) (B) and (C). 17 From: Elaine Burritt To: Tom Leeson Cc: Cindy Cosmas; Laurie Kadrich; Cameron Gloss; Pete Wray Subject: Resident Concerns re: Enhanced Design Standards I-25/392 Date: Thursday, May 05, 2016 11:32:59 PM Mr. Leeson, I have sent the letter below to the Mayor and Councilmembers; I also wanted to share our concerns with Planning staff. May I ask you to share our letter also with the Planning and Zoning Board? Thank you, Elaine Burritt Car dealer representatives discussed design standards with Windsor planners as the enhanced design standards were developed; concessions and compromises have occurred. Residents from existing neighborhoods deserve a chance to ask for concessions, too, to maintain a favorable lifestyle and property values. We applaud Fort Collins and Windsor officials for wanting to create more stringent standards that would enhance the development that will occur in the CAC. We appreciate the detailed requirements that have been written into the standards regarding site design, building design and orientation, screening, lighting and noise. However, we need more consensus, including the residential homeowners’ perspective, on buffer, building height, signage, and retail. Buffer: We need at least an 80 foot buffer yard between our property line, and the start of retail. We are losing a lot of privacy and views and property values from this development. At least, give us some space. When conceptual plans were first presented by the Ripley Design firm, they showed a 50 foot buffer between Country Meadows and development, which we thought was not enough. We have lost some ground (literally) going from 50 feet to possibly 40 feet. Westgate Drive needs to be moved further west to allow for larger buffer yards. As neighboring homeowners, we would like to ask that you consider 80 feet as a minimum buffer yard. 80 feet is stated as the buffer from I-25, and we think that established residences that have been in existence for 20 years deserve equitable treatment with the same buffer of at least 80 feet. Landscaping near residents: We need a truly durable and sturdy solid fence to put at the edge of retail, to keep people, headlights, noise, and loose trash out of our back yards. These fences will help provide needed security and privacy. Berms should be created before the dealership construction begins, to help block the view of construction and help to mitigate dust and dirt. Landscaping should be started in the buffer area before construction begins, which will take a long time, and be disruptive to our home life. Landscaping needs to start with reasonably mature trees, shrubs and bushes, so they may actually perform their function immediately, without waiting 10 to 20 years for them to mature. Developers and retail owners should be required to replace dead trees and shrubs. Building Height: Building height limits need to be low and specified in the standards. Currently the maximum height restriction is 90 feet, which is ludicrous right next to existing family homes. Building heights close to 18 residences should be no higher than 30 feet. Auto dealership height needs to be no more than 50 feet high (which is the maximum height allowed at the Centerra Motorplex). Signage: Sign restrictions are not included in the “enhanced design standards”. So any huge, monstrous, LED signs will be grandfathered in when Windsor’s signage code is revised. The "Design Standards for Activity Centers" from the Feb 1st meeting prohibited signs included “flashing” signs. It did not prohibit LED signs. LED signs are excessively bright and their advertising constantly changes and should be prohibited. For example, see the sign at the RV Dealership just east of the Candlelight Playhouse in Johnstown. Even the LED sign at the Bud Center is blinding to drivers on I-25. Signs should not be visible from the neighborhoods, including signs along the freeway. Retail: The retail parcel, which Windsor really seems to want because they will not get any tax revenue from the auto dealers, will be right up against our backyards, and buildings could be built that are 9 stories. If this type of development happens, neighbors along the fence line will lose any sense of privacy and quality of life. The development has now been divided into 38.27 acres for auto dealerships and 14.54 for retail, or what Windsor planners call a "narrow developable parcel". A brewery, bars, restaurants, and multi-story hotels would be disruptive to existing residences, destroying our property values. They would generate minimal revenue compared to the economic devastation to our neighborhood. One of the stated purposes of Windsor’s CCP Design Criteria is “to integrate new development so that the transition to surrounding residential neighborhoods is accomplished sensitively.” Our homes are the single most important investment of our lives, and it’s where we all go to relax and recuperate from the normal stresses of daily life. We ask the decision-makers and planners to remember our neighborhoods and the 200 families that will be significantly impacted and changed by development of this area. Please remember the existing homeowners of Country Meadows and Country Farms by including standards and building requirements that will make it tolerable to continue to live in our homes. The CAC needs enhanced standards for residents, as well as for Auto Dealerships. These standards need to be specified now to protect our residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Donald and Elaine Burritt Country Meadows homeowners 7931 Bayside Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-690-4756 elaineburritt@gmail.com 19 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER STAFF Ryan Mounce, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan to construct a freestanding emergency room located at 4858 S College Avenue on a 1.15 acre vacant lot in the General Commercial (G-C) zone district. The site will be developed as a 1-story, 8,000 square foot building with 30 parking spaces. Open space will be preserved along the eastern one-third of the lot for drainage and to accommodate a future access circulator road serving businesses along the South College Avenue Frontage Road. APPLICANT: Jerry Davidson Perception Design Group, Inc. 6901 S. Pierce St., Suite 350 Littleton, CO 80128 OWNER: Colorado EC Land, LLC 3620 Whirestone Blvd. East Cedar Park, TX 78613 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds the proposed Fort Collins Emergency Center Project Development Plan complies with all 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. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21 General Commercial (G-C) of Article 4 - Districts. COMMENTS: 1. Background The project site was annexed into the City of Fort Collins in 1981 as part of the Fairway Estates Business Annexation. The site represents the last remaining vacant land along this segment of the College Avenue Frontage Road. Seven narrow lots currently exist on the project site and will be replatted into one lot as a part of this development proposal. The project site also falls within the study area of the South College Avenue US287 Access Control Plan. The access report anticipates the future elimination of the frontage road serving businesses along this stretch of College Avenue. In its place, a circulator road located along the back of each property would provide future access. Near the project vicinity are other commercial and office establishments and residential lots located to the east. Additional details on surrounding project zoning and land-use context can be found in the table below: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (G-C) Indoor Recreation, General Office, Veterinary Clinic South General Commercial (G-C) Vehicle Rental, Veterinary Clinic, General Office East Urban Estate (U-E) Large-lot Single Family Detached Residential West General Commercial (G-C) Vacant Land, Vehicle Sales, South Transit Center A zoning vicinity map is presented on the following page: 21 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 Map: Fort Collins Emergency Center Site & Zoning Vicinity Map 22 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - General Commercial (G-C), Division 4.21: The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.21(B)(2) - Permitted Uses A freestanding emergency room combines elements of both a medical clinic and a traditional hospital emergency room. Typical operations will most closely resemble an urgent care facility (medical office), but the emergency center also has the capability to receive patients by ambulance or to perform minor medical surgeries, although such circumstances are expected to be infrequent. Using a conservative approach, staff has processed this development application as a hospital in consideration of the proposal’s hospital-like elements, however infrequent they may occur. Hospitals are a permitted use in the G-C district, subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) review. B. Section 4.21(D) - Land Use Standards The proposed 1-story building complies with the maximum building height limit in the G-C district of 4-stories. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as detailed below. A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection The proposed landscaping plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of Land Use Code Division 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, with additional explanation for specific subsections below: 3.2.1(D) - Tree Planting Standards A mix of twelve deciduous and evergreen trees will be planted around the building, meeting tree stocking standards. No existing trees are located on-site requiring removal or mitigation. Tree plantings are emphasized around the building and in high- visibility areas and away from the eastern third of the lot where a future circulator road is anticipated. 3.2.1(D)(2) - Street Trees A combination of existing underground gas utilities, build-to line standards for the new structure, and construction of a new detached sidewalk located outside the public right-of-way create the need for an alternative street-tree planting arrangement. Four irregularly-spaced canopy shade trees will be planted behind a newly constructed detached sidewalk serving as street trees. After the anticipated removal of the South College Avenue Frontage Road, a new detached sidewalk and additional street trees will be installed closer to College Avenue. This proposal will also be contributing its local frontage improvement costs towards these ultimate improvements. 23 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 5 3.2.1(E)(2) - Landscape Area Treatment High-visibility areas of the site will be planted with a combination of trees, shrubs, and ornamental grasses with rock ground-cover. Landscaping elements are emphasized along the College Avenue frontage and along the parking lot perimeter. The eastern one third of the lot will be kept in a natural state with a native seed mix in the stormwater detention area and where an existing bridle path is located. 3.2.1(E)(4) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The required 6% parking lot interior landscaping standard is met with seven landscape islands interspersed throughout the vehicle use areas. In addition, the parking lot is broken-up into three distinct sections to reduce the effect of a large, contiguous area. 3.2.1(E)(5) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Within the required parking lot setback areas, regularly-spaced trees and shrubs will be installed to provide screening and block vehicle headlights. Although not located within a required landscape setback area, the eastern edge of the vehicle use area will be heavily landscaped with shrubs to provide an additional layer of screening and visual mitigation for neighbors to the east. The parking spaces and partial driveway on the north side of the site do not feature a landscaped setback consistent with provisions for developments utilizing a shared access and parking. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities Four weather-protected bicycle spaces are to be located near the front entrance under a large building entrance canopy, meeting Land Use Code standards for bicycle parking for a land-use of this size. C. Section 3.2.2(K) - Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces Parking requirements for the project were evaluated against the most similar type of land- use, medical office, as hospital parking requirements are based off the number of beds, and overnight stays are not anticipated as a part of the standalone emergency center. For medical office, parking requirements are 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet (minimum) to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (maximum). The proposed 8,000 square foot facility is providing 30 spaces, within the required range of 16-36 spaces. D. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting Site lighting will provide security illumination for building surrounds and the parking area. All light fixtures will comply with Land Use Code standards and will be fully shielded and down-directional. Light sources will use a lower color temperature range to reduce the perceived harshness of some types of LED lighting. Site lighting is also excluded from the eastern third of the property abutting residential lots to enhance project compatibility and reduce off-site lighting impacts. 24 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 6 E. Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures A trash and recycling enclosure is located on the north side of the parking area meeting Land Use Code requirements. The enclosure features a separate walk-in access, will be constructed of high-quality materials matching the principal building, and screened with landscaping. F. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features A small, unnamed irrigation ditch is located 5-to-10 feet east of the project site on the adjoining property. An ecological characterization study completed for this proposal determined no significant ecological resources were present or likely to be impacted by the proposal due to the small size of the ditch, infrequent running water, and its urban location. Although no habitat buffer zone is required, the portion of development site closest to the unnamed ditch will be left in a naturalistic state with native seed plantings. G. Section 3.5.1(C) - Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale At one-story tall and 8,000 square feet, the proposed building will be similar in size, height, bulk, mass, and scale to other adjacent buildings. Smaller single-family homes are located to the east, but are separated by an extensive evergreen screen along the eastern property line. The distance between the new building and the nearest home is also approximately 500-feet away. The building design includes varied roof elements, overhangs, a prominent entry-corner, and articulation to further define and break-up the building’s mass, meeting standards for this code section. H. Section 3.5.1(E) - Building Materials High-quality building materials will be used in the building design. Primary building materials include a banded sandstone and brick base with stucco and metal panels above. Metal canopies and glass are utilized to define building entrances. The primary building materials are similar to those used within the nearby commercial context along South College Avenue. I. Section 3.5.1(F) - Building Color Building colors will include a light stonework finish and neutral grays and earth-tones for the metal panels and stucco. These colors and finishes meet code standards facilitating blending with the nearby structures utilizing a similar palette. J. Section 3.5.3(C)(2) - Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings The front face of the proposed building is located 25-feet from the street right of way, consistent with standards that commercial and institutional buildings be located 10-25 feet from the right of way along an arterial street. K. Section 3.5.3(D) - Variation in Massing The building features multiple changes in materials, roof height, and recessing and 25 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 7 projecting building elements to achieve a variation in massing meeting this code section. L. Section 3.6.1(E) - Compliance with Access Control Plans The South College Avenue US287 Access Control Plan, last updated in 2002, calls for the removal of the existing frontage road east of College Avenue in front of the development site, and for future business access to take place via a circulator roadway along the rear of the property. This proposal complies with the access control plan by reserving space along the eastern property to accommodate the future circulator and dedicating new access and emergency access easements where the circulator is planned and connecting to the parking lot. M. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements The City’s Traffic Operations department has reviewed and accepted the project’s traffic memo demonstrating that level of service requirements for the area will continue to meet code standards. 4. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting for the project was held on October 15, 2015, and attended by a small group of neighbors and property owners close to the development site. Detailed meeting notes are attached to this staff report and a summary of key topics and concerns are presented below: • Topic / Concern: Potential impacts related to facility operations and design (e.g. ambulance noise, light pollution, screening, traffic and safety of the frontage road intersections). o Ambulance sirens are utilized for safety and very few ambulances are expected to deliver or pick-up patients to this facility. Other noises generated from the facility will have to meet City noise codes. o Due to requirements for the future circulator road and to enhance project compatibility, the eastern third of the lot will be left in a naturalistic state. No activity or site lighting are planned within this area, with the effect of creating a larger buffer area between the new building and the residential lots located to the east. o The project traffic study shows a relatively small increase in traffic generated by the facility and level of service for the area will continue to meet code standards. Based on their experience with other freestanding emergency rooms, the applicants indicated most of their patient visits occur during non-peak hours after 5pm. In addition, the frontage road described as awkward and unsafe during the neighborhood meeting will eventually be eliminated in lieu of the rear circulator roads, which will create a safer environment by moving the intersections further away from College Avenue. • Topic / Concern: Preserving the existing bridle path and concerns about stormwater and drainage. o The existing bridle path and easement will not be altered as part of the project and will be maintained in a similar condition as it currently exists with the replanting of a native seed mix. 26 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 8 o Project drainage has been reviewed by City stormwater staff based on current code standards which exceed the standards in place when other nearby projects originally developed. The project will maintain historic drainage patterns for projects to the north that drain through a drainage easement along the eastern property boundary. In addition, the proposed development will be constructing its own onsite water quality and detention facility and minimizing impervious area through the use of permeable pavers. Project drainage will eventually travel across the property to the south where an existing drainage easement exists and flows from this development site were anticipated. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Fort Collins Emergency Center Project Development Plan, PDP160001, Staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21 General Commercial District (G-C) of Article 4 - Districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve the Fort Collins Emergency Center, PDP160001, based on the findings of fact on page 7 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Statement of Planning Objectives (PDF) 2. Planning Drawing Set (PDF) 3. Utility Drawing Set (PDF) 4. Ecological Characterization Study (PDF) 5. Traffic Study (PDF) 6. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 7. Public Comment (PDF) 27 6901 South Pierce Street, Suite 350 Littleton, Colorado 80128 Voice 303-232-8088 Fax 303-232-5255 Statement of Planning Objectives for 4858 S. College Avenue Fort Collins Emergency Center: i) The Fort Collins Emergency Center meets City Plan Principles and Policies. The site is in conformance with CG zoning requirements. The building is placed adjacent to the street with no vehicle activity between the street and building. Parking is located on the side and rear of the building per City guidelines. ii) A natural habitat exists along the eastern property boundary. A bridle horse trail and open irrigation ditch are present. A natural vegetative buffer also runs along the eastern property boundary. This area is to remain undisturbed and buffered from vehicular activity by the detention pond. iii) There is no public open space dedicated with this project. Private landscape areas will be maintained by the property owner. iv) During the maximum shift, 6 employees will be present at the facility. v) The rational behind the site layout is dictated by the future circulation and access plan prepared by CDOT. The main site access is located along the south property line in conformance with the access plan. To accommodate the future road along the east property line, the detention facility is held outside the access easement. vi) No variances are requested. vii) Disturbance to natural habitat is limited by providing a buffer along the east property line. This buffer area represents the access easement reserved for the future road. viii) Neighborhood meeting concerns are addressed as follows: Questions, Comments & Responses: Question (Citizen): Will there be ambulances? Response (Applicant): The facility can take ambulances, although it is rare. Typically an ambulance would only bring in a patient by ambulance if they were very close to the facility. Question (Citizen): Who decides where the ambulance/patient goes? Response (Applicant): EMS decides and has protocols for all different types of situations. In part politics can also play a role. Hospitals generally try to control EMS traffic to their facilities. Question (Citizen): Will there be any overnight patients? Response (Applicant): We are an outpatient facility with ER-services. Some patients may stay for multiple hours and we can accommodate them. If a patient needs to be admitted, they would normally go to a hospital. Question (Citizen): How many trips per day will there be? 28 Statement of Planning Objectives 4858 S. College Avenue Fort Collins Emergency Center Page 2 of 4 Response (Applicant): Early on, there would only be a few trips per day. This model is new and with our business model we can be successful only seeing 5 or 6 patients a day. As more and more people learn and experience the facility would grow and could see 20-30 patients a day. Response (Applicant): The facility is also designed to diagnose and treat patients much faster than a typical hospital emergency room; patients would leave much quicker. Question (Citizen): Are there any other standalone ERs in the community? Response (City): UC-Health is building a new standalone ER on Harmony Road, east of their existing Harmony Campus. Question (Citizen): How does this facility compare to their new facility? Response (Applicant): Their facility was probably built for different reasons; our facility will also be smaller. Question (Citizen): What made you choose this location? Response (Applicant): It’s a convenient location, and it’s helpful to be near two main roads. Question (Citizen): Will surgery be performed? Response (Applicant): What are medically catalogued as surgical procedures like reattaching a severed finger or thoracotomy can be performed at the facility. If a procedure was needed as it was life-threatening, the facility will have that capability, but for most of what people think of as major surgeries, patients would be transferred to a hospital (ex: patient has appendicitis and needs appendix removed – they would go to a hospital). Question (Citizen): Which hospital will patients go to? Response (Applicant): We want to have a relationship with all local hospitals, so patients can ultimately choose where they would like to go. We will have transfer agreements with the hospitals. Question (Citizen): Will doctors from hospitals have surgery rights? Response (Applicant): Only in emergency situations – most of what people think of major surgery will be performed at local hospitals themselves. Question (Citizen): Does the City regulate noise (for ambulances)? Response (City): The City does have nuisances codes for noise that depend on the zone district, but these are intended for residential/commercial/industrial point sources. They do not apply to an ambulance. There are rules/protocols for ambulances and their sirens for safety reasons. Question (Citizen): Will there be screening? Response (Applicant): Yes, the City has some strict screening requirements that we will have to follow. Response (City): For lighting, Fort Collins requires all lights to be fully-shielded and down- directional. There are also standards that limit the amount of lighting that can be cast upon adjacent properties and screening requirements for parking lots to block headlights. Response (Applicant): On our site plan, you can also see the building is pushed closer to the front of the site and College Avenue and away from the rear and residential lots behind. There won’t really be anything back there. 29 Statement of Planning Objectives 4858 S. College Avenue Fort Collins Emergency Center Page 3 of 4 Comment (Citizen): I have some concerns about adding additional traffic to the Frontage Road and safety at the two intersections of the frontage road with College Avenue and Palmer/Fairway. There are lots of accidents at the intersections because of their strange configuration. Response (Applicant): Once we’re up and running for several years, we anticipate we’ll inly have 20-30 patients a day, spread out over a 24-hour period. We expect most of our business to be from 5pm-2am, during non-peak hours. Response (City): The long-range access control plan for South College Avenue also calls for the frontage roads to eventually be replaced by rear-access driveways. Although there is no timeline or funding for this, the ultimate configuration and removal of the frontage road may improve the safety of those intersections by placing the rear accesses further away from College Avenue. Question (Citizen): How many employees will there be? Response (Applicant): 23-26 once it has been operation for several years. The employees will be on two, 12-hour shifts. Question (Citizen): Fairway Estates has a developed system of bridal-paths. What will happen to those? Response (Applicant): We are not planning to change that. There is an easement and we aren’t planning anything at the rear of the lot so the path is preserved. Comment (Citizen): One area where you will really need to concentrate on is drainage and stormwater. This area has a history of issues with stormwater. Currently during heavy rains or snow melt, the asphalt cul-de-sac north of your site fills up with water. All of the commercial lots drain to the rear of their lots and some dump the water into the ditch to drain south, but there was one project that isn’t conveying all of this water in a similar manner to the previous properties. Comment (Citizen): We have had to work within the past year with lawyers and property owners to come up with solutions for some of the stormwater issues; City stormwater worked with us and is aware of these issues. Comment (Citizen): A possible solution would be to pipe down the water to the pond and through the properties south of Fairway (Fort Collins-Loveland Water Property) to outfall in Fossil Creek. Response (Applicant): We’re going to be looking closely at stormwater. Our civil engineering is here tonight and that is one of the issues he will be focusing on. Response (City): The stormwater issue did come up at the conceptual review meeting and the stormwater department will be taking a close eye at this, especially if they’ve already been working with neighbors within the past year on the issue and know of problems in the area. Question (Citizen): Have you chosen a project management company yet? Response (Applicant): Not yet, waiting until we have approval from the City first. Question (Citizen): When do you anticipate construction? Response (Applicant): Need the City approvals first. We’re hopeful we can have that within about 6 months. ix) The project name is: Fort Collins Emergency Center x) Parking Narrative: The City of Fort Collins does not have a parking category well suited for the emergency room use. Neighboring Loveland has a parking requirement that fits this use well. They 30 Statement of Planning Objectives 4858 S. College Avenue Fort Collins Emergency Center Page 4 of 4 recommend for a Health care service facility 1 space for each examination or treatment room, plus 1 space for every 2 employees or health care provider. With this scenario, 10 spaces would be required. This could be used as a minimum. The Fort Collins requirement of 4.5 / 1,000 sf for a medical office could be used as a maximum. With this scenario, 36 spaces would be required. The site plan as drawn has 30 spaces. Based upon similar projects currently owned and operated by this owner, the number of 30 is deemed adequate to service the facility. 31 32 33 N 00°40'48" E 201.10' S 89°22'55" E 249.95' DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY 99 98 01 00 00 99 98 98 99 00 4"SAN 4"SAN EMERGENCY VEHICLE PARKING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 00 99 98 00 01 01 01 01 01 02 01 (50' ROW) SERVICE ROAD N 89°23'54" W 249.76' 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. (50276 S.F. - 1.154 AC.) S 00°44'03" W 201.03' 97 97 N 00°40'48" E 201.10' S 89°22'55" E 249.95' DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY 99 98 01 00 00 99 98 98 99 00 4"SAN 4"SAN EMERGENCY VEHICLE PARKING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 00 99 98 N 00°40'48" E 201.10' S 89°22'55" E 249.95' DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY 99 98 01 00 00 99 98 98 99 00 4"SAN 4"SAN EMERGENCY VEHICLE PARKING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EDGE OF PAVEMENT 00 99 98 00 01 01 01 01 01 02 01 (50' ROW) SERVICE ROAD N 89°23'54" W 249.76' 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. (50276 S.F. - 1.154 AC.) S 00°44'03" W 201.03' 97 97 Know what's 4 of 10 R LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 0 1 inch = 20 ft. 20 10 20 40 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE DECEMBER 21, 2015 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LANDSCAPE PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3-8-16 PER COMMENTS HYDROZONE 'A' (LOW - MODERATE) HYDROZONE 'B' (LOW-MODERATE) HYDROZONE 'C' (LOW) 35 12" 2X ROOTBALL 12" Know what's R LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 0 1 inch = 20 ft. 20 10 20 40 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE DECEMBER 21, 2015 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LANDSCAPE PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3-8-16 PER COMMENTS 12" MIN. PLANT BED 12" MIN. 5 of 10 36 LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS a r c h i t e c t u r e TDC a r c h i t e c t s & p l a n n e r s 3027 sesbania - austin, texas 78748 studio: (512) 282-0693 Principal Architect cell: (512) 736-2790 archtdc@sbcglobal.net Terry Colegrove, AIA 03.09.2016 37 a r c h i t e c t u r e TDC a r c h i t e c t s & p l a n n e r s 3027 sesbania - austin, texas 78748 studio: (512) 282-0693 Principal Architect cell: (512) 736-2790 archtdc@sbcglobal.net Terry Colegrove, AIA 03.09.2016 LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 38 a r c h i t e c t u r e TDC a r c h i t e c t s & p l a n n e r s 3027 sesbania - austin, texas 78748 studio: (512) 282-0693 Principal Architect cell: (512) 736-2790 archtdc@sbcglobal.net Terry Colegrove, AIA 03.09.2016 LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 39 a r c h i t e c t u r e TDC a r c h i t e c t s & p l a n n e r s 3027 sesbania - austin, texas 78748 studio: (512) 282-0693 Principal Architect cell: (512) 736-2790 archtdc@sbcglobal.net Terry Colegrove, AIA 03.09.2016 LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 40 a r c h i t e c t u r e TDC a r c h i t e c t s & p l a n n e r s 3027 sesbania - austin, texas 78748 studio: (512) 282-0693 Principal Architect cell: (512) 736-2790 archtdc@sbcglobal.net Terry Colegrove, AIA 03.09.2016 LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 41 Fort Collins Emergency Center – Building Material Finishes & Color Descriptions A. Stone, and related horizontal banded course accents--- Henry Higgins, one of the Owners on the project, has already submitted to you a photo of the type of stone and installed pattern for the walls indicated. It is the "Brownstone Series", of mixed coloration sandstone veneer, specifically color blend "Old World", as shown in his photo sent in his separate email. The horizontal projected band courses, at every 2 feet level, will be a modular-unit, cut stone version of the "lightest" stone color within the sandstone range of colors in "Old World". B. The stucco, that occurs usually above the stone veneer areas, will be a 3-part installation (3 coats), integral colored cement/plaster based veneer, applied over metal lath substrate, with control and expansion joint patterns shown on the elevations. Color will be a "light gray", to be selected later, in conjunction with the stone, to make sure the colorations will be complementary. C. The Composite Metal Panels ("CMP") Rainscreen wall system (that occurs above and below the drop-off canopy areas on the two sides of the building, forming the curving parapet walls above, and also occuring at the Tower element wall exteriors, will be a "metal-look" silvery gray color, as the surface layer of the composite panel is aluminum. The edges of the curvilinear drop-off canopy fascia forms will be a similar metal material and coloration/sheen. All wall cap trim, gutters and downspouts will be a factory- painted preformed steel material that will approximate these gray colorations also, but slightly darker in tone. D. The 4 in 12 sloped roof systems, visible to the public around the building, will be preformed/prefinished standing rib interlocking roofing panels, in a bonded/factory applied "slate grey" color, from their available color series. E. The storefront and window units systems will be by Tubelite Mfr., and will be composed of rolled/formed aluminum framed shapes, clear anodized (aluminum-look) factory finished, center glazed with PPG Solarban (or equal) Azure-color (very light blue) tinted double- glazed units (the light blue pane will be on the outside, then an air space, then an inboard clear LoE pane of glass). The system will be thermally broken, so no heat/cold can transfer through the framed storefront or window members. There will be very low reflectance of the glass (less than 10% of light transfer) through the glass configurations. F. All other miscellaneous steel or metal, such as the masts, the hanger rods, at the canopies, any fascia or cap trim, or sunscreens shown, will be of structural galvanized steel (to resist weatherization), with an applied "gray" color complimentary finish, to be exactly decided later, upon final selection of providers of all the materials described above. 42 Old World 43 44 10.0' bridle path and utility easement per the Replat of Fairway Estates Bk 1774 Pg 349 10' utility easement per the Replat of Fairway Estates Bk 1774 Pg 349 12' access easement Rec. No. 97073404 50' access, drainage, and storm water detention easement per Rec. No. 98046480 1ƒ : 1ƒ ( 6ƒ ( 6ƒ : R40.00' truck turn around access easement Rec. No. 97073404 U.S. HIGHWAY 287 SERVICE ROAD 5' 20' public and emergency access easement 29.97' 6ƒ ( 6ƒ ( 29.61' 99.38' 28.28' 20.02' 20.00' 6ƒ : 1ƒ ( 6ƒ ( 25.73' 56.98' 24.00' R = 2 5 . 0 0 ' L = 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 1 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved CEDAR RIDGE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY© August 2015 Larimer County, Colorado Prepared by: BLUE MOUNTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Supporting Sustainable Management of Natural Resources 937 MALLARD DRIVE, FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 (970) 224-0851 Attachment 4 64 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 2 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Attachment 4 65 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 3 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................... 6 3.1 WILDLIFE ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 PROMINENT VIEWS ....................................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 NATIVE TREES AND VEGETATION ................................................................................................................. 7 3.5 NON-NATIVE TREES AND VEGETATON………………………………………………………………...……7 3.6 BANK, SHORELINE AND HIGH WATER MARK OF PERENNIAL WATER .......................................................... 7 3.7 SENSITIVE AND SPECIALLY VALUED SPECIES ............................................................................................... 7 3.8 SPECIAL HABITAT FEATURES ....................................................................................................................... 8 3.9 WILDLIFE MIGRATION CORRIDORS .............................................................................................................. 8 3.10 GENERAL ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS ........................................................................................................... 9 3.11 TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER ..................................................... 9 3.12 MITIGATE MEASURES ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 9 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A: PROJECT MAPS .......................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................................................... 15 Attachment 4 66 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 4 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Attachment 4 67 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 5 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved 1.0 Introduction This report documents ecological characteristics within the proposed Cedar Park Emergency Center project on 1.154 acres (Parcel #’s 9601208011-9601208016) in south Fort Collins. This report conforms to Section 3.4.1 (D) (1) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the preparation of an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS). This report was required by the City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services because the project is within 50 feet of an irrigation ditch. The City of Fort Collins contact for the project is Environmental Planner Rebecca Everette. The project applicant proposes to construct a fully capable hospital-grade emergency room that is not attached to a hospital, a free-standing emergency center. The facility would not be hospital- or corporate-owned but instead represent local emergency physicians, nurses and support staff that will own and operate this emergency room (ER). The ER will be open 24 hours a day every day and will be capable of treating all major and minor emergencies. A total of 26 vehicles are anticipated to enter and leave the site each day (24 hour period). Patient volume is expected to increase with time; vehicle traffic per day may increase to approximately 50 vehicles within several years. An example of a free-standing emergency center can be viewed at www.CedarParkEmergencyCenter.com . 2.0 Site Description The proposed Cedar Park Emergency Center encompasses 1.154 acres (50,276 square feet) and is located on the east side of South College Avenue along the Frontage Road approximately 1,560 feet south of Harmony Road. The Property is bounded by commercial development to the north and south and the residential community of Fairway Estates to the east. The 43-acre Redtail Grove Natural Area is located approximately 1,637 feet southwest of the Property. The natural area has been classified as sensitive and is currently closed to the public. Fossil Creek meanders for approximately 0.43 miles through the natural area providing diverse riparian habitat, native short- and mixed-grass prairies, large cottonwood galleries and geologic features including fossils. In addition, the 29.60-acre Two Creeks Natural Area is located approximately 3,400 feet to the southeast of the Property and is unique because both Mail Creek and Fossil Creek flow through it. The legal description for the Property is a portion of Section 11, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Larimer County, Colorado. A Plat Map of the proposed project, the City of Fort Collins Habitat and Natural Features Inventory Map and a Photo Point Map are provided in Appendix A. Attachment 4 68 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 6 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved The Property was visited by Matt Tobler (Natural Resource Specialist) and Clint Hinebaugh (Wildlife Biologist) with Blue Mountain Environmental Consulting on August 7, 2015. 3.0 Ecological Characterization The elements of the Ecological Characterization Study are summarized in this section in the order listed in Section 3.4.1 (D) (1) of the Land Use Code. According to the City of Fort Collins Natural Habitat and Features Map, the Property does not contain any natural habitat or features. Riparian forest, non-native upland plains forest, non-native grassland and aquatic habitat is located in the vicinity and meanders along Mail Creek from the intersection of Harmony Road and College Avenue around Fairway Estates. The Property appears to be a fallow agricultural field that is mowed periodically. As such, it supports a variety of forage grasses and other exotic and noxious species. Trees are not present within the Property. 3.1 Wildlife Due to the Property’s urban location and high human disturbance level, wildlife value is poor. The Property is treeless and consists principally of exotic forage grasses and other exotic species. Most wildlife use can be expected to be transitional; urban-adapted wildlife likely travel along the un-named irrigation ditch to the east of the Property. Seasonal and/or year-round use can be expected by a number of urban-adapted avifauna including American robins (Turdus migratorius), mourning doves (Zenaidura macroura), magpies (Pica pica), swallows, crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and ravens (Corvus corax). Mammals such as mice, voles, fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) could utilize the Property year round. Common reptiles such as garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) may also utilize the site. Seasonal water is available in the ditch near the eastern Property boundary. Structural habitat, thermal cover and escape cover are not present within the site for most species. No wildlife or sign of wildlife were observed during the site visit. 3.2 Wetlands There are no wetlands on the Property. An un-named irrigation ditch is located approximately five feet east of the Property boundary. Wetlands and the Top of Bank were flagged along the ditch per City of Fort Collins requirements. According to the FEMA Map Panel (08069C1000F), the Property is outside of the floodplain (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/floodplain-maps-documents, accessed on August 10, 2015). Attachment 4 69 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 7 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved 3.3 Prominent Views Views of the Front Range, including Horsetooth Rock, exist to the west. Typical views from the frontage road are provided in Appendix B. 3.4 Native Trees and Vegetation The site does not contain any trees. The most abundant native vegetation was yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis). Native vegetation is a minor component of the total vegetative cover. 3.5 Non-native Trees and Vegetation As an abandoned field, the site principally supports smooth brome (Bromus inermis); however, other exotic species are common including field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), yellow sweetclover, orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), chicory (Cichorium spp.), yellow salsify (Tragopogon dubius), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) and dock (Rumex spp.). Exotic trees were not present on the Property. 3.6 Top of Bank, Shoreline and High Water Mark of Perennial Water Not applicable; the site does not contain perennial water. 3.7 Sensitive and Specially Valued Species There are no known occurrences or habitat for sensitive and specially valued species on the Property. The USFWS Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPAC) was accessed to determine species of concern in Larimer County, which include the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), Ute lady’s tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) and Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis), all of which are associated with riparian/wetland areas. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service technician Craig Hansen, all trapping for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) in Fort Collins has been negative. Typical habitat for PMJM is composed of well-developed riparian vegetation with adjacent, relatively undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source. These riparian areas should include a relatively dense combination of grasses, forbs and shrubs. Based on these habitat requirements and the negative trapping data, it is Blue Mountain Environmental Consulting’s opinion that PMJM does not occur on the site and development of the Property will not adversely affect PMJM. Attachment 4 70 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 8 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Similarly, it is Blue Mountain Environmental Consulting’s opinion that the Ute lady’s tresses and Colorado butterfly plant do not occur on the site. The closest known occurrences of these plants are near the northwest boundary of Fort Collins (Ute lady’s tresses) and within the City- managed Soapstone Prairie Natural Area near the Wyoming border (butterfly plant). Suitable habitat is not present within the project area or within the adjacent Mail Creek buffer zone. 3.8 Special Habitat Features The Natural Habitat and Features Map provided by the City of Fort Collins (Appendix A) identifies prominent features in the vicinity of the Property, including non-native grasslands, non-native upland plains forest, riparian forest and aquatic areas. The map does not identify these features on or adjacent to the Property. 3.9 Wildlife Migration Corridors Due to the location and size of the un-named irrigation ditch, it is unlikely that it acts as a migration corridor to any wildlife species other raccoons, skunks or other urban-adapted species. Although the ditch is outside of the Property boundary, the proposed development would occur within the suggested 50-foot buffer for an irrigation ditch. Development along the ditch would be consistent with adjacent properties, and Blue Mountain Environmental Consulting believes development on the Property would not affect the functioning of the ditch as a wildlife corridor. The irrigation ditch is outside of the Property boundary and likely functions as a migration corridor for urban‐adapted species. Property Boundary Irrigation Ditch Attachment 4 71 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 9 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved 3.10 General Ecological Functions The 1.154-acre site does not support any significant areas of native vegetation or other unique habitat features. The Property consists of upland vegetation that is dominated by early seral and exotic species characteristic of fallow agricultural fields. 3.11 Timing of Development in Relation to Ecological Character The primary concern for the timing of development is protection of nesting birds adjacent to the Property. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, it is unlawful for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter or offer for sale, purchase or barter, any migratory bird or the parts, nests or eggs of such a bird. The coniferous and deciduous trees located to the east of the Property should be visually checked for nesting activity prior to construction so that the project complies with the temporary 450-foot radius Limit of Development (LOD) from February 15th to July 15th for occupied nests. 3.12 Mitigation Measures Although occupied raptor nest sites are unlikely, a nest search is recommended within two weeks prior to the start of construction to avoid Migratory Bird Treaty Act infractions. Normal erosion and sedimentation control practices should be employed during construction, and the site should be restored with native vegetation as soon as possible thereafter. 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The team at Blue Mountain Environmental Consulting believes that no significant ecological resources will be adversely impacted on the Property. The primary concern on-site is the timing of construction to avoid disturbing nesting birds, increased runoff from hardened surfaces and the introduction of undesirable plants. References City of Fort Collins Floodplain Maps and Documents. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we- do/stormwater/flooding/floodplain-maps-documents Colorado Parks and Wildlife Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Raptors. http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuid elines2008.pdf Hansen, C. 2014. Email communication from Craig Hansen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado to Clinton Hinebaugh, BMEC, Inc. October 4. Attachment 4 72 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 10 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved National Wetland Inventory Mapper. Accessed on August 10, 2015. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service Information Planning and Conservation System. Accessed on August 10, 2015. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Wildlife Management Guidelines, City of Fort Collins. http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/wildlife-management-guidelines.pdf Attachment 4 73 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 11 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Appendix A: Project Maps Attachment 4 74 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 12 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved 620 S. Lemay Attachment 4 75 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 13 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Attachment 4 76 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 14 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Photo Point Map 4 3 1 2 Attachment 4 77 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 15 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Appendix B: Site Photographs Attachment 4 78 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 16 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Map Number: 1 Photo Direction: N Looking north along the Frontage Road to the east of the Property. Map Number: 1 Photo Direction: E Looking east along the northern Property boundary. Attachment 4 79 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 17 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Map Number: 1 Photo Direction: S Looking south along the western Property boundary. Map Number: 2 Photo Direction: S Looking south along the eastern Property boundary. Attachment 4 80 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 18 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Map Number: 2 Photo Direction: SW Looking southwest into the Property. Map Number: 3 Photo Direction: N Looking north from the southeast corner. Attachment 4 81 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 19 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Map Number: 3 Photo Direction: W Looking west towards College Avenue. Map Number: 3 Photo Direction: NW Looking northwest into the Property. Attachment 4 82 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 20 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Map Number: 4 Photo Direction: N Looking north along the western boundary. Map Number: 4 Photo Direction: NE Looking northeast into the Property. Attachment 4 83 Cedar Ridge Ecological Characterization Study 21 Copyright © 2015 BMEC All Rights Reserved Map Number: 4 Photo Direction: E Looking east along the southern boundary. Attachment 4 84 Page 1 Figure 1 – Site Vicinity October 20, 2015 Mr. Sameer Virani Denver, Colorado RE: Cedar Park Emergency Room Transportation Impact Analysis Ft. Collins, CO Sameer: McDowell Engineering has prepared this traffic memorandum for the proposed Cedar Park Emergency Room. The information provided in this memorandum is intended to address the traffic impacts to the greater roadway network associated with the proposed development. Site Description The Cedar Park Emergency Room (ER) project is located at 4858 S. College Avenue. The site is east of S. College Avenue’s current Frontage Road, between Fairway Lane and Palmer Drive. Figure 1 illustrates the site vicinity. The land is currently vacant. There is an Avis car rental facility to the south and mixed commercial building to the north. Development Access Access to the ER facility is from the N. College Avenue Frontage Road. This is a full movement access. The site will also share the adjacent access to the north via an access easement. The City has plans to remove the Frontage Road in the future and utilize a system of alleys and cross‐access agreements to access the N. College Avenue businesses in this area. The site plan allows for future access via a shared alley along the east side of the property in the future. The current Frontage Road and planned future shared alley access both extend from Fairway Lane to Palmer Drive. These two streets access S. College Avenue (US 287) and the great Ft. Collins’ roadway network. The Fairway Lane and S. College Avenue intersection was recently signalized. Proposed access location is illustrated in Figure 2’s proposed site plan. Employees are anticipated to park in the north parking lot, leaving the south and east parking lots near the emergency drop‐off entry for patients and visitors. Internal circulation is achieved by a parking lot and drive aisle that circles the building on the south, east, and north side of the building. 85 86 Page 3 Trip Generation The applicant is proposing to construct a 8,000sf building to serve as a stand‐alone emergency room. This is similar to an urgent care facility, but they are open 24 hours a day. The facility will not provide in‐patient care. Cedar Park Emergency Room (ER) is anticipating ten employees during a shift. The proposed stand‐alone ER facility is not a standard land use as defined by ITE. ITE Land Use #630, Clinic, best describes the function of the proposed project. A clinic provides “limited diagnostic and outpatient care, but is unable to provide prolonged in‐house care.” The standard trip generation characteristics compiled by ITE in the Trip Generation, 9th Edition, revised 2012, has been applied to the #630 Clinic land use in order to estimate the average daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour vehicle trips. A vehicle trip is defined as a one‐way vehicle movement from a point of origin to a point of destination. ITE provides trip generation rates based upon building size and the number of employees. The ER facility is anticipated to be a destination land use. No passby or internal trip reductions were taken for this land use. Refer to Table 1 for a detailed breakdown of the trip generation calculations for this site. PROJECT NUMBER: M1196 PREPARED BY: KJS DATE: REVISED: Average Weekday ITE Code AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg. Weekday Trips (vpd) % Trips Trips % Trips Trips % Trips Trips % Trips Trips Proposed Land Use Stand‐Alone Emergency Room (#630 Clinic) 8 ksf * 2 5.18 31.45 252 41% 17 59% 25 Stand‐Alone Emergency Room (#630 Clinic) 10 Employees 0.81 50% 5 50% 5 Total Project‐Generated Trips 252 5 5 17 25 1 Values obtained from Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. 10/20/2015 Inbound Outbound Units 2 Morning peak hour trip generation rate was not available for Land Use #630. Therefore, the morning peak hour rate based upon the number of employees was applied. Inbound Outbound Table 1 ‐ Project Trip Generation Stand‐Alone Emergency Room Ft. Collins, Colorado Estimated Project‐Generated Traffic 1 Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour The site is anticipated to generate 252 vehicle trips on a typical weekday. The evening peak hour can expect to see a total of 42 vehicles per hour. Buildout Trip Distribution and Assignment The overall directional distribution of the site‐generated traffic was determined based upon the location of the site within the City of Ft. Collins, the available roadway network and the location of the site relative to other emergency room facilities. As this is an emergency room facility, visibility from the adjacent roadway network is critical and will have an impact on the anticipated distribution of inbound site‐generated traffic. It is anticipated that 90% of the inbound Page 4 Traffic assignment is determined by applying the trip generation (Table 1) to the directional distribution. The resulting site‐generated traffic assignment is anticipated to be 15vph/23vph (inbound/outbound) during the evening peak hour from Fairway Lane. Traffic from Palmer Drive is anticipated to be 2vph/3vph (inbound/outbound) during the evening peak hour. Traffic Data Collection The City of Ft. Collins collected traffic data at the intersection of S. College Avenue (US 287) and Fairway Lane on Wednesday, February 25, 2015. This turning movement count data was used to analyze the amount of impact the proposed site‐generated traffic will have on the existing roadway network. Traffic Impacts to Public Roadways The Cedar Park Emergency Room is anticipated to impact the intersection of S. College Avenue (US 287) and Fairway Lane by 1.4 percent (42vph/2,989vph) of the current Year 2015 traffic volumes. This is considered a nominal impact to the existing roadway network. Sight Distance Sight distance at the proposed site access exceeds the LCUASS requirements for access onto a low‐speed frontage road. Conclusions and Recommendations In summary, the proposed Cedar Park Emergency Room facility is anticipated to be adequately served by the existing roadway network. The site plan accommodates the City’s plan for future access via an eastern alley. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering Kari McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Traffic/Transportation Engineer 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 4858 S College Ave Freestanding Emergency Room DATE: October 15, 2015 PLANNER: Ryan Mounce City Process Overview Presentation:  Proposal is located at 4858 S College Ave, along the South College Avenue Frontage Road, south of Harmony Road and north of Fairway Lane.  Proposal is for a stand-alone emergency room. The City would consider this use a Hospital, even though it does not include any beds.  Site is located in the General Commercial zone district where Hospitals are permitted subject to Type 2 (Planning & Zoning Board) review.  Project has not been formally submitted at this point, but they have presented preliminary information to the City at a conceptual review meeting. Applicant Presentation:  Idea of free-standing emergency rooms first started to treat skiers near Aspen. More recently, the trend has gained traction in Texas and we wish to bring the model to Fort Collins.  Would be a facility of several community-based physicians. The emergency room allows for better patient interaction and care by doctors, often with vastly reduced wait times and better control by doctors themselves over billing practices.  The facility would be open 24 hours and staffed by doctors, nurses, and technicians.  Facility is capable of treating many injuries, it an emergency center and more than just urgent care.  The proposed building is 1-story, approximately 8000 square feet in size with approximately 30 parking spaces.  Materials would utilize rock and brick and aluminum composite panels. There is a small tower at the front of the site where we wish to display a cross and emergency room so people know and understand medical care is available Questions, Comments & Responses: Question (Citizen): Will there be ambulances? Response (Applicant): The facility can take ambulances, although it is rare. Typically an ambulance would only bring in a patient by ambulance if they were very close to the facility. Question (Citizen): Who decides where the ambulance/patient goes? Response (Applicant): EMS decides and has protocols for all different types of situations. In part politics can also play a role. Hospitals generally try to control EMS traffic to their facilities. 97 Question (Citizen): Will there be any overnight patients? Response (Applicant): We are an outpatient facility with ER-services. Some patients may stay for multiple hours and we can accommodate them. If a patient needs to be admitted, they would normally go to a hospital. Question (Citizen): How many trips per day will there be? Response (Applicant): Early on, there would only be a few trips per day. This model is new and with our business model we can be successful only seeing 5 or 6 patients a day. As more and more people learn and experience the facility would grow and could see 20-30 patients a day. Response (Applicant): The facility is also designed to diagnose and treat patients much faster than a typical hospital emergency room; patients would leave much quicker. Question (Citizen): Are there any other standalone ERs in the community? Response (City): UC-Health is building a new standalone ER on Harmony Road, east of their existing Harmony Campus. Question (Citizen): How does this facility compare to their new facility? Response (Applicant): Their facility was probably built for different reasons; our facility will also be smaller. Question (Citizen): What made you choose this location? Response (Applicant): It’s a convenient location, and it’s helpful to be near two main roads. Question (Citizen): Will surgery be performed? Response (Applicant): What are medically catalogued as surgical procedures like reattaching a severed finger or thoracotomy can be performed at the facility. If a procedure was needed as it was life-threatening, the facility will have that capability, but for most of what people think of as major surgeries, patients would be transferred to a hospital (ex: patient has appendicitis and needs appendix removed – they would go to a hospital). Question (Citizen): Which hospital will patients go to? Response (Applicant): We want to have a relationship with all local hospitals, so patients can ultimately choose where they would like to go. We will have transfer agreements with the hospitals. Question (Citizen): Will doctors from hospitals have surgery rights? Response (Applicant): Only in emergency situations – most of what people think of major surgery will be performed at local hospitals themselves. Question (Citizen): Does the City regulate noise (for ambulances)? Response (City): The City does have nuisances codes for noise that depend on the zone district, but these are intended for residential/commercial/industrial point sources. They do not apply to an ambulance. There are rules/protocols for ambulances and their sirens for safety reasons. Question (Citizen): Will there be screening? Response (Applicant): Yes, the City has some strict screening requirements that we will have to follow. Response (City): For lighting, Fort Collins requires all lights to be fully-shielded and down- directional. There are also standards that limit the amount of lighting that can be cast upon adjacent properties and screening requirements for parking lots to block headlights. 98 Response (Applicant): On our site plan, you can also see the building is pushed closer to the front of the site and College Avenue and away from the rear and residential lots behind. There won’t really be anything back there. Comment (Citizen): I have some concerns about adding additional traffic to the Frontage Road and safety at the two intersections of the frontage road with College Avenue and Palmer/Fairway. There are lots of accidents at the intersections because of their strange configuration. Response (Applicant): Once we’re up and running for several years, we anticipate we’ll inly have 20- 30 patients a day, spread out over a 24-hour period. We expect most of our business to be from 5pm-2am, during non-peak hours. Response (City): The long-range access control plan for South College Avenue also calls for the frontage roads to eventually be replaced by rear-access driveways. Although there is no timeline or funding for this, the ultimate configuration and removal of the frontage road may improve the safety of those intersections by placing the rear accesses further away from College Avenue. Question (Citizen): How many employees will there be? Response (Applicant): 23-26 once it has been operation for several years. The employees will be on two, 12-hour shifts. Question (Citizen): Fairway Estates has a developed system of bridal-paths. What will happen to those? Response (Applicant): We are not planning to change that. There is an easement and we aren’t planning anything at the rear of the lot so the path is preserved. Comment (Citizen): One area where you will really need to concentrate on is drainage and stormwater. This area has a history of issues with stormwater. Currently during heavy rains or snow melt, the asphalt cul-de-sac north of your site fills up with water. All of the commercial lots drain to the rear of their lots and some dump the water into the ditch to drain south, but there was one project that isn’t conveying all of this water in a similar manner to the previous properties. Comment (Citizen): We have had to work within the past year with lawyers and property owners to come up with solutions for some of the stormwater issues; City stormwater worked with us and is aware of these issues. Comment (Citizen): A possible solution would be to pipe down the water to the pond and through the properties south of Fairway (Fort Collins-Loveland Water Property) to outfall in Fossil Creek. Response (Applicant): We’re going to be looking closely at stormwater. Our civil engineering is here tonight and that is one of the issues he will be focusing on. Response (City): The stormwater issue did come up at the conceptual review meeting and the stormwater department will be taking a close eye at this, especially if they’ve already been working with neighbors within the past year on the issue and know of problems in the area. Question (Citizen): Have you chosen a project management company yet? Response (Applicant): Not yet, waiting until we have approval from the City first. Question (Citizen): When do you anticipate construction? Response (Applicant): Need the City approvals first. We’re hopeful we can have that within about 6 months. 99 1 Ryan Mounce From: Bob <rrg@planarmetrics.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:02 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: 4858 S College storm water contact Hi Ryan, We met Thursday night at the neighborhood review of 4858 S College Emergency room proposal. Jim Borland and I wanted you to know that there was an engineer who helped us with our storm water issues in 2014. Unfortunately, Jim tells me now that he is retired. His name was Glen Schlueter and he was the FC Stormwater Development Manager in 2014. His number was 224 6065. He helped us with the storm water issue with the property just north of 4858 S College. Just to repeat, the storm water for that entire row of business was done in a piecemeal fashion. Now with the last property being developed a full review of how to handle that water needs to be done. There are two issues which exist with just a moderate rain. First the flow of water from the commercial area into are irrigation ditch is a problem (that we have a temporary patch for) and second, flooding occurs onto Fairway lane from the inadequacy of the ground holding the water. This flooding leaves a visible mess on fairway lane between the commercial property and the first home owner on Fairway lane. Thanks for you support on this. Bob Gunther 100 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – ODP150003 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Salud Family Health Center Overall Development Plan – ODP150003 APPLICANT: Stephanie Van Dyken Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Salud Health Center LLC 203 S. Rollie Ave. Fort Lupton, CO 80621 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) located at 1830 LaPorte Avenue. The site is approximately 23 acres, including 12.5 acres within the L-M-N Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district and 10.5 acres within the C-L Limited Commercial zone district. The ODP shows potential future uses for the site, street and trail connections to adjoining properties, conceptual drainage and utilities, and general locations of habitat buffers. The plan divides the site into six future development areas. Lot four is proposed to be the final location for the Salud Family Health Center. Final uses and final design for all lots shall be determined by separate reviews and approvals. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 101 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Salud Family Health Center ODP complies with the applicable Overall Development Plan criteria in Sections 2.3.2(H)(1-7) of the Land Use Code, including all zone district and General Development Standards that can be applied at a level required for an Overall Development Plan submittal. VICINITY MAP 102 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Larimer County FA-1 Radio transmission towers; City regional detention pond. South Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) Residential East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Residential West Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Residential, solar facility 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies seven criteria for reviewing Overall Development Plans. The seven criteria are listed on the following pages under headings A through G. A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) - Permitted Uses, Zone District Standards, General Development Standards This section requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards (Article 4) and any applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) that can be applied at a level of detail required for an Overall Development Plan submittal. Permitted Uses: The ODP proposes a mixed-use development. The proposed plan lists potential uses for the site that are consistent with the L-M-N and C-L zone districts. Additionally, the ODP plan notes that future development may include any use permitted in these zone districts. Zone District Standards (Article 4) and General Development Standards (Article 3): The development standards for the L-M-N and C-L zone districts include specific site plan and building elements that are evaluated with a Project Development Plan submittal, and cannot be evaluated by staff with this ODP application. Limited Commercial (C-L) standards include building height, screening of non-residential service areas, hours of operations, and building size/articulation. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) standards include residential density, mix of housing types, building height, building design and variation, outdoor storage, and maximum building floor area. As noted on the plan, all provisions in the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards shall govern this Overall Development Plan and subsequent PDP phases. 103 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 Typically, ODP’s provide the most benefit in evaluating transportation connections, natural features, and conceptual planning for utilities. These areas are discussed in the following sections. B. Section 2.3.2 (H)(2) - Density This section requires that the ODP be consistent with the required density range of residential uses (including lot sizes and housing types) for any land which is part of the Overall Development Plan that is included in the following districts: the Rural Land District (R-U-L); the Urban Estate District (U-E); the Residential Foothills District (R-F); the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N); the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N); the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N); the Community Commercial - North College District (C-C-N); the Harmony Corridor District (H-C); and the Employment District (E). The ODP provides a standard note on the plan indicating that residential densities provided with future PDP’s will be consistent with the required density ranges in the L-M-N and C-L Districts, unless a modification is approved with the PDP. C. Section 2.3.2 (H)(3) - Master Street Plan; Sections 3.6.3(A) through (F) - Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards The proposed ODP complies with the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required by Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F). The proposed public street network includes two primary connections though the property. The main connection extends Maple Street to LaPorte Avenue, with the second connection located to the north between lots 4 and 5. An additional public street connection is shown to the west which may be needed to accommodate potential future development on lot 6 or the adjacent property to the west. The ODP is also required to provide future local street connections to adjacent developable parcels along each boundary of the development plan at an interval not to exceed 660 feet. Along the northern boundary of the ODP, two multi-use trail connections are proposed which provide alternative compliance for the public street connection requirement along this boundary. These connections will provide additional access to the future Soldier Creek Trail planned within the City-owned regional detention property adjacent to the north. The combination of street and trail connections shown provides adequate connectivity into and through the ODP from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). D. Section 2.3.2 (H)(5) - Natural Features In accordance with this section, the Overall Development Plan shows the general location of all natural habitats and features and indicates the applicant’s proposed rough estimate of the natural habitat buffer zones as required pursuant to Section 3.4.1(E). Natural habitats for the property include existing tree groves and the Larimer County No. 2 ditch, with standard buffer requirements ranging from 25 to 100 feet for these features. In addition to the standard buffer areas shown, the approximate limits of alternative buffer areas are proposed. These alternative buffer areas accommodate existing habitat features to the extent feasible and are also designed to work with the location of proposed detention ponds on lots 2 and 6. All alternative buffer lines shown will be further evaluated and buffer reductions or enlargements may be proposed with subsequent site plan reviews. 104 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 5 E. Section 2.3.2 (H)(6) - Drainage Basin Master Plan The ODP provides master utility and drainage plans which have been reviewed by staff for compliance with the anticipated drainage improvements in the area. Drainage and utility information provided by the applicant shall be further reviewed at each PDP phase. In general, there will be 2 detention ponds which will serve all 6 lots. The west Vine City floodplain encroaches on significant portions of lots 2, 4, and 6. The West Vine flood zone is a City-designated floodplain; there is no FEMA designated flood zone in vicinity of the project site. Future development on these lots is limited until the City regional detention pond is constructed, off-site to the north of the Salud ODP. F. Section 2.3.2 (H)(7) - Housing Density and Mix of Uses This section requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP, and the ODP provides a standard note that acknowledges this potential. 3. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on September 16, 2015 at the LaPorte Outreach Church and the meeting notes are attached with this staff report. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Salud Family Health Center Overall Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: The ODP is in compliance with the Overall Development Plan Procedures in Section 2.3.2 and complies with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7), summarized as follows: (1) The ODP is consistent with the permitted uses as well as the Article 3 General Development Standards and Article 4 zone district standards that are applicable at the level of detail required for an ODP plan. (2) The ODP acknowledges that any residential uses shall comply with the required density range for residential uses. (3) The ODP conforms to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street pattern connectivity requirements pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.1(A) through (F). The ODP identifies appropriate transportation connections and conforms to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. (4) The ODP is in compliance with Section 3.6.3(F) and Section 3.2.2(C)(6) that require transportation connections to adjoining properties from neighboring properties for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movement. (5) The ODP shows the general location and approximate size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and indicates the applicant’s proposed rough estimate of the natural area buffer zones as required pursuant to Section 3.4.1(E). 105 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 6 (6) The ODP is consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. (7) The ODP acknowledges that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses may be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of the Salud Family Health Center Overall Development Plan - ODP150003 based on the Findings of Fact on page 5 and 6 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning Map (PDF) 2. Salud ODP Plan (PDF) 3. ODP Utility and Drainage Plan (PDF) 4. ODP Planning Objectives (PDF) 5. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) 6. Salud ODP Drainage Report (PDF) 7. Salud ODP Traffic Impact Study (Summary) (PDF) 106 PUTNAM ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL GRANDVIEW CEMETERY CITY PARK CITY PARK NINE GOLF COURSE Larimer County Canal #2 New Mercer Canal New Mercer Canal NCL T POL RL LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN UE RL W VINE DR LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RD W MOUNTAIN AVE W OAK ST MAPLE ST LYONS ST ELM ST S TAFT HILL RD CHERRY ST N BRYAN AVE N FREY AVE FREY AVE GRANDVIEW AVE PENNSYLVANIA ST RICHARDS PL COLLINS CT LYONS ST LYONS ST Salud Family Health Center Zoning Map ± 1 inch = 600 feet Legend City Zoning ZONE Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Public Open Lands Limited Commercial Site Boundary L-M-N C-L Note: All unshaded map areas are currently in the County and will be zoned if annexed into the City 107 108 109 E SS SS W W W W W G G G G G W W W W CTV FO FO FO G G G G G G G G E E E E W W W G G G G G G G G G G E E G E E SS SS E G G G G G W FO W W W W CTV FO FO FO CTV CTV CTV G E E FO / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / W S F G V CONTROL IRR AC AC AC CABLE AC GAS MH C C B M B M B M B M B M B B M M AC AC AC CABLE AC GAS MH C C LOT 6 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement November 18, 2015 Salud Family Health Center OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ODP) Planning Objectives The applicant, Salud Family Health Center, provides medical and dental care for all community members with a priority for the low-income, medically underserved population, migrant and seasonal farm workers. Since 1970, Salud has maintained a firm commitment to provide care to all community members and does not turn patients away based on finances, insurance coverage, or ability to pay. They purchased the former home of Forney Industries on west Laporte Avenue in 2015 for a second Fort Collins location. In order to secure federal funding, Salud is in the process of opening a temporary clinic on-site in an existing building. Within two years they hope to renovate the larger on-site building to use as their permanent space. At that time, the smaller building will be demolished to make room for future development. There is an existing bike shop on-site which will remain and continue to be operational. The intent is to divide the entire site into six lots with Salud Family Health Center occupying one of them. Salud will employ approximately 80 employees with the other commercial uses on site employing additional workers in the future. The proposed project site is located on west Laporte Avenue. It is adjacent to City of Fort Collins owned land to the north which is planned to be a future regional detention pond. North Star Mobile Home Park is located to the east. Orchard Park Apartments are adjacent on the west. Grandview Cemetery is located across Laporte Avenue to the south. The 22 acres of land was re-zoned from Transitional (T) to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) and Limited Commercial (CL) per the City Structure Plan July of this year. The ODP proposes to extend Maple Street west and then curve south to connect to Laporte Avenue. This will give access to the proposed lots and create connectivity rather than leave the existing dead end condition. Detached sidewalks and tree lawns will be installed along the extension of Maple Street and along the property frontage on Laporte Avenue. There are bus stops on both sides of Laporte Avenue within two blocks of the property. There is a gravel social path leading from North Star Mobile Home Park, through Salud and City of Fort Collins land, and connect to the neighborhood to the north. This project proposes to replace the gravel path with a permanent hard surface pedestrian and bicycle trail from Maple Street to the north edge of the Salud property. There are several tree groupings on site which are analyzed within the ecological characterization study. It was determined that further tree inventory will be completed with the future Project Development Plans (PDP’s) and that no further study had to be done at this time regarding the trees. Buffer requirements will also be determined at the time of future PDPs. Attachment 4 112 Salud ODP - Planning Objectives November 18, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Domestic water proposed for this development will be provided by the City of Fort Collins. There currently are existing water lines located within Laporte Avenue and Cherry Street. The existing water main within Laporte Avenue is a 20” cast iron pipe and the existing water main within Cherry Street is a 6” PVC pipe. The proposed design is to connect at each of these locations and run a public water line through the site in alignment with the proposed road. Services to each of the lots will be connected to this proposed water line. The domestic water system will also include fire hydrants located throughout the site to accommodate for Poudre Fire Authority’s current code requirements. Sanitary Sewer proposed for this development will be provided by the City of Fort Collins. There currently is an existing sanitary sewer main running through the site, entering at the northwest corner. This line was installed a few years ago to better serve this area and connects to an existing 15” trunk line located within the City owned parcel to the north of the property. Services to each of the lots will be connected to this existing line and will adequately service this area. A portion of the project is currently located within the West Vine Floodplain. A notable feature of the West Vine floodplain is the spill entering the floodplain in vicinity of the current project site from the Larimer Canal No. 2 irrigation ditch. Current floodplain mapping changes are under way by the City of Fort Collins, and we are working with City Stormwater Utility Staff to incorporate these changes regarding this spill from the Larimer Canal No. 2 into the proposed site. The West Vine flood zone is a City-designated floodplain; there is no FEMA designated flood zone in vicinity of the project site. Per the requirements of the City of Fort Collins, stormwater runoff from this development will need to mitigated, both from both a volumetric standpoint, and a water quality aspect. The project is located within the City of Fort Collins West Vine Master Plan. The project drains both to the north and south and is divided into two basins by the Larimer Canal No. 2 running through the site. Detention requirements for this master basin are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. The area draining to the south is proposed to detain at the historic 2-year runoff rate, however the area to the south is proposed to be detained by an interim pumped detention pond due to site constraints. The pond is to be located so that in the future, a gravity connection into a future City of Fort Collins Regional Pond can be constructed. This Regional Pond is anticipated to be constructed just northwest of the project site. The pump will be sized to discharge at a rate that can adequately evacuate all storm runoff from the pond to meet State of Colorado revised Statute 37-92-602(8). All water quality treatment requirements and LID requirements will be satisfied with the proposed development. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 30th where approximately 12 neighbors attended. There were questions regarding traffic and how many employees the Salud clinic would have. It was explained that traffic studies would be provided with each submittal. The first phase, Salud Family Health Center PDP, will be submitted upon approval of this ODP and construction will begin in the spring of 2017. It is unknown at this time when the future phases of the ODP will be developed. Attachment 4 113 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com November 18, 2015 Salud Family Health Center Overall Development Plan (ODP) is supported by the following Principles and Policies found in City Plan Fort Collins Adopted February 15, 2011 STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATE CITY PLAN PRICIPLES AND POLICIES ECONOMIC HEALTH Principle EH 1: The City will pursue development of a vibrant and resilient economy that reflects the values of our unique community in a changing world. Policy EH 1.1 – Support Job Creation Support the enhancement of the community’s economic base and job creation by focusing on retention, expansion, incubation, and recruitment efforts that bring jobs and import income or dollars to the community, particularly businesses in the adopted Target Industry Clusters. Within the Salud Overall Development Plan, land uses will include commercial and medical, with the possibility of residential, places of worship, day care centers or other uses allowed within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone District. The medical clinic alone will support 80-85 new employees. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Principle ENV 1: Within the developed landscape of Fort Collins, natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced. Policy ENV 1.2 –Regulate Development along Waterways Use development regulations, such as setbacks from natural features and performance standards, to conserve and protect natural resources along the Poudre River, Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, Boxelder Creek and other waterways. Attachment 4 114 Salud ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 2 of 7 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com The Larimer Ditch #2 irrigation ditch runs through the property from west to southeast. Buffers will be established at the time of future PDP’s. Principle ENV 4: The City will pursue new opportunities to provide multifunctional open lands. Policy ENV 4.1 – Improve Connectivity Explore opportunities for land conservation partnerships between Stormwater, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and Natural Areas departments to provide and enhance trail corridors to connect open lands, to enhance wildlife habitat and corridors, and to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, parks, natural areas, rivers, shopping areas, and neighborhoods. Street improvements will be made along Laporte Ave. to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. A detached sidewalk will be added along the street frontage of Laporte Ave. Maple street will also be constructed through this property. A hardscape pedestrian and bicycle trail will be constructed where an existing social trail is to the northern property line. Principle ENV 18: The City will minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, recognize and manage for the preservation of floodplain values, adhere to all City mandated codes, policies, and goals, and comply with all State and Federally mandated laws and regulations related to the management of activities in floodprone areas. Policy ENV 18.2 – Manage Risks Seek to minimize risk to life and property by structural and non-structural design or modification of actions in the floodplain where it is not otherwise practical to place structures and human activities outside of the floodplain. Discourage new development in the 100-year floodplain to avoid additional modifications and structural controls. A new regional stormwater facility will be constructed by the City adjacent to this site to the north. Principle ENV 19: The City will pursue opportunities to protect and restore the natural function of the community’s urban watersheds and streams as a key component of minimizing flood risk, reducing urban runoff pollution, and improving the ecological health of urban streams. Policy ENV 19.1 – Employ a Watershed Approach to Stormwater Management Design stormwater systems to minimize the introduction of human caused pollutants. Pursue educational programs and demonstration projects to enhance public understanding of pollution prevention efforts. Design tributary systems for water quality control with appropriate use of buffer areas, grass swales, detention ponds, etc. Include receiving water habitat restoration and protection in stormwater master plans in conjunction with habitat mapping efforts. Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Principle ENV 20: The City will develop an integrated stormwater management program that addresses the impacts of urbanization on the City’s urban watershed. As part of that program, the City will implement requirements and strategies for multi-functional stormwater facilities that support density goals for development and redevelopment at a sub-watershed level. Policy ENV 20.4 – Develop Public/Private Partnerships Attachment 4 115 Salud ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 3 of 7 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Employ public/private partnerships to optimize the balance between stormwater management and compact development. Take advantage of opportunities to combine stormwater management needs from both public and private lands. COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. Policy LIV 6.1 – Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Infill and redevelopment in residential areas may occur through: a. The addition of new dwellings on vacant lots and other undeveloped parcels surrounded by existing residential development. b. Dwelling units added to existing houses (e.g., basement or upstairs apartments). c. Small, detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size with existing houses (e.g., “alley houses” or “granny flats”). d. Expansion or redevelopment of properties. e. Neighborhood-related, non-residential development. This project is an infill redevelopment of an existing industrial area to commercial and medical which are both neighborhood related. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. This project includes a mixture of CL and LMN zoning districts. The ODP is consistent with the City’s Structure Plan and provides a transition from developed area to open space. Policy LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non-Residential Development Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood’s positive characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions. This project is introducing a low-income medical facility into a low-income neighborhood. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well- served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. This project is mixed-use which may have residential uses along with a variety of commercial uses. There are bus stops within two blocks, a park and golf course within three blocks, and an elementary school within four blocks. Attachment 4 116 Salud ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 4 of 7 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Ensure all new public streets are designed in accordance with the City street standards and design all new streets to be functional, safe, and visually appealing, with flexibility to serve the context and purpose of the street corridor. Provide a layout that is simple, interconnected, and direct, avoiding circuitous routes. Include elements such as shade trees, landscaped medians and parkways, public art, lighting, and other amenities in the streetscape. Approve alternative street designs where they are needed to accommodate unique situations, such as “green” stormwater functions, important landscape features, or distinctive characteristics of a neighborhood or district, provided that they meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. The extension of Maple Street will include detached sidewalks and tree lawns. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Street trees will line all of the local roads and additional plant material shall be located along open space corridors. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community. Policy LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features In addition to protecting existing natural features, encourage integration of unique landscape features into the design and architecture of development and capital projects. These unique features may range from informal and naturalized to highly structured and maintained features. Some examples include tree groves within a project, stormwater facilities that become naturalized over time, walls with vines, drainageway enhancements, and other small, uniquely landscaped spaces. Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape Incorporate practical solutions to ensure a landscape design is functional in providing such elements as natural setting, visual appeal, shade, foundation edge to buildings, screening, edible landscapes, buffers, safety, and enhancement of built environment. Consider and address practical details such as sight distance requirements and long-term maintenance in landscape design. Policy LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Design new landscaping projects based on maintainability over the life cycle of the project using proper soil amendment and ground preparation practices, as well as the appropriate use of hardscape elements, trees, mulches, turf grass, other plant materials, and irrigation systems. Low maintenance practices can be achieved in both turf and non-turf planting areas, provided these areas are designed and installed to minimize weeds, erosion and repairs. Plant material will be selected based on water requirements, hardiness and ease of maintenance. Plants will consist of trees that the City forester approves, evergreen and deciduous shrubs and high performing grasses and perennials that require only seasonal maintenance. Turf areas are minimized. Xeriscape principles of utilizing soil amendments, mulches and efficient irrigation will be followed to ensure that the landscape is both attractive and sustainable. Attachment 4 117 Salud ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 5 of 7 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Principle LIV 19: The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations Utilize the City Structure Plan Map to set forth a basic framework, representing a guide for future land use and transportation decisions. The Salud Overall Development Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Structure Plan. The CL and LMN Zone Districts provide employment, retail, residential and commercial opportunities. PRINCIPLE LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities, and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or Community Commercial District. Policy LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network Establish an interconnected network of neighborhood streets and sidewalks, including automobile, bicycle and pedestrian routes within a neighborhood and between neighborhoods, knitting neighborhoods together and not forming barriers between them. Provide convenient routes to destinations within the neighborhood: Avoid or minimize dead ends and cul-de-sacs. This ODP will extend Maple Street so that it is no longer a dead end. Utilize multiple streets, sidewalks, and trails to connect into and out of a neighborhood. This project will construct a portion of a trail which is currently a dirt social trail through the property. Design neighborhoods streets to converge upon or lead directly to the common areas in the neighborhood, avoiding routes onto arterial streets. Prohibit gated-street entryways into residential developments to keep all parts of the community accessible by all citizens. This development will not have any gated entryways. It will provide public access to land which was previously inaccessible. On long blocks, provide intermediate connections in the pedestrian network. Provide direct walkway and bikeway routes to schools. The extension of Maple Street will allow another route to Putnam Elementary School. Continue and extend established street patterns where they are already established. In the case of previously unplanned areas, establish a new pattern that can be continued and extended in the future. This Overall Development Plan will extend a local street. Policy LIV 21.2 – Design Walkable Blocks While blocks should generally be rectilinear or otherwise distinctly geometric in shape, they may vary in size and shape to avoid a monotonous repetition of a basic grid pattern or to follow topography. In order to be conducive to walking, determine block size by frequent street connections within a maximum length of about 300 to 700 feet. Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types Provide variation in house models and types in large developments, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of a standardized subdivision. The housing models and types will be discussed in more detail as the Project Development Plans are submitted if a residential use is proposed. Principle LIV 23: Neighborhoods will feature a wide range of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens, play fields, natural areas, orchards and community gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces to provide linkages and recreational opportunities both for neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Attachment 4 118 Salud ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 6 of 7 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Principle LIV 28: Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will provide opportunities for a mix of low density housing types in a setting that is conducive to walking and in close proximity to a range of neighborhood serving uses. Policy LIV 28.1 – Density Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. This minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be three (3) dwelling units per acre. The LMN portion of the ODP will have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per acre if a residential use is chosen. Policy LIV 28.2 – Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood-serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods may include the following: Principal uses: Predominantly detached single-family homes; however, may include a range of duplexes, townhomes, and small scale multi-family dwellings (twelve or less units per building). Supporting uses: Places of worship, day care (adult and child), parks and recreation facilities, schools, and small civic facilities. In addition to these uses, a mix of other complementary uses is permitted within designated Neighborhood Center, including the following: neighborhood-serving market, shops, small professional offices or live-work units, clinics, or other small businesses in addition to the list of secondary uses listed above. Retail uses will be permitted only in a designated Neighborhood Center. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. The ODP will provide an appropriate mix of housing types and/or supporting uses. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.2 –Connect to Surrounding Neighborhoods Use local streets to provide direct connections to Commercial Districts from surrounding neighborhoods so that visitors do not need to only use arterial streets to gain access to the district. When existing developed areas are redeveloped or retrofitted, ensure that pedestrian, bicycle, and auto access from surrounding neighborhoods is provided in a context-sensitive manner. Policy LIV 30.3 – Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections with in and to Commercial Districts as infill and redevelopment occur over time. (Also see the Transportation chapter.) Provide direct access between commercial Districts and adjoining uses. Clearly identify and distinguish pedestrian and bicycle travel routes from auto traffic through parking areas, across streets, and along building frontages. Improve pedestrian/bicycle linkages across arterial streets and along transportation corridors. Avoid superblocks, dead-end streets, and cul-desacs. Coordinate with impacted neighborhoods to find context-sensitive solutions to address connectivity and neighborhood needs. TRANSPORTATION Principle T 3: Land use planning decisions, management strategies, and incentives will support and be coordinated with the City's transportation vision. Policy T 3.1 – Pedestrian Mobility Attachment 4 119 Salud ODP City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 7 of 7 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Promote a mix of land uses and activities that will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community and minimize the distance traveled. Policy T 3.2 – Bicycle Facilities Encourage bicycling for transportation through an urban development pattern that places major activity centers and neighborhood destinations within a comfortable bicycling distance. Policy T 4.3 – Interconnected Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood streets will be interconnected, but designed to protect the neighborhood from excessive cut-through traffic. Policy T 4.4 – Attractive and Safe Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood streets will provide an attractive environment and be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers as well as having a well-designed streetscape, including detached sidewalks, parkways, and well- defined crosswalks. Policy T 4.5 – Infill and Redevelopment Areas Where the established street pattern and design may not conform to current street standards, allow for alternative contextual design. Currently Maple Street dead-ends into this development. In order to provide future continuous access out to the arterial road a building would have to be demolished. So instead, Maple will curve south and connect to Laporte Ave. Principle T 12: The pedestrian network will provide a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 12.1 – Connections Direct pedestrian connections will be provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work, and public facilities. Policy T 12.2 – Pedestrian Network Develop a complete pedestrian network in ETCs and Activity Centers. Policy T 12.3 – Pedestrian Plan The adopted pedestrian plan will be considered in the development of all transportation projects. Policy T 12.4 – ADA Compliance Pedestrian facilities will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Policy T 12.5 – Safe and Secure Develop safe and secure pedestrian settings by developing and maintaining a well-lit, inhabited pedestrian network and by mitigating the impacts of vehicles. Connections will be clearly visible and accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting, and paving materials. Policy T 12.6 – Street Crossings Design street crossings at intersections consistent with Fort Collins Traffic Code, Land Use Code, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards with regard to crosswalks, lighting, median refuges, corner sidewalk widening, ramps, signs, signals, and landscaping. Attachment 4 120 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1: A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 as bearing North 89° 14' 44" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, said point being POINT OF BEGINNING 1; thence, North 00° 38' 54" East, 435.71 feet; thence, North 00° 38' 53" East, 163.32 feet; thence, South 76° 32' 17" East, 39.76 feet; thence, South 68° 48' 16" East, 30.68 feet; thence, South 62° 17' 03" East, 2.34 feet; thence, North 27° 34' 06" East, 386.65 feet; thence, South 62° 25' 54" East, 458.15 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00" East, 53.71 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46" West, 472.81 feet; thence, North 87° 54' 20" West, 249.40 feet; thence, South 07° 37' 19" East, 72.44 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 86.39 feet; thence, North 00° 23' 46" East, 21.00 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 83.00 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46" West, 50.00 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 30" West, 85.50 feet; thence, South 00° 45' 13" West, 120.00 feet; thence, South 89° 14' 44" East, 494.83 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46" West, 30.00 feet to the South line of the Northwest Quarter; thence along said South line, North 89° 14' 44" West, 710.01 feet to the Point of Beginning 1. The above described tract of land contains 457,576 square feet or 10.504 acres, more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. PARCEL 2: A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 as bearing North 89° 14' 44" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10; thence, North 00° 38' 54" East, 435.71 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2; thence, North 89° 14' 49" West, 330.72 feet; thence, North 00° 42' 46" East, 656.12 feet; thence, South 89° 24' 33" East, 1320.17 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46" West, 377.97 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 285.00 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00" West, 53.71 feet; thence, North 62° 25' 54" West, 458.15 feet; thence, South 27° 34' 06" West, 386.65 feet; thence, North 62° 17' 03" West, 2.34 feet; thence, North 68° 48' 16" West, 30.68 feet; thence, North 76° 32' 17" West, 39.76 feet; thence, South 00° 38' 53" West, 163.32 feet to Point of Beginning 2. The above described tract of land contains 551,179 square feet or 12.653 acres, more or less and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Attachment 4 121 1 Salud Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Notes September 16, 2015 LaPorte Outreach Church In attendance from the City: Jason Holland, City Planner; Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Systems Engineer. Representatives from Salud were also in attendance as well as the project architect and landscape architect. The meeting began with Jason Holland providing an overview of the Northwest Subarea plan, an explanation of the development review process, next steps in the review, and an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules. Hand-outs were also provided showing all permitted uses in the L-M-N and C-L zone districts as well as information about the Northwest Subarea Plan. Stephanie Van Dyken, land planning consultant for Salud, provided a presentation of the development’s components. A site plan was presented which outlined the general layout of the proposal, including the location of a temporary clinic in a portion of the existing office building along the southern portion of the property as well as the location of six proposed lots surrounding a proposed extension of Maple Street through the property which connects to Laporte Avenue at the southeast corner of the property. Q: You’re showing a new street connection from Laporte to Maple? A: (Applicant) Yes, we would connect with the existing part of Maple. Q: Have easement locations been determined? A: (Applicant) Not at this time. Q: How much additional traffic is expected? A: (Applicant) Not known at this time. We are only occupying the temporary facility right now while we work on plans and a traffic study for the whole site. Q: How big is the temporary clinic and how many employees and people do you expect? A: (Applicant) 9,000 square feet total space; 12-15 employees total; 6 exam rooms; 25 customers anticipated at any one time max. Comment: I’m concerned with more people coming and going. Q: How big is the new building for your permanent facility? A: (Applicant) We’ll be renovating the existing building in the middle of the site and will occupy 20,000 to 30,000 square feet of that building. Q: Does the existing location up off of North College stay open? A: (Applicant) Yes, it will stay open. Attachment 5 122 2 Q: Where will employees park? A: (Applicant) In the existing parking lot. Comment: I find that hard to believe. Q: Can you tell us what infrastructure improvements will be needed? A: (Applicant) This still needs to be determined. This is just the Overall Plan. Q: What are the hours of operation? A: (Applicant) 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Q: Will the lots be for sale? A: (Applicant) Yes. Q: What is the cost for the bridge shown? A: (Applicant) Unknown at this time. Q: What are the impacts to the Northstar Trailer Park? Increase in traffic? A: (Applicant) This is to be determined, we will need to complete the traffic study. Q: How are uses for the new lots determined for the traffic study? A: (City) This is based on conservative (high) estimates for trips generated by potential uses. Q: What is the use classification for Salud? A: (City) Medical Clinic. Q: What will the future Lot 1 be? A: (Applicant) It could be any use from the C-L zone (Limited Commercial), provided that they meet the performance standards in the Land Use Code. Comment: I think it will be a disaster to have all of the traffic entering and exiting through Laporte Ave. Q: Are there landscaping requirements? A: (Applicant) Yes, and street improvements. Q: What’s the height of the new building? A: (Applicant) Only renovation of existing footprint. No height changes. Q: What will happen to the existing residence (along Laporte)? A: (Applicant) Will be removed. Attachment 5 123 3 Q: How will you renovate the building, what are the materials? A: (Applicant) Stone/stucco, metal roof. Q: What are the plans for the L-M-N zoned portion? A: (Applicant) We will list a range of uses based on what’s permitted in that zone district. The final use will be market driven. Q: Will Maple Street be a school bus route? A: (City) Not sure but we will coordinate that question with the school district with our review process. Q: What is the next step with a detailed site plan for the Salud part? A: (Applicant) In the next few months we’ll working on those plans and turning them into the city. Q: Will the bus services be impacted? A: (City) We’ll look at those services and bus stop locations with Transfort with the increase in traffic. Q: What services is Salud providing? A: (Applicant) Dental, pharmacy, outpatient medical care, behavioral health. Q: Very concerned with safety and increase in crime this proposal will generate. Security measures? Fencing? A: (Applicant) Typically we see that these issues come from outside our facility grounds out in the surrounding neighborhoods. People get services and leave. We serve all incomes. Comment: I’d like to see security lighting and fencing. Q: Ambulance visits? A: (Applicant) Could be, but this is an outpatient only facility. Q: What’s the typical salary of staff? A: (Applicant) It ranges based on the job. The minimum salary is $15.00 per hour. Q: Is the 9,000 square feet temporary facility connected to sewer? A: (Applicant) Yes. With no more questions, the meeting adjourned. Attachment 5 124 1 Overall Development Plan (ODP) Drainage Report Date: March 8, 2016 Project: Salud Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Mr. Wes Lamarque Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Mr. Lamarque: This letter report accompanies the submittal for the Salud Development Plan (ODP). Specifically, this letter report serves to document the overall drainage impacts associated with the proposed development. The proposed development site is located just northeast of the intersection of Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road in Fort Collins, Colorado (Please see Figure 1, below). The project involves site improvements including parking, roadway, and utilities. The large existing building located on the project site is planned to remain and to be renovated. The overall Salud property is broken into 6 lots which are labeled on the Overall Drainage Plan (Attached). In general, there will be 2 detention ponds which will serve all 6 lots. The west Vine Floodplain encroaches a portion of the property as shown in Figure 2, below. A notable feature of the West Vine floodplain is the spill entering the floodplain in vicinity of the current project site from the Larimer Canal No. 2 irrigation ditch. Current floodplain mapping changes are under way by the City of Fort Collins, and we are working with City Stormwater Utility Staff to incorporate the changes regarding this spill from the Larimer No. 2. A future submittal to the City involving modeling of the spill from the ditch and grading the project site to allow for this spill to safely pass along the western perimeter of the site (just west of the large existing building that is to remain and to be renovated). The West Vine flood zone is a City-designated floodplain; there is no FEMA designated flood zone in vicinity of the project site. The proposed development site is in the City of Fort Collins West Vine Master Basin. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. However, due to site constraints, the proposed drainage concept for the site is to place an interim pumped detention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6. The Overall Drainage Plan (Attached) shows the proposed location of this pond Attachment 6 125 2 and illustrates the concept to provide detention in this pond for Lots 4 through 6. We anticipate, based on conceptual grading completed to date, that drainage from Lot 5 will be piped from this lot into the pumped detention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6. The pumped detention pond is to be located so that in the future a gravity tie-in to a future City of Fort Collins Regional Pond, which is anticipated to be constructed just northwest of the project site. A rough anticipated construction date for this pond is the year 2025. In the interim period, the onsite detention pond will be pumped. The pump will be sized to discharge at a rate that adequately evacuates all storm runoff from the pond to meet State of Colorado revised Statute 37-92-602(8). This states that 97% of all the stormwater runoff from a 5-year or less event be released within 72 hours of the storm event, and 99% of all of the stormwater runoff from greater than a 5-year event be released within 120 hours of the storm event. Calculations will be provided at Preliminary and Final stages of the design process to show proper pump sizing meeting these criteria. Additionally, the pumped detention pond will be required to obtain a variance from the City, as pumped detention is not allowed per the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map Attachment 6 126 3 FIGURE 2 City Floodplain Map (Floodplain shown is a City Designated Flood Zone-No FEMA Flood Zones encroach project site) Developed runoff from the majority of southern portion of the project site, which encompasses Lots 2 and 3, and a portion of Lot 1 will be detained and released into the Larimer Canal No. 2 irrigation ditch at a historic 2-year rate. We have discussed this concept with the Larimer Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company, and they are initially agreeable to this concept. We will provide further documentation to the irrigation company when available, and will need ultimate approval and signatures prior to construction. A portion of Lot 1, which is comprised of the Laporte Avenue frontage, has historically drained into Laporte Avenue. This area is composed of an existing parking lot as well as landscaped areas. We will maintain historic runoff rates from this area and ensure no increase in runoff going into Laporte Avenue. In doing so, we will not detain this historic flow going into Laporte Avenue. All water quality treatment requirements and LID requirements will be satisfied with the proposed development. Means of providing for these requirements will be worked through at the Preliminary and Final stages of the design process. It is acknowledged that all existing imperviousness that is to be removed and redeveloped will be required to be treated for water quality. Attachment 6 127 4 In summary, this Overall Drainage Report letter adequately addresses any potential stormwater changes associated with the proposed development. In general, there are no significant changes proposed at a major drainage level. The ODP complies with the governing City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plans, and the previously approved drainage plans specific for the subject property. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely NORTHERN ENGINEERING Aaron Cvar, PhD, PE Senior Project Engineer Attachment 6 128 SALUD FAMILY HEALTH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO OCTOBER 2015 Prepared for: Salud Family Health Centers 203 S. Rollie Avenue Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 ...-_,,/1/.' __ Project #1565 Attachment 7 129 DELICH Salud Family Health facility TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 2 Roads .............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrians Facilities ...................................................................................................... 5 Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 9 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 9 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 9 Background Traffic Projections ....................................................................................... 9 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 15 Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................. 15 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 20 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 20 Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................................................................... 26 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 26 Transit Level of Service ................................................................................................. 26 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 28 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 11 3. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 23 4. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation ........................................... 24 5. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 25 6. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation ...................................................... 27 Attachment 7 130 DELICH Salud Family Health facility TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Intersection Geometry.................................................................................. 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................... 7 5. Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 10 6. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 12 7. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 13 8. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................. 14 9. Short Range (2020) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................... 16 10. Full Development Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................... 17 11. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 18 12. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................ 19 13. Short Range (2020) Geometry ................................................................................ 21 14. Long Range (2035) Geometry ................................................................................. 22 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Packet B. Recent Peak Hour Traffic C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS Standards D. Signal Warrant E. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation G. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation H. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation I. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Attachment 7 131 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Salud Family Health facility. The proposed Salud Family Health facility is located north of Laporte Avenue, approximately 1500 feet east of Taft Hill Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. This development will be submitted as an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the entire property and a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the Salud Family Health facility. The ODP will be submitted initially and is addressed in the long range analysis in this TIS. The PDP will be submitted a month or so later and is addressed in the short range analysis in this TIS. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planner (Ripley Design Inc.), the project architect (TW Beck), and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). Appendix A contains the Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related attachments for the Salud Family Health facility. The study involved the following steps: • Collect physical, traffic, and development data; • Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; • Determine peak hour traffic volumes; • Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; • Analyze signal warrants; • Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. Attachment 7 132 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Salud Family Health facility is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use There are several existing buildings on the Salud Family Health site. The Salud Family Health facility will occupy one of these existing buildings. Another building is an existing bicycle manufacturing facility. Land uses in the area are primarily commercial and residential. There are residential uses to the east, west, and south of the site. There are commercial uses adjacent to the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the southeast of the proposed Salud Family Health facility site. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. Roads The primary arterial streets near the Salud Family Health facility site are Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road. Grandview Avenue is a local street to the south. The existing geometry at the key intersections is shown in Figure 2. Laporte Avenue is to the south of the proposed Salud Family Health facility site. It is an east-west street classified as a two-lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street plan. Currently, Laporte Avenue has a two-lane cross section with no center median lane. At the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection, Laporte Avenue has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, a through lane in each direction, and eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes. The Taft Hill/Laporte intersection has signal control. At the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersection, Laporte Avenue has all eastbound and westbound movements combined in single lanes. The Laporte/ Grandview-Driveway intersection has stop sign control on Grandview Avenue and the Driveway. The posted speed limit in this area of Laporte Avenue is 30 mph. It is important to note that, as an arterial street, Laporte Avenue is required to have a center (left-turn) median lane. Taft Hill Road is to the west of the proposed Salud Family Health facility site. It is a north-south street classified as a four-lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Recently, Taft Hill Road was restriped to provide one through lane in each direction and a center median lane, south of Laporte Avenue. At the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection, Taft Hill Road has northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, one through lane in each direction, and northbound and southbound right-turn lanes. The posted speed limit in this area of Taft Hill Road is 35 mph. Grandview Avenue is a local street that serves the neighborhood to the south. It lines up with a driveway that serves an apartment complex to the west of the Salud Family Health facility site. Attachment 7 133 Vine Taft Hill Shields Laporte Grandview SCALE: 1"=2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 3 Attachment 7 134 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 4 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview Driveway - Denotes Lane Attachment 7 135 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 5 Existing Traffic Figure 3 shows recent peak hour traffic counts at the Taft Hill/Laporte and Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersections. The traffic counts at the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection were obtained in August 2014 by the City of Fort Collins. The traffic count at the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersection was obtained in September 2015. Raw traffic count data are provided in Appendix B. Since the counts were done on different days, the counts were adjusted/balanced. The adjusted/balanced recent peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 4. Existing Operation The Taft Hill/Laporte and Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. Using the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic shown in Figure 4, the peak hour operation at the key intersections is shown in Table 1. The Taft Hill/Laporte and Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during in the morning and afternoon peak hours. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections 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. This site is in an area termed “low density mixed use” on the Fort Collins Structure Plan. In areas termed “low density mixed use,” 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 D. At arterial/arterial and arterial/collector or local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service F for any approach leg. At collector/local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along both sides of Taft Hill Road, south Laporte Avenue. There are sidewalks missing along sections of Taft Hill Road, north of Laporte Avenue. Generally, there are sidewalks along Laporte Avenue adjacent to most developed properties. However, there are some gaps in the sidewalk system along Laporte Avenue. It is expected that as properties in this area are developed or redeveloped, sidewalks will be installed as part of the street/property infrastructure. Attachment 7 136 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 6 117/101 254/287 147/116 110/30 322/306 32/25 62/84 153/151 167/157 17/37 101/127 53/182 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview 30/67 0/1 6/2 2/1 0/0 3/1 1/2 400/299 60/39 0/2 322/469 6/1 Driveway Attachment 7 137 AM/PM BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 7 117/101 254/287 166/119 110/30 322/306 37/25 62/84 173/155 167/157 24/55 145/168 76/197 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview 24/58 0/1 6/2 2/1 0/0 3/1 1/2 363/293 54/38 0/2 255/403 6/1 Driveway Attachment 7 138 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 8 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist along Taft Hill Road within the study area. There are bicycle lanes on Laporte Avenue west of Bryan Avenue. East of Bryan Avenue, Laporte Avenue is considered a “Shared Roadway/Bike Route.” Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort routes 9, 10, 91, and 92. TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Laporte (signal) EB LT C C EB T D D EB RT C D EB APPROACH D D WB LT C D WB T D D WB RT A A WB APPROACH C D NB LT A A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT B B SB T B B SB RT B A SB APPROACH B B OVERALL B C Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT/T/RT B B EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A Attachment 7 139 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Salud Family Health facility is a proposed medical office/clinic with commercial and residential uses on adjacent lots. Figure 5 shows a site plan of the Salud Family Health facility. The Salud Family Health facility is proposed as 38,500 square feet of medical office/clinic. The other lots will include: 10,000 square feet of retail, 20,000 square feet of general office, 9,564 square feet of industrial, and 50 single family dwelling units. The short range analysis (Year 2020) includes development of the Salud Family Health facility only and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth, and other approved or expected developments in the area. The land uses on the other lots will be included in the long range (2035) traffic projections. Primary access to the Salud Family Health facility will be via a full-movement access (Salud Parkway) to/from Laporte Avenue. This access (Salud Parkway) will run through the site and eventually connect with Maple Street. However, this connection will not be made in the short range (2020) future. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9 th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the land uses on this site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation for the Salud Family Health facility and other land uses on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation for the Salud Family Health facility only (short range (2020) future) resulted in 1360 daily trip ends, 92 morning peak hour trip ends, and 123 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip generation for full development of the entire Salud Family Health site resulted in 2566 daily trip ends, 185 morning peak hour trip ends, and 239 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Salud Family Health facility was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2020) and long range (2035) analysis futures. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping emails. Background Traffic Projections Figures 7 and 8 show the respective short range (2020) and long range (2035) background traffic projections. The short range (2020) background traffic was developed by increasing the existing traffic counts by two percent per year. The Attachment 7 140 SCALE: 1"=200' SITE PLAN Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 10 Attachment 7 141 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 11 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out PDP (Short Range) 720 Medical/Dental Office 38.5 KSF EQ 1360 1.89 73 0.50 19 EQ 34 EQ 89 Long Range Lot 1 826 Specialty Retail 10.0 KSF 44.32 444 0.76 8 0.60 6 1.19 12 1.52 15 710 General Office 10.0 KSF 11.03 110 1.37 14 0.19 2 0.25 3 1.24 12 Lot 2 710 General Office 10.0 KSF 11.03 110 1.37 14 0.19 2 0.25 3 1.24 12 Lot 3 110 Light Industrial 9.564 KSF 6.97 66 0.81 8 0.11 1 0.12 1 0.85 8 Lots 5 & 6 210 Single Family 50 D.U. 9.52 476 0.19 10 0.56 28 0.63 32 0.37 18 Long Range Subtotal 1206 54 39 51 65 Total 2566 127 58 85 154 Attachment 7 142 Vine Taft Hill Laporte Grandview 5% 70% 20% 5% SCALE: 1"=600' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 12 Attachment 7 143 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 13 129/112 280/317 183/131 121/33 356/338 41/28 68/93 191/171 184/173 26/61 160/185 84/218 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview 26/64 NOM 7/2 2/1 NOM 3/1 1/2 401/323 60/42 0/2 282/445 7/1 Driveway Attachment 7 144 LONG RANGE (2035) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 14 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview Driveway 175/150 375/425 220/160 165/45 480/455 50/30 90/125 245/225 250/235 30/75 210/240 105/265 25/65 NOM 10/5 5/5 NOM 5/5 5/5 490/405 60/40 5/5 350/555 10/5 35/15 NOM NOM 330/550 30/20 475/395 Maple 30/20 35/15 AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles Salud Attachment 7 145 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 15 background traffic growth was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping emails. In the long range (2035) future, it was assumed that Maple Street would be extended and connected to Salud Parkway. Due to the condition of the streets to the east and the circuitous route, it is not likely that much site generated traffic would use the Maple Street connection. However, it is likely that the neighborhood to the east would utilize this connection in the future. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 6, Figure 9 shows the short range (2020) assignment of the site generated peak hour vehicle traffic for the Salud Family Health facility only. Maple Street is not expected to be connected through the site in the short range (2020) future. Therefore, sole public access will only be via the access to Laporte Avenue. Initially, any connection to Maple Street, to the east, would be an emergency vehicle access. Figure 10 shows the full development (long range) site generated peak hour traffic assignment. The site generated vehicle traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figures 11 and 12 show the respective short range (2020) and long range (2035) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic assignment. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. For the streets in the vicinity of the Salud Family Health facility, four hour and/or eight hour signal warrants are applicable. These warrants require much data and are applied when the traffic is actually on the area street system. It is acknowledged that peak hour signal warrants should not be applied, but since the peak hour forecasts are readily available in a traffic impact study, it is reasonable to use them to get an idea whether other signal warrants may be met. If peak hour signal warrants will not be met at a given intersection, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not likely that other signal warrants would be met. If peak hour signal warrants are met, it merely indicates that further evaluation should occur in the future as the development occurs. However, a judgment can be made that some intersections will likely meet other signal warrants. Using the long range (2035) total peak hour traffic (Figure 12), the Laporte/ Grandview-Driveway and Laporte/Salud stop sign controlled intersections will not meet the peak hour warrant. The long range (2035) total peak hour warrant is provided in Appendix D. Attachment 7 146 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 16 6/27 13/62 51/24 22/10 Laporte Taft Hill Salud 15/7 3/1 4/2 1/4 1/5 4/18 Grandview Driveway 22/10 6/27 Attachment 7 147 FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 17 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview Driveway 25/16 6/3 8/5 3/7 4/8 11/30 39/24 18/45 18/48 38/101 83/56 0/-3 40/26 -1/-2 Maple 2/5 4/3 AM/PM Salud Attachment 7 148 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 11 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 18 6/27 13/62 51/24 289/448 22/10 411/326 Laporte Taft Hill Salud 129/112 280/317 198/138 121/33 356/338 44/29 68/93 195/173 184/173 27/65 161/190 88/236 Driveway 2/1 NOM 3/1 1/2 423/333 Grandview 26/64 NOM 7/2 60/42 0/2 288/472 7/1 Attachment 7 149 LONG RANGE (2035) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 12 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 19 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview Driveway 175/150 375/425 245/175 165/45 480/455 55/35 90/125 255/230 250/235 35/80 215/250 115/295 25/65 NOM 10/5 5/5 NOM 5/5 5/5 530/430 60/40 5/5 370/600 10/5 55/65 40/100 85/55 330/545 70/45 475/395 Maple 35/25 40/20 AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles Salud Attachment 7 150 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 20 Geometry Figure 13 shows a schematic of the short range (2020) geometry. As mentioned earlier, Laporte Avenue is required to have a center (left-turn) median lane. Provision of a center left-turn lane will be difficult. It is recommended that a short two-way left-turn lane be considered in this area since there is limited street frontage related to this property. The Salud access cannot line up with public streets on the south side of Laporte Avenue due to property ownership. Therefore, the driveway spacing criteria on Table 7-3 in LCUASS cannot be met. This segment of Laporte Avenue was built long before LCUASS was adopted. Most street intersections along Laporte Avenue do not meet the spacing criteria. There is little that can be done to correct this. According to Figure 8-4, LCUASS, an eastbound right-turn deceleration lane is required at the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersection with the background traffic. The Salud Family Health facility will add no turning traffic to Grandview Avenue to the south. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the long range (2035) geometry. With full development of the Salud Family Health site, a westbound right-turn deceleration lane is required at the Laporte/Salud intersection. In light of the earlier geometry discussion, it would appear that the only practical solution is to have a continuous two-way left-turn lane for the length of Laporte Avenue. This solution would come from the City of Fort Collins. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the Taft Hill/Laporte, Laporte/Grandview- Driveway, and Laporte/Salud intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2020 condition, and for the long range, reflecting a year 2035 condition. In the intersection operation tables, the calculated delay for each movement/leg is provided when the level of service falls in the LOS E/F categories. Using the short range (2020) background peak hour traffic volumes, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. The background traffic analyses at the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersection were run with the existing geometry and with the required lanes. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing geometry and with the required geometry. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) background traffic future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The analysis assumed the required lanes at the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway and Laporte/Salud intersections. The key intersections operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours, with a slight adjustment in the signal timing during the afternoon peak hour at the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the key intersections operate in the short range (2020) total condition as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. As was done with the background traffic, the Attachment 7 151 SHORT RANGE (2020) GEOMETRY Figure 13 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 21 Laporte Taft Hill Salud Grandview Driveway - Required Lane - Existing Lane Attachment 7 152 LONG RANGE (2035) GEOMETRY Figure 14 DELICH ASSOCIATES Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 Page 22 Laporte Taft Hill Grandview Driveway Maple Salud - Required Lane - Existing Lane Attachment 7 153 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 23 TABLE 3 Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Laporte (signal) EB LT C C EB T D D EB RT C D EB APPROACH D D WB LT C D WB T D D WB RT A A WB APPROACH C D NB LT B A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT B B SB T B B SB RT B A SB APPROACH B B OVERALL C C Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign with existing geometry) NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT/T/RT B B EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign with required geometry) NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT/T/RT B B EB LT A A WB LT A A Attachment 7 154 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 24 TABLE 4 Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Laporte (signal) EB LT C C EB T D D EB RT C C EB APPROACH D D WB LT C D WB T D D WB RT A A WB APPROACH C D NB LT B B NB T B B NB RT A A NB APPROACH B B SB LT B B SB T C C SB RT B A SB APPROACH B C OVERALL C C Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C D SB LT/T/RT C C EB LT A A WB LT A A Laporte/Salud (stop sign) SB LT/RT B B EB LT A A Attachment 7 155 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 25 TABLE 5 Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Laporte (signal) EB LT C C EB T D D EB RT C D EB APPROACH D D WB LT C D WB T D D WB RT A A WB APPROACH C D NB LT B A NB T A A NB RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT B B SB T B B SB RT B A SB APPROACH B B OVERALL C C Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign with existing geometry) NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT/T/RT C B EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign with required geometry) NB LT/T/RT C C SB LT/T/RT B B EB LT A A WB LT A A Laporte/Salud (stop sign with existing geometry) SB LT/RT C C EB LT/T A A Laporte/Salud (stop sign with required geometry) SB LT/RT C C EB LT/T A A Attachment 7 156 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 26 background traffic analyses at the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway and Laporte/Salud intersections were run with the existing geometry and with the required lanes. The key intersections operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing geometry and with the required geometry. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 12, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) total traffic future as indicated in Table 6. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix H. The key intersections operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours, with a slight adjustment in the signal timing (same as background operation) during the afternoon peak hour at the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix I shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Salud Family Health facility site. Sidewalks will be built along Laporte Avenue and within the site with this development. There are three pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Salud Family Health facility development. These are: 1) the commercial uses in the northeast quadrant of the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection; 2) the residential area to the east of the site; and 3) the residential area to the south. The Salud Family Health facility site is located within an area termed as “transit corridor,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS B for directness and security and LOS C for all other measured categories. Pedestrian level of service is achieved for all categories, except for Continuity. On the north side of Laporte Avenue, there are missing sidewalks adjacent to some properties east and west of the Salud Family Health site and on the south side of Laporte Avenue. Some of these properties were approved prior to annexation. As some of these properties redevelop, sidewalks will be required adjacent to those properties. When this occurs, the Continuity measure will be met. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix I. Bicycle Level of Service There are no bicycle destinations within 1320 feet of the Salud Family Health facility site. There are bicycle lanes along Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort routes 9, 10, 91, and 92. Attachment 7 157 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 27 TABLE 6 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Laporte (signal) EB LT C C EB T D D EB RT C C EB APPROACH D D WB LT C D WB T C D WB RT A A WB APPROACH C D NB LT B B NB T B B NB RT A B NB APPROACH B B SB LT B B SB T C C SB RT B A SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C C Laporte/Grandview-Driveway (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C D SB LT/T/RT C C EB LT A A WB LT A A Laporte/Salud (stop sign) SB LT/RT C D EB LT A A Attachment 7 158 DELICH Salud Family Health TIS, October 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 28 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Salud Family Health facility development on the short range (2020) and long range (2035) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. This TIS covers both the ODP and PDP submittals. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: • The development of the Salud Family Health facility site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The trip generation for the Salud Family Health facility only (short range (2020) future) resulted in 1360 daily trip ends, 92 morning peak hour trip ends, and 123 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip generation for full development of the entire Salud Family Health site resulted in 2566 daily trip ends, 185 morning peak hour trip ends, and 239 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • Current operation at the Taft Hill/Laporte and Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersections is acceptable with existing control and geometry. • Figure 13 shows a schematic of the short range (2020) geometry. Laporte Avenue is required to have a center (left-turn) median lane. Provision of a center left-turn lane will be difficult. It is recommended that a short two-way left-turn lane be considered in this area since there is limited street frontage related to this property and most street intersections along Laporte Avenue do not meet the spacing criteria. There is little that can be done to correct this. According to Figure 8-4, LCUASS, an eastbound right-turn deceleration lane is required at the Laporte/Grandview-Driveway intersection with the background traffic. The Salud Family Health facility will add no turning traffic to Grandview Avenue to the south. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the long range (2035) geometry. It is recommended that Laporte Avenue have a continuous two-way left-turn lane for the length of Laporte Avenue. This decision would come from the City of Fort Collins. • In the short range (2020) future, given development of the Salud Family Health facility and an increase in background traffic, The key intersections operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing geometry and with the required geometry. • In the long range (2035) future, the key intersections operate acceptably in the morning and afternoon peak hours, with a modification of the signal timing in the afternoon peak hour. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. With completion of some gaps in the sidewalk system along Laporte Avenue, the pedestrian level of service will be acceptable. Attachment 7 159 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK EIGHT, MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT #PDP140016 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a mixed-use project consisting of two buildings located at the southeast corner of Linden and Willow Streets. Building One would face Linden Street, be two stories in height and contain 10,251 square feet. This building includes a standard restaurant (2,271 square feet), and various ancillary functions such as tasting room and retail sales. Building Two would be along Willow Street, range in height between three and four stories and would contain 32,874 square feet for the distilling operation. Offices would be divided between both buildings. The development includes a 95-foot high water tower, grain silos, two courtyards, outdoor patio dining and a second floor bridge connecting the two buildings. The site is 1.16 acres and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment. APPLICANT: 360 Linden, LLC c/o Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: 360 Linden, LLC c/o Brandon Grebe 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. complies with the Article Four, Section 4.17(D) Development Standards in the River Downtown Redevelopment zone district. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable Article Three General Development Standards. 160 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 . 161 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-D-R Existing Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential Buildings S: R-D-R Mawson Lumber and Kiefer Concrete E: R-D-R El Burrito and Ranch-Way Feeds W: R-D-R Feeder Supply Building (Ginger and Baker, under renovation) The site is Block 8 of the original Town Plat. For decades, it has been used as the outside storage yard for Kiefer Concrete at 360 Linden Street. 2. River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District – Design Guidelines: The Fort Collins River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District Design Guidelines were adopted in June of 2014. The document provides guidelines that promote the community’s vision for the R-D-R zone through compatible new construction and redevelopment. The goal is to support investment that builds a strong, pedestrian-oriented urban fabric and encourages creative design that is compatible with the historic context. The guidelines outlined in this document were codified into the Land Use Code, under Article Four, in the R-D-R zone district development standards which are discussed in the next section. 3. Compliance with the R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District: A. Section 4.17(B)(2) – Land Use: A Standard Restaurant is a permitted use subject to Administrative Review. A Distillery that distills more than 15,000 gallons per year exceeds the allowable amount to be defined as a micro-distillery and is considered Light Industrial which is permitted subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Since one of the two uses is a Type Two use, the P.D.P. in its entirety is considered a Type Two review. B. Section 4.17(D)(2)(a) – Development Standards – Streets and Walkways – Streets: The P.D.P. preserves the existing pattern of streets and blocks. There is no alley serving the site. The larger grid pattern is augmented by a courtyard located between the restaurant patio and the Mawson Lumber. This courtyard begins at the Linden Street sidewalk and is 50 feet in length and 20 feet in width for a total of 1,000 square feet. This courtyard is activated by the patio, raised planters and seat walls. At this scale, the courtyard is a fine-grained pedestrian amenity that helps break down the mass of the two buildings. The courtyard and patio also provide the benefit of pulling Building One 32 feet away from Mawson Lumber. C. Section 4.17(D)(2)(b) – Development Standards – Streets and Walkways – Driveways: The lot measures 489 feet along Willow Street and 136 feet along Linden Street. Along Willow Street, there is one driveway, 24-feet wide, that provides access to the service area at the back of the Distillery. The width is the minimum required for the turning radii for trucks. Due to the industrial operational aspects of this service area, this driveway will be gated and screened. Along Linden Street, however, 162 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 the aforementioned courtyard is not a driveway and there will be no curb cut that disrupts the continuity of the sidewalk. As designed, the P.D.P. complies with this standard. D. Section 4.17(D)(2)(c) – Development Standards – Streets and Walkways – Linden Streetscape: The P.D.P. is designed to extend the streetscape improvements that have been installed between Jefferson Street and Mawson Lumber. This includes diagonal on-street parking defined by landscaped curb extensions, wide sidewalks (14 feet, 10 inches) with trees in cutouts and tree grates and pedestrian light fixtures. E. Section 4.17(D)(3)(a) – Development Standards – Buildings – Industrial Buildings: This standard requires, by cross-reference, that all new industrial buildings comply with the standards for Mixed-use and Commercial Buildings contained in Section 3.5.3. In compliance with this standard, please note the following: (1.) Section 3.5.3(B) – General Standard: The two buildings provide significant architectural interest. Building One has two entrances, façade articulation, windows, steel beams, metal roof overhangs and kick plate detailing that provide a strong presence along Linden Street. The various functions within Building One are differentiated by architectural form, materials and window pattern. The articulation and window pattern is continued along the building’s frontage along Willow Street. Building Two, along Willow Street, is broken up into three components. Beginning at Linden Street, the three-story tower features a symmetrical pattern of windows from grade up to the third level that reveal the internal workings of the distillery including the large stainless steel distillation tanks. These windows are topped by an arch. The tower then continues with a fourth level that is reduced in size and stepped back similar to a cupola, or the housing for an elevator bulkhead typically associated with grain elevators. Next to the tower component is the main portion of the distilling operation which is distinguished by two stories of windows that, again, are designed to reveal the internal operation. These two stories are topped with a third floor that primarily features a bay of clerestory windows for daylighting. Next to the distilling floor are the water tower and grain silos that are behind, and partially screened by, a decorative screen wall along Willow Street. Combined, these features allow the two buildings to comply with the general standard for Mixed-Use and Commercial Buildings. (2.) Section 3.5.3(C)(1)(2) – Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking: The two buildings have a strong orientation to both Linden and Willow Streets by being placed at or near the property lines. Building One has two entrances on Linden Street. The building establishes a presence along Willow Street with the large bank of windows. The screen walls are brick and at varying heights to avoid the stockade effect. (3.) Section 3.5.3(D) – Variation in Massing: The two buildings feature a rich variation in massing by use of articulation, varying heights, recesses and projections and window patterns. The various internal functions are expressed 163 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 externally. All components of the two buildings are integral to the structures. There are no cosmetic effects or false fronts. (4.) Section 3.5.3(E)(2-6) – Character and Image – Facades, Entrances, Awnings, Base and Top Treatments: The two buildings combine to create a dramatic presence at two public streets and complement the character established by Ranch-Way Feeds and the Feeder Supply building. While there are a variety of materials, brick is prominently featured. Facades are articulated. Entrances are highlighted. The steel beams along Linden Street do not extend past the building. The two buildings both feature a distinctive base, middle and top. F. Section 4.17(D)(3)(b)1. – Development Standards – Buildings – Programming, Massing and Placement – Height/Mass: Building One is two stories but with varying heights, and Building Two is predominantly three stories with a partial fourth floor that is stepped back. The two buildings, therefore, comply with the maximum allowable height of five stories. Building Two also complies with the requirement that buildings not exceed three stories along a public street without the upper floors being stepped back. As noted, the partial fourth floor is stepped back from the third floor by seven feet. This standard also requires that new taller buildings (Building Two) next to existing shorter buildings (Mawson Lumber) must be stepped down in such a manner as to minimize their impact. In response, the south elevation of Building Two, along the extent of its relationship to Mawson Lumber, is three stories with the second floor stepped back from the first and the third floor stepped back from the second. (A perspective of the south elevation illustrates this concept.) G. Section 4.17(D)(3)(b)2.,3. – Development Standards – Buildings – Programming, Massing and Placement – Parking Lots and Street Frontage: These two standards require that parking lots and vehicular use areas must be located interior to the block, or to the sides of buildings, and that parking lots not exceed 50% of the site’s street frontage. In response, the service yard is located interior to the block, at rear of Building Two, with only a 24-foot wide driveway intersection with Willow Street. There is no parking lot associated with the P.D.P. H. Section 4.17(D)(3)(b)5. – Development Standards – Buildings – Programming, Massing and Placement – Outdoor Spaces and Amenities: As mentioned, a courtyard is provided next to the restaurant outdoor patio. This courtyard is highly visible as it begins at the sidewalk along Linden Street and extends into the site a distance of 50 feet. The courtyard features special paving and raised planters. It is activated by adjoining the outdoor patio. I. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c) – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image: This standard requires that new buildings demonstrate compatibility with the historical agricultural/industrial character of the R-D-R District in order to promote visual cohesiveness and emphasize positive historical attributes. The standard goes on to list a wide variety of methods and techniques that may be used to achieve such compatibility. 164 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 6 In response, Building One fronts on Linden Street and is subdivided into three components. The restaurant represents the least amount of mass due to its close proximity to Mawson Lumber. For example, while containing two stories, the total height is only 18 feet. The façade is richly detailed with its own distinct entrance and a generous amount of windows. The middle component is a larger mass with two stories achieving a height of 33 feet. Along the first floor, the storefront glass is full height, anchored by kick plates and accented by exposed steel beams. The second floor windows are smaller, symmetrical and emphasis a strong rectilinear pattern. This middle component is highly reflective of the ag/industrial character of the area. The third component anchors the corner and includes steel-framed windows for a more contemporary look. The different masses express their interior functions. Combined, the three components contribute to the character of the District without being overly duplicative. Building Two presents a bold visual image along Willow Street that is also broken up into three components. The four story tower and the three story distilling floor combine to create an impressive array of large, symmetrical windows that are highly evocative of the ag/industrial character of the District. The third floor clerestory windows are typical of large industrial buildings such as the Sugar Beet Plant. The end component consists of the water tower, grain silos, loading zone and outdoor storage all of which are screened by a decorative masonry screen wall. Building Two, while large, is articulated but not overly stylistic. Its rectilinear pattern is repeated which is evocative of the ag/industrial genre. The various forms reveal the aspects of both interior functions and volumes. As with Building One, Building Two promotes visual cohesiveness and emphasizes historical attributes. J. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)1. – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image – Outdoor Spaces: As mentioned, there is an outdoor courtyard between the restaurant and Mawson Lumber. In addition, the top of the restaurant features a deck which further activates the building and courtyard.. K. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)2. – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image –Windows: This standard requires that windows be individually detailed, symmetrical and placed so as to visually establish and define building stories. Windows are intended to contribute to establishing a human scale and overall sense of proportion. In response, both Buildings One and Two employ a generous amount of windows in various patterns along both public streets. Along Linden Street, the window patterns alternate between the restaurant and the balance of the façade. Along Willow Street, the window arrangement between the tower and the distilling floor is impressively arrayed in symmetrical rectilinear patterns that significantly contribute to the character of the District. L. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)3. – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image – Roof Forms: This standard requires that flat, shed and gable roof forms corresponding to massing and interior volumes/functions must be the dominant roof form. In response, for Building One, each of the three building components features a flat roof that is mitigated by cornice. A sloping metal roof protects the outdoor patio. For Building Two, the dominant roof form is a shed roof over the distilling floor that is topped by a subordinate shed that encloses the clerestory windows. The tower features a flat roof with a cornice. 165 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 7 M. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)4. – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image – Materials: This standard requires that exterior materials contribute to the visual continuity within the District. In response, the predominant building material is brick. Along the south elevation, standing seam metal is used primarily along the projecting wing of the distilling floor. N. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)5. – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image – Primary Entrance: This standard requires that primary entrances be clearly identified, oriented to the major street and feature a sheltering element. In response, there are two entrances along Linden Street. Both entrances are recessed behind the sidewalk and feature subtle overhangs. O. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)6. – Development Standards – Buildings – Character and Image – Accent Features: This standard requires that accent features, where used, must complement and not dominate the overall composition and design of the building. Such features may include secondary entrances, loading docks, garage bays, balconies, canopies, cupolas, vertical elevator/stair shafts and other similar features. In response, while both Buildings One and Two mitigate their mass by a variety of forms and materials, the buildings do not rely upon the use of accent features. For example, the restaurant is the smallest component and features detailed articulation, yet it is not heavily accented. Staff does not interpret the water tower and grain silos to be accents as these elements are fully functional and support the distilling process. P. Section 4.17(D)(4)(b) – Site Design – Walls, Fences and Planters: This standard requires that walls, fences, and planters be designed to match the quality of materials, style and color of the local vernacular. In response, the screen wall along Willow Street is constructed of brick to match the building. In addition, all gates are solid. Planters are constructed of masonry materials. Q. Section 4.17(D)(4)(c) – Street Edge: This standard requires that the street edge must be well-defined and compatible with the streetscape in the public realm. In this case, the two buildings are brought up to the edge of both streets with one exception. As noted, the restaurant features a courtyard that begins behind the sidewalk and is 50 feet wide. The P.D.P. includes landscaping and streetscaping along Linden Street that is an extension of the existing improvements found along the frontage of Mawson Lumber. Along Willow Street, trees are placed in grates in compliance with the standards for a public street in the R-D-R District. R. Section 4.17(D)(4)(g) – Service Areas and Outside Storage Areas: This standard requires that service and outside storage areas be located to the side and rear of buildings, screened from view and not impact pedestrian movement. In response, the service area is in the back of the Building Two. This area features the loading dock, mechanical equipment, trash and recycles containers, grain silos and the water tower. It is screened by combination of brick walls and solid gates. The standard acknowledges that the grain silos and water tower, by necessity, may be only partially screened but only so long as the screening material is consistent with the ag/industrial character of the area. The use of brick to accomplish this partial screening complies with the standard. 166 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 8 Compliance with the Applicable Article Three General Development Standards: As can be seen by the previous section, the R-D-R zone district is contains a comprehensive list of development standards. This is because most of the guidelines in the Fort Collins R-D-R River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District Design Guidelines were codified into Article Four. For those standards not addressed in Section 4.17(D), a discussion of the applicable General Development Standards is provided. A. Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection: Street trees will be provided along both streets in sidewalk cut outs protected by tree grates. This is consistent with the design established by the first phase of the City’s capital improvement project along Linden Street between Jefferson Street and Willow Street. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking: The minimum required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the square footage associated with the following uses: light industrial; retail; standard restaurant; and general office. These uses, and their square footage, yield a minimum requirement of 16 spaces, two of which must be enclosed. In response, the P.D.P. provides 16 spaces, two of which are enclosed. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) – Non-Residential Parking Requirements in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone: The purpose of discussing this standard is to explain that it’s not applicable due to the application for the P.D.P. preceding the adoption of Ordinance Number 163, 2014 which established a required minimum number of parking spaces in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The P.D.P. was submitted on September 24, 2014 and has remained current by complying with the various deadlines and extension opportunities per Section 2.2.11(A) – Step 11: Lapse – Application Submittals. The Ordinance that established required minimum number of parking spaces in the T.O.D., however, was adopted on Second Reading on November 18, 2014. The standard in effect at the time of the application governs the P.D.P. Since the applicable governing standard required zero parking for non- residential uses in the T.O.D., the P.D.P., with zero off-street parking spaces, complies with the standard in effect upon the date of submittal. Despite there being no on-site parking, the applicant owns land in the immediate vicinity where off-site parking is planned for employees. D. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting: Outside the public roadway lighting, the lighting plan is designed to activate the areas along Linden Street at the two entrances to Building One and the courtyard. Along Willow Street, due to the building placement at the property line, illumination is provided solely by public street lighting. In the service yard and loading dock, lighting is calibrated to provide safe levels of illumination necessary to perform tasks at night. All fixtures will feature fully shielded, down-directional luminaires. E. Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources: Because the P.D.P is adjacent to sites that are designated, eligible or potentially eligible as historic resources, the two proposed buildings were forwarded to the Landmark Preservation Commission. At its April 27, 2016 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6). The L.P.C. voted 6-2 to recommend to the Decision Maker approval of 167 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 9 the River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Project (PDP140016), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in the Land Use Code 3.4.7 and the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District Design Guidelines, in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency. (LPC Memorandum attached.) F. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility: This standard requires that new development in existing developed areas be compatible with the established architectural character. While this standard is somewhat duplicative of the R-D-R and Historic and Cultural Resources standards, it is noteworthy the extent to which the two buildings complement the District. Both Ranch-Way Feeds and the Feeder Supply building (under renovation) influence the adjacent area. The two new buildings proposed for River District Block Eight respect these two historic assets both in form and function. G. Section 3.5.1(G) – Building Height Review: The maximum allowable height in the R-D-R zone is five stories. For buildings over 40 feet, however, Section 3.5.1(G) requires a height review. The architectural character of the height and mass of the two buildings is subject to the more specific standards in Article Four Section 4.17(D). The remaining issues addressed by these standards are shadowing, privacy and neighborhood scale. The height of the two buildings, and their various aspects, are as follows: • Building One – Restaurant: 18 feet • Building One – Middle (Retail/Office): 37 feet • Building One – End (Office): 38 feet • Building Two – 4th Level Tower: 66 feet • Building Two – 3rd Level Tower: 55 feet • Building Two – Distillery Floor 52 feet • Water Tower 95 feet • Silos 33 feet (1.) Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. – Light and Shadow: A shadow analysis has been provided. (Note that the buildings are oriented 40-degrees northwest of an east-west line). Building Two, fourth level tower, at 68 feet, represents the most acute case of shadowing. The analysis reveals that for the three conditions (November, December, and February), the tower casts a slight shadow onto the El Burrito property. Most all other shadows fall upon public right-of-way. Per the standard, staff finds that the shadowing does not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Nor does the shadowing preclude the functional use of solar energy technology or cause an undue accumulation of snow and ice on adjacent property. (2.) Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. – Privacy: This standard refers generally to preserving privacy for adjacent residential uses. The shadow analysis reveals that there is no shadowing on the adjacent blocks where upper-story, mixed-use dwellings have been proposed under future redevelopment scenarios. 168 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 10 (3.) Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3. – Neighborhood Scale: The variety of proposed building heights is required by this standard to be compatible given the relationship of the site to Ranch-Way Feeds across Willow Street. The highest point is the proposed water tower at 95 feet. The existing two elevators and equipment at Ranch-Way are between 95 and 120 feet. The proposed Building Two fourth level tower is 68 feet which is roughly the mid-point between the top the three-story Ranch-Way building and the top of the elevators. The south elevation of Building Two is stepped back for the benefit of Mawson Lumber. Staff, therefore, finds that the proposed buildings and equipment that are over 40 feet in height are compatible with the scale of the neighborhood. H. Section 3.5.1(I) – Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment: All outdoor storage, trash and recycling, loading and electrical transformers are located behind a solid screen wall with solid gates. I. Section 3.5.1(J) – Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards: The operational aspects of a distillery, like a brewery, combine both indoor processes and outdoor silos, storage and loading dock functions. As noted above, the outdoor yard is well-screened and allows for loading and storage to not have a visual impact on the surrounding area. It is not necessary to screen the water tower and grain silos as these appurtenances are integral to the distilling process. J. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements: A Transportation Impact Study (October 2014) and subsequent Memorandum Addendum (November 2014) was submitted with this P.D.P. (See attached.) It analyzed the anticipated traffic for the development, including the distillery, office space, and retail on the adjacent intersections. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study: • At full buildout, the development will generate approximately 1,322 daily trip ends, 63 morning peak hour trip ends, and 132 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • Current operation at the Willow/Linden intersections is acceptable, and no improvements or signal warrants are met with this study. • The operation of the Willow/Lincoln is also acceptable, and no signal warrant is met. However, the vehicular volumes for some turning movements at the intersection do meet thresholds for auxiliary turn lanes. This includes a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane from Lincoln onto Willow. The impact of this development on those movements is limited, the improvements are not along frontage of the development and no current right-of-way exists to build the improvements. Therefore, these improvements are not the responsibility of the development – they are being considered in the design of the current Lincoln Avenue capital improvement project. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. For pedestrians, this development will construct all the appropriate pedestrian elements within their property and along their roadway frontage. 169 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 11 • The site is served by the following transit routes: o Routes 5 and 14 along Jefferson Street o Routes 8 and 81 along Willow and Linden • Staff’s conclusion is that the development meets the Transportation Level of Service Requirements. 3. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on September 17, 2014. The proposed project was well- received by those attending. (Note that the building program and size has been reduced since the neighborhood meeting.) 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In evaluating the request for River District Block Eight, Old Elk Distillery, P.D.P., staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with the Article Four, Section 4.17(D) Development Standards in the River Downtown Redevelopment zone district. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable Article Three General Development Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that, based on the Findings of Fact on page 14 of the Staff Report, the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve River District Block Eight, Old Elk Distillery, P.D.P. #PDP140016 ATTACHMENTS 1. L.P.C. Memorandum (DOCX) 2. Applicant's Planning Objectives (PDF) 3. Site Plan (PDF) 4. Landscape Plan (PDF) 5. Elevations and Perspectives (PDF) 6. Traffic Memo (PDF) 7. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 8. Neighbor Letter (PDF) 9. LPC Draft Hearing Minutes (PDF) 170 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2016 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Ted Shepard, Chief Planner FR: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the River District Block 8 Mixed Use Project As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. At its April 27, 2016 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the development project known as River District Block 8 mo(PDP140016) as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6). The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 6-2 with one member absent: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Project (PDP140016), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in the Land Use Code 3.4.7 and the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District Design Guidelines, in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons: 1) The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with adjacent historic buildings. 2) The project uses appropriate step-backs and site design to mitigate height relative to the historic context. 3) The project relies on building materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. 4) The project uses window patterning and proportions that are typical of the adjacent historic context. 171 - 2 - The six Commission members voting in favor of the recommendation for approval stated the following reasons: 1) The water tower height of 95 feet is compatible with the proportions of the project as a whole and the engineering analysis provided to support the proposed height provides an adequate rationale for its design and scale. 2) The 95-foot water tower tank and supports are in proportion with each other, while the previously proposed 120-foot tower was out of scale with the project and the area of adjacency and the support legs were not in proportion with the tank. 3) The primary material of the whole composition of the project is brick masonry, which is compatible with the primary use of brick masonry in the area of adjacency. 4) The use of metal is appropriate based on both LUC 3.4.7 and the R-D-R Design Guidelines, which encourage the use of architectural metal and new industrial uses. The two Commission members who voted against the motion stated the following reasons: 1) While noting support for the quality and compatibility of the proposed design of the west, north, and east elevations of the distillery, the proposal does not adequately address that it is a four-sided building. The south elevation design is incompatible based on the scale and mass of metal building material that references newer metal buildings, not just historic buildings noted in the area of adjacency. The buildings in the area of adjacency are primarily composed of brick masonry. 2) The proposed material is composite metal panels rather than corrugated metal, which is typical of the metal buildings in the River District. 172 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com April 27, 2016 Lot 1, River District Block 8 Mixed Use Project Development Plan - Planning Objectives Introduction The Lot 1, River District Block 8 Mixed Use Project Development Plan is a mixed use project containing two buildings. It is located on a 1.25-acre site at the southwest corner of Linden Street and Willow Street in Old Town. The site falls within River Downtown Redevelopment District and the overlapping boundary of the Old Town Historic District. Surrounded by the rich history of the agricultural and industrial heritage of this district, the design takes these influences and incorporates them into the industrial proportions and materiality of the buildings. The larger building is 32,874 sf and contains a distillery and associated office space. It is 2-stories and 50’6” tall, with an iconic tower element that reaches 65’-7”. Based around the main distillery building at the core of the site, a separate building along Linden will create a strong link to Old Town. This building is 10,251 sf and includes retail and office space associated with the distillery, and a pub. It is 2-stories and 37’ tall. The proposed development takes a comprehensive approach to the use of the site, with a special focus on enhancing the street, providing for efficient functional site requirements and utilizing high quality and enduring materials. The new buildings reflect traditional development patterns and align with historic buildings at the street edge. A south facing alley-like area between the old Depot (currently Mawson Lumber) and the new building is celebrated as a link to the pub and gated courtyard beyond. Set Attachment 2 173 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com between the two buildings a natural courtyard is formed. A variety of informal seating and gathering opportunities create a unique experience. The buildings architecture grows from the pedestrian nature of Linden and the celebration of existing historic buildings including the Depot next door. The proposed multi-use buildings respect the one-story nature of the Depot, following the transitional height requested by the district guidelines, with a similar one-story building as a plinth for a crescendo of heights as we get farther from the Depot. The façade along Linden incorporates a porous retail front with human scale elements, similar in proportions to Old Town facades. Extensive use of storefront glass allows transparency for pedestrians at the Linden and Willow intersection. As the building turns the corner along Willow, the retail and office facade will complement the distillery but integrate more refined and sophisticated detail. Wall penetrations will include larger openings at the pedestrian level with smaller openings above. The factory side of the distillery is expressed by a traditional two-story factory made of brick and large widows. The distillery doesn’t hide systems such as a water tower, stills tower or silos, but rather integrates them to reinforce function. The facility, as a whole evokes, a sense of history influenced by Old Town as well as the industrial nature of the grain silos, the railroad tracks and other buildings/sites being redeveloped. The interior of the building follows a chronological discovery that articulates a reference to the commerce of spirits. The exterior materials include brick, steel detailing, metal siding, precast concrete, storefront, and industrial looking windows. The building façade will include a water tower and grain silos to help define the nature of the building use. (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan. The River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development project is supported by many City Plan Principles and Policies including:  Economic Health Policies having to do with job creation, diversifying the local economy, leveraging the Fort Collins brand, and supporting local, unique and creative businesses.  Environmental Health Policies that promote energy efficiency, waste management, recycling, hazardous materials management, water quality and storm water management.  Community and Neighborhood Livability Policies having to do with compact urban development, redevelopment in infill areas, community appearance and design, streetscapes and public spaces, ecologically sound landscape practices, commercial developments that contribute to Fort Collins visual quality and uniqueness, enhancement of historic resources, bicycle and pedestrian Attachment 2 174 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com access, Downtown activity center goals and the Poudre River District design objectives.  Culture, Parks, and Recreation Policies that encourage art and culture as economic drivers for the Downtown, cultural education, and diverse cultural and artistic experiences.  Transportation Policies that encourage pedestrian mobility, bicycle facilities, and alternative modes of travel (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. The site is highly urban and does not contain any natural habitats or features. The site design includes streetscapes along Linden and Willow with an alley-like pocket park on the south side adjacent to the Depot building. A private courtyard is situated between the two buildings. The outdoor spaces are designed to be consistent with the Fort Collins River District Design Guidelines. Some of the key site design features that are used to enhance the street edge are pedestrian-oriented entries, windows facing the street, small public spaces linked to the sidewalk, urban streetscape design and landscaping, and street furniture. The ultimate design for these outdoor spaces will also include special paving, water features, enhanced pedestrian scale lighting and other unique decorative features. (iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. Blue Ocean, Inc. will own and maintain the private outdoor spaces inside the property line. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. At full production, Old Elk Distillery will have around 35 employees, the restaurant could have 50 +/- depending upon the shifts. The project as a whole will likely push to 100 total employees at some point in the future which will include employment for the retail, tours, and other offerings. (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. See introduction. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The Planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence Attachment 2 175 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. All land uses proposed in the project are permitted uses in the zone district and no modifications or engineering variances are being requested. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. The project does not affect any wetlands or natural habitats or features. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. A neighborhood meeting was held October 1st 2014 to provide an opportunity for neighboring property owners to see the proposal, ask questions and provide comments. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. Lot 1, River District Block 8 Mixed Use (Old Elk Distillery at PDR) (e) Response Letter (27 copies) addressing each of the applicable issues raised in the conceptual review letter. The project was presented at a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) meeting on August 27th . See comment responses attached. (f) A complete list of the new street names requested in the proposed development. (2 copies) The Larimer County Street Inventory System can be accessed to determine the availability of street names. The Web site is: www.co.larimer.co.us/streets. No new streets are being proposed. (g) Legal description of the site. See attached (h) The name and address of each owner of property within the boundaries of the development plan area. 360 Linden, LLC Manager: Kurt Hoeven Attachment 2 176 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Contact: Brandon Grebe 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 (i) A list of names of all general and limited partners (if a partnership), all managers and directors (if a limited liability company) and/or officers and directors (if a corporation) involved as either applicants or owners of the project development plan. 360 Linden, LLC Manager: Kurt Hoeven Contact: Brandon Grebe 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 (j) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed, including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas. Construction is expected to begin in Fall of 2016 and be completed Fall of 2017. Attachment 2 177 178 179 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Fort Collins, Colorado Landmark Preservation Commission 180 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION - WILLOW STREET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALITY 95’-0” WATER TOWER 95’-0” WATER TOWER 181 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 WEST ELEVATION - LINDEN STREET EAST ELEVATION - FROM COURTYARD EAST ELEVATION - FROM SERVICE YARD WEST ELEVATION - FROM COURTYARD LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER TRUSS BEARING UPPER TOWER 68' - 0" 33' - 0" 55' - 0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALITY 95’-0” WATER TOWER ROOF PARAPET 34’-0” ROOF PARAPET 34’-0” R 182 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 PHOTOMONTAGE FROM JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET WILLOW LINDEN 183 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 JEFFERSON STREET WILLOW LINDEN PHOTOMONTAGE FROM JEFFERSON STREET 184 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 JEFFERSON STREET WILLOW LINDEN PHOTOMONTAGE FROM JEFFERSON STREET 185 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016   BUILDING 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - TYPICAL BAY SOUTH ELEVATION KEY RDR 6.11: “Genuine masonry, metal, concrete, structural steel and glass are preferred.” RDR 6.17: Appropriate roof materials include standing seam metal roofs (low and narrow seam profile) and photovoltaic systems in dark matte, nonreflective finishes, for example. Composition shingles are also appropriate on smaller structures.” RDR 6.14: “Architectural metals should convey a sense of human scale. For example, a sense of scale can be achieved through the use of smaller scaled panels, varying forms and designs, creating patterns To provide visual interest, or eliminating expanses of unarticulated wall space.” 186 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" OLD ELK NORTH ELEVATION - WILLOW STREET RANCHWAY FEEDS NORTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATION HEIGHT COMPARISON 220’-0” R WATER TOWER WEST ELEVATION - LINDEN STREET LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" 95’-0” WATER TOWER 95’-0” WATER TOWER 120’-0” RANCHWAY FEEDS 187 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" OLD ELK SOUTH ELEVATION RANCHWAY FEEDS SOUTH ELEVATION LEVEL 1 00' - 0" OLD ELK EAST ELEVATION - FROM SERVICE YARD LEVEL 1 00' - 0" LEVEL 2 18' - 0" ROOF - TOWER 68' - 0" TRUSS BEARING 33' - 0" UPPER TOWER 55' - 0" EXTERIOR ELEVATION HEIGHT COMPARISON 95’-0” WATER TOWER 120’-0” RANCHWAY FEEDS 95’-0” WATER TOWER 188 RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT | Fort Collins, Colorado | LPC Hearing 18 April 2016 Water Tower Storage Vessel Volume Requirement A 2” displacement water meter will flow 80 GPM using the AWWA 50% design criteria for continuous flow, and 130 GPM maximum. The calculated average daily use is 114,011 gallons (GPD) with a peak flow rate of 175.2 GPM for the entire building. Using the continuous design criteria, the building will use 95 GPM more than can be delivered by the water service; using the 80% recommended design criteria, the difference drops to 45 GPM. Assuming the process would be in this deficit for 3.6 hours per day (from the original water usage calculation spreadsheet), an additional 20,520 gallons of storage will be needed above the minimum 10,000 gallons needed for process cooling. Therefore, a cold water storage tank capable of holding 30,520 gallons will be necessary for this facility. Based on these calculations it is recommended that a 31,000 – 40,000 gallon water tower vessel be provided; which will provide additional time to react in case there is an issue with the water service or the cooling system. Water Tower Structure, Placement and Footprint The Water Tower’s structural legs and their taper angle are also a consideration in regards to the ultimate height of the water storage tank relative to its associated footprint within the service yard. Adequate water tower height must be maintained to allow for the thick stillage tanks to fit within the skeletal structure of the legs and allow for sufficient circulation between them. A proportional taper angle must be maintained from the base footprint which is anchored into the foundation to support and counteract any seismic displacement of the water tower vessel. The anchorage of the foundation system is further bolstered by the inclusionary weight of the stillage tanks set on top of the Water Tower mat slab foundation system. Water Tower Height Requirement based on Mechanical Process Engineering 1. Emergency cooling - If a failure occurs in the main distribution pumps, the water tank can gravity feed water through the 10 condensers to keep them cool and keep the alcohol in a liquid form until the corresponding stills can safely be brought down. The highest condensing equipment in the distillery tower is 60’-1” above the finished floor level, and the pressure drop across the condenser to achieve the flow required drives the height of the bottom of the water tower vessel to be 60’-1” above the ground. Otherwise, alcohol vapor could over-run the condensers, spirit safe and eventually the spirit tanks and potentially create an unsafe condition for the operators. There are dual pumps in the system but a lightning strike could take them both out at the same time, for which the Water Tower will be providing lighting protection to the facility and must maintain the highest point relative to the site. 2. Failure in the secondary cooling pumps will cause an over-heating condition where gravity flow from the water tower will keep the system cool and avoid temperature relief valves from popping and potentially damaging the equipment. 3. The tower quickly provides water necessary to dilute the alcohol to below the flash point in the event of a spill in the still room. By quickly diluting the spill, a safer environment for the response team will be realized. 68’-0” 55’-0” 33’-0” 18’-0” 00’-0” 10’-0” 189 Attachment 6 190 Attachment 6 191 Attachment 6 192 Attachment 6 193 Attachment 6 194 Attachment 6 195 Attachment 7 196 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets ............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 6 Pederstrian Facilities ....................................................................................................... 6 Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................. 6 Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................. 6 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 8 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 8 Event Venue .................................................................................................................... 8 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 10 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 10 Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................. 10 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 15 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15 Parking .......................................................................................................................... 15 Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................................................................... 18 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 18 Transit Level of Service ................................................................................................. 18 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 19 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .................................................................................... 7 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 8 3. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 17 4. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 17 Attachment 7 197 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry ..................................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 5 4. Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 9 5. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 11 6. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 12 7. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 13 8. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 14 9. Short Range (2016) Geometry ................................................................................ 16 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation F. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets Attachment 7 198 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Old Elk Distillery development. The proposed Old Elk Distillery site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Linden/Willow intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project developer (Blue Ocean), the project architect (Oz Architecture), the project planning consultant (Ripley Design), and Fort Collins Traffic Engineering. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). Due to the trip generation, this is an intermediate transportation impact study. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation Attachment 7 199 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Old Elk Distillery development is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily industrial and commercial. There are industrial uses to the south, east, and north of the site. There are commercial uses to the south of the site. The proposed Old Elk Distillery site is currently vacant. The center of Fort Collins lies to the south of the proposed Old Elk Distillery development site. Streets The primary streets near the Old Elk Distillery site are Lincoln Avenue, Linden Street, and Willow Street. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the key intersections. Lincoln Avenue is southeast of the Old Elk Distillery site. It is an east-west street classified as a two-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Lincoln Avenue has a two-lane cross section. At the Lincoln/Willow intersection, Lincoln Avenue has all movements combined into a single lane. The Lincoln/Willow intersection has stop sign control on Willow Street. The posted speed limit in this area of Lincoln Avenue is 35 mph. Willow Street is northeast of (adjacent to) the Old Elk Distillery site. It is a northwest-southeast street classified as a two-lane collector on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Willow Street has a two-lane cross section. At the Lincoln/Willow intersection, Willow Street has all movements combined into a single lane. At the Willow/Linden intersection, Willow Street has all movements combined into a single lane. The Willow/Linden intersection has all-way stop sign control. The posted speed limit in this area of Willow Street is 25 mph. Linden Street is northwest of (adjacent to) the Old Elk Distillery site. It is a northeast-southwest street classified as a two-lane collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Linden Street has a two-lane cross section. At the Willow/Linden intersection, Linden Street has all movements combined into the single lane. The posted speed limit in this area of Linden Street is 25 mph. Existing Traffic Recent morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The traffic counts at the Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections were obtained in September 2014. Raw traffic count data are provided in Appendix B. Attachment 7 200 Willow Street College Avenue LindenStreet Lincoln Avenue Mountain Avenue Jefferson Street SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 3 Attachment 7 201 EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 4 Willow Street Linden Street - Denotes Lane Lincoln Avenue Attachment 7 202 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 5 Willow Street Linden Street - Denotes Lane Lincoln Avenue 13/31 148/253 81/175 175/303 102/132 18/46 16/21 34/57 7/22 34/53 65/93 11/11 36/32 114/117 24/26 18/22 104/186 10/11 Attachment 7 203 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 6 Existing Operation The Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic shown in Figure 3, the peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry in the morning and afternoon peak hours. A description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. This site is in an area termed “mixed use district.” In areas termed “mixed use district,” acceptable overall operation at stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable level of service level of service F for any approach leg at arterial/collector intersection. In urban and urbanizing corridors, delays commensurate with level of service E and F are typical for minor street left-turns at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets during the peak hours. These delays are generally accepted by the traveling public. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Linden Street and portions of Lincoln Avenue. There is no sidewalk along the Willow Street. The Poudre Trail is to the northeast of the Old Elk Distillery site. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist along Lincoln Avenue and Linden Street. The Poudre Trail is to the northeast of the Old Elk Distillery site. Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 5, 8, 14 and 81. Routes 5 and 14 run along Jefferson Street and have bus stops near the Jefferson/Linden intersection. Routes 8 and 81 run along Willow Street and Linden Street and have bus stops near the Willow/Linden intersection. Attachment 7 204 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 7 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Lincoln/Willow (Stop Sign) SEB LT/RT B C NEB LT/T A A Willow/Linden (All-Way Stop) SEB LT/T/RT A A NWB LT/T/RT A B NEB LT/T/RT A A SWB LT/T/RT A A Attachment 7 205 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 8 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Old Elk Distillery development consists of a 34,640 square foot distillery, a 5,939 square foot restaurant, an 11,694 square foot corporate office, a 3,593 square foot retail component, and a 14,975 square foot event venue. Figure 4 shows a site plan of the Old Elk Distillery. The short range analysis (Year 2016) includes full development of the Old Elk Distillery and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The site plan shows that trucks/service vehicles will have an access to Willow Street. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Light Industrial (Code 110), High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (Code 932), Corporate Office (Code 714), and Specialty Retail (814) in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE were used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed Old Elk Distillery development. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. The calculated trip generation is 1322 daily trip ends; 63 morning peak hour trip ends; and 132 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 110 Light Industrial 34.64 KSF 6.97 242 0.81 28 0.11 4 0.12 4 0.85 29 932 Restaurant 5.939 KSF 127.15 756 * * 5.91 35 3.94 23 714 Corporate Office 11.694 KSF 7.98 94 1.41 17 0.11 1 0.14 2 1.27 15 814 Retail 3.593 KSF 64.03 230 2.59 9 1.22 4 3.41 12 3.41 12 Total 1322 54 9 53 79 * Not Open Event Venue There is a banquet room and a number of private dining rooms within the Old Elk Distillery building. The largest number of event guests would be 250, however, an event of this size would not be frequent. Events would generally occur on weekends (wedding receptions or similar activity), which would not impact the conventional weekday peak hours of the street. Some events could occur on weekday evenings, which could impact a portion of the afternoon peak hour of the street. The end of this type of event would not impact the peak hour of the street. The private dining rooms have limited seating and would not be used on a regular basis. There are conference rooms on the second floor which are designed to accommodate 136 people. These Attachment 7 206 SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 9 Attachment 7 207 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 10 facilities would not be used on a daily basis. It is expected that parking for the events would occur at available on-street spaces or in the parking garages. Due to the infrequency of events at the Old Elk Distillery, rigorous analyses of the key intersections were not conducted at event times. Given the location of this site and nature of the parking in the area, the traffic impacts of an event would be spread over a large area (a number of square blocks). Specific impacts to key intersections are difficult to determine and evaluate. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Old Elk Distillery development was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2016) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Background Traffic Projections Figure 6 shows the short range (2016) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan and traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. The other traffic studies in this area are Feeder Supply and Block One. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic volumes would increase by approximately 4% per year in the short range future. The Feeder Supply and Block One traffic was added to determine the background volumes. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 7 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment of the Old Elk Distillery site. Figure 8 shows the short range (2016) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic assignment. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden stop sign control intersections will not meet peak hour signal warrants and do not meet the signal spacing criteria. Therefore, they will not be signalized. Attachment 7 208 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 11 Willow Street Linden Street Lincoln Avenue 30% 10% 40% 10% 10% Attachment 7 209 SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 12 Willow Street Linden Street Lincoln Avenue 21/41 160/274 94/195 189/328 116/149 31/62 17/23 87/103 18/34 58/82 99/138 15/15 60/51 128/132 26/28 22/27 117/206 16/17 AM/PM Attachment 7 210 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 13 Willow Street Linden Street Lincoln Avenue 6/6 6/5 1/8 1/8 5/8 0/2 16/16 1/1 1/1 4/3 0/1 10/13 4/8 1/5 4/17 6/21 AM/PM Attachment 7 211 SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 14 Willow Street Linden Street Lincoln Avenue 27/47 160/274 100/200 189/328 117/157 32/70 22/31 87/105 34/50 59/83 100/139 19/18 60/52 138/145 30/36 23/32 121/213 21/38 AM/PM Attachment 7 212 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 15 Geometry Figure 9 shows a schematic of the short range (2016) geometry. According to the Lincoln Corridor Plan, the Lincoln/Willow intersection will have separate left-turn and right- turn lanes on Willow Street and Lincoln Avenue will have an eastbound left-turn lane, a through lane in each direction, and a westbound right-turn lane. Since it is not known when this will occur, the short range analysis was conducted with the existing geometry and the Lincoln Corridor Plan Geometry. Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting year 2016 conditions. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections operate in the short range (2016) background condition as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections will operate acceptably with both the existing geometry and future geometry. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections operate in the short range (2016) total traffic future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate acceptably with both the existing geometry and future geometry. Parking The site plan shows that off-street parking will not be provided for either employees or visitors/customers. However, parking for trucks, related to the shipping/receiving of product and materials, will be provided at the east end of the building. The trucks will enter from Willow Street and exit via an “alley” to Lincoln Avenue. The exiting trucks will make a right turn on Lincoln Avenue to reach the Jefferson-Riverside/Lincoln-Mountain signalized intersection. Employees, who drive personal vehicles to/from work, will park at available on- street spaces or in public parking lots in the area. There are two City operated parking garages within 3-4 blocks of the Old Elk Distillery site. There are time parking limits along many streets in this area of Fort Collins. It is likely that the two parking garages will be utilized by many employees. Visitors and customers are expected to utilize the available on-street parking in the area, since they will generally not require long term (more than 2 hours) parking. The on- street parking is utilized for other similar land uses in this area of Fort Collins. While the implementation schedule is not known, there are plans to introduce considerable on-street parking on Willow Street in the future. Attachment 7 213 SHORT RANGE (2016) GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 Page 16 Willow Street Linden Street - Denotes Lane Lincoln Avenue - Lincoln Corridor Plan Geometry Attachment 7 214 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 17 TABLE 3 Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Lincoln/Willow (Stop Sign)(Existing Geometry) SEB LT/RT B D NEB LT/T A A Lincoln/Willow (Stop Sign) (Lincoln Corridor Plan Geometry) SEB LT B C SEB RT A B SEB APPROACH B C NEB LT A A Willow/Linden (All-Way Stop) SEB LT/T/RT B B NWB LT/T/RT A B NEB LT/T/RT A B SWB LT/T/RT A B TABLE 4 Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Lincoln/Willow (Stop Sign)(Existing Geometry) SEB LT/RT B D NEB LT/T A A Lincoln/Willow (Stop Sign) (Lincoln Corridor Plan Geometry) SEB LT B C SEB RT A B SEB APPROACH B C NEB LT A A Willow/Linden (All-Way Stop) SEB LT/T/RT B B NWB LT/T/RT A B NEB LT/T/RT A B SWB LT/T/RT B B Attachment 7 215 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 18 There are a number of bus routes (5, 8, 14, and 81) within one block of the Old Elk Distillery site. The Downtown Transit Center (MAX and many additional bus routes) is 3-4 blocks from the Old Elk Distillery site. Bicycle parking facilities will be provided at the Old Elk Distillery site. Pedestrian Level of Service There are/will be sidewalks to the southwest (to Old Town) and to the northeast (Poudre Trail). Sidewalks will be constructed related to the Feeder Supply Project. Sidewalks will be constructed along Willow Street adjacent to this site. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Old Elk Distillery development. There are three pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Old Elk Distillery development. These are: 1) the commercial/industrial area to the southwest; 2) the Poudre Trail to the northeast; and 3) the industrial/recreational area to the northwest. The Old Elk Distillery site is located within an area termed as “pedestrian district,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories, except for street crossings which is LOS B. Pedestrian level of service is not achieved for all pedestrian destinations with regard to continuity for one pedestrian destination. The continuity gap is along Willow Street, northwest of Linden Street. As the area redevelops, this deficiency will be corrected. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The practical limits of pedestrian improvements would be on the Old Elk Distillery site itself. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Old Elk Distillery development. There is one bicycle destination within 1320 feet of the Old Elk Distillery development. This is the Poudre Trail to the northeast. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The minimum level of service for this site is B. This site is connected to bike lanes on Linden Street. Therefore, it is concluded that level of service B can be achieved. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 5, 8, 14 and 81. Routes 5 and 14 run along Jefferson Street and have bus stops near the Jefferson/Linden intersection. Routes 8 and 81 run along Willow Street and Linden Street and have bus stops near the Willow/Linden intersection. Attachment 7 216 DELICH Old Elk Distillery TIS, October 2014 ASSOCIATES Page 19 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Old Elk Distillery on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2016) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of the Old Elk Distillery is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Old Elk Distillery will generate approximately 1,322 daily trip ends, 63 morning peak hour trip ends, and 132 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - Current operation at the Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections is acceptable. - The Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections will not meet peak hour signal warrants and do not meet the signal spacing criteria and will not be signalized. - In the short range (2016) future, given development of Old Elk Distillery and an increase in background traffic, the Lincoln/Willow and Willow/Linden intersections will operate acceptably with existing control and the existing and future geometry. - The short range (2016) geometry is shown in Figure 9. - Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. For pedestrians continuity factor could not achieve the desired level of service for a “pedestrian district” for one pedestrian destination. As the area redevelops, this deficiency will be corrected. This area of Fort Collins was built prior to the current LCUASS Document being adopted. Attachment 7 217 Attachment 8 From: Martha Roden [mailto:martharoden@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 10:52 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: Typos fixed -- Fort Collins: Choice City for Alcoholics? (#PDP140016) Dear Ted, I will be in California on the day of the public hearing regarding River District Block 8, Mixed- Use Development, #PDP140016. Therefore, I want to send you my comments now. Please share them with the developers who are pushing this project. Suffice it to say, I do NOT want to see yet another alcohol-based business in my part of town. There are already 60 Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and 17 Al-Anon meetings per week in Fort Collins. I think that should tell Fort Collins that our community has a serious problem with alcohol! I am tired of seeing vomit on the sidewalks and encountering loud, inebriated young people (and some old) around town. We need another distillery like we need a hole in the head. Mobb Distillery is right across the street from the lot, O’Dell Brewery is 2 blocks north, and the Surfside and Blind Pig bars are just one block south on Linden. Plus, there is already a plethora of bars on or near College from Laporte south to Mulberry — let’s see, Copper Muse Distillery, Trailhead Tavern, Elliot’s Martini Bar, Drunken Monkey, and Tony’s, just to name a few (not to mention New Belgium Brewing, Fort Collins Brewery, and Equinox Brewing)! If someone wants to do something useful with the lot on the corner of Linden and Willow, how about an affordable housing complex, a homeless shelter, a food Coop, or services that EVERYONE can benefit from .... not just alcohol-loving customers! Do you really want For Collins to turn into the “Choice City for Alcoholics?” Martha Roden -- Martha Roden Contract Technical Writer, Instructional Designer, and Usability Specialist (970) 225-2572 (home) martharoden@gmail.com “Making the complex simple” 218 City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 27, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 880 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system in HD Belinda Zink 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 Meeting April 27, 2016 Minutes – River District Block 8 Excerpt • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager, Shepard 2. RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (OLD ELK DISTILLERY–PDP140016) - REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development is located on 1.2 acres at 360 Linden Street on the southwest corner of Linden Street and Willow Street. The property is located in the core of the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District; the portion of the site facing Linden is within the Old Town National Register Historic District. The proposed mixed use development includes a distillery production facility (33,448 square feet) along Willow Street that is 51 foot tall at the main roof with a 68 foot tall building tower. The mixed use building (9,900 square feet) at the Linden and Willow intersection includes a retail space (2,180 square feet), pub (1,800 Landmark Preservation Commission 219 City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 27, 2016 square feet), and shared restrooms (600 square feet) at level 1 with office space (4,460 square feet) at level 2 and a total building height of 37 feet tall. The project also includes distillery equipment on the east side, including a 95- foot tall water tower composed of a 31,000 to 40,000 tank supported by tapered legs. APPLICANT: Brandon Grebe, Blue Ocean, Inc. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Grebe addressed the Commission briefly, and introduced Eduardo Illanes from Oz Architecture to give the Applicant Presentation. Mr. Illanes discussed the reduction of the water tower height to 95’, while maintaining the same capacity. He pointed out that the engineering justification of the height is included in the packet. He reviewed the models of the proposed building in its context. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked about the mechanical equipment on top of the building from the South Elevation shown on packet page 26. Mr. Illanes clarified the location of the mechanical equipment structure. Mr. Frick also referred to the pictures of the view from Jefferson Street on packet page 37, and suggested there should be brick on the upper part of the metal building to break up the gray. Chair Sladek asked whether a color change instead of a materials change would make a difference. Mr. Frick thought a brick-colored metal siding would help break up the material. Mr. Hogestad said the Land Use Code (LUC) is clear about using materials similar to the existing historic buildings, and he doesn’t see that this amount of metal meets that requirement. He suggested a middle ground, pointing out that the primary material should be brick, but it could be a combination of brick and metal. Mr. Hogestad said that was a very large, primary elevation. Mr. Illanes said they have met the requirements in the guidelines. Mr. Hogestad asserted that Section 3.4.7 of the LUC is the standard, not the River District Design Guidelines. Mr. Lingle said the guidelines were also important, not just the Code. He pointed out that there were all kinds of materials in the area, and he believes the design meets the requirements. Mr. Hogestad disagreed, emphasizing that the four-sided building deserved the same attention on each side. Ms. Zink asked what a composite metal panel was, and Mr. Illanes explained it’s not corrugated per se, it is insulated. Ms. Zink pointed out that the buildings included in the area of adjacency adopted for the project are masonry buildings. She said she understands Mr. Hogestad’s position, but doesn’t agree that the entire south elevation needed to be brick. She said the metal ties in with the industrial nature of the building. Ms. McWilliams read from Section 4.17 of the LUC, which contained more information about the Downtown and River District contexts. Mr. Yatabe noted that the LUC refers to the River District Design Guidelines, and suggested that if they feel the LUC and guidelines are not in agreement, they should attempt to harmonize 3.4.7 and the guidelines. He went on to say that the guidelines are incorporated into the LUC. Mr. Ernest pointed out that on packet page 15, the review criteria in the staff report refers to both 3.4.7 and the R-D-R (River District Redevelopment) Zone District Design Standards and Guidelines. He noted that this an industrial use which is encouraged on page 6 of the RDR. He said there is a lot of metal in the photos used on pages 25 & 26 of the RDR, and that page 58 states that architectural metals are appropriate. He thought the materials were appropriate and meet both 3.4.7 and the guidelines. 220 City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 27, 2016 Ms. Dunn said the metal didn’t bother her, using Ranchway Feeds as an example of the use of metal in the area, particularly the cloverleaf silos. She also questioned why they hadn’t included the Quonset huts in the area of adjacency. They discussed the era of the structures and felt they were old enough to have been included. Ms. McWilliams said some of the Quonset huts along Riverside were eligible and some were not. Ms. Dunn likes that the water tower is lower and thinks the metal is appropriate with the metal of the Quonset huts in the area and Ranchway Feeds. Mr. Lingle appreciated the reduced height of the water tower and said it looks much better. Chair Sladek agreed that the proportions of the water tower are appropriate now, and appreciated the engineering analysis and rationale for the height. Mr. Ernest agreed, adding that he had researched historic water towers and this does have a historic feel and look to it. He also said that the proportionality was improved with the water tower itself and the entire site. Chair Sladek noted that they are not pushing Applicants to replicate historic structures, but in this case the historic looking water tower was the Applicant’s own design choice. Mr. Hogestad again brought up the metal on the south elevation. At his request, Ms. McWilliams re- read a relevant portion of LUC Section 4.17. He then commented that many of the metal buildings in the area were 25 years old or less. Chair Sladek pointed out that the Quonset huts and Ranchway Feeds were well over 25 years old. Mr. Hogestad said Ranchway Feeds was mostly painted concrete block with a few metal pieces. Chair Sladek asked the Commission to look at the sample motions and findings of fact included in the staff report and asked whether anyone had any additional findings of fact for consideration, either for or against. Ms. Gensmer asked to confirm that the plan of protection would be provided and asked whether it would come before the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said it is required in the Municipal Code, but they don’t usually bring those forward to the Commission. Mr. Yatabe said that they could look at it for informational purposes, but the Commission would not impose that as a condition. Ms. Gensmer requested to see it when it is available, purely for informational purposes. Mr. Yatabe noted that they should include specific findings of fact for the decision maker, in this case the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z). Mr. Ernest asked whether the suggested findings in the staff report were sufficient. Mr. Yatabe said they were sufficient, but they could elaborate on any particular point(s). Chair Sladek said they don’t have a good feel for what issues may be of concern to the P&Z. Mr. Yatabe said they should express their own concerns for the consideration of the P&Z in its review. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Project (PDP140016), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 and the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District Design Guidelines in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons: 1) The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with adjacent historic buildings. 2) The project uses appropriate step-backs and site design to mitigate height relative to the historic context. 3) The project relies on building materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. 4) The project uses window patterning and proportions that are typical of the adjacent historic context. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Lingle suggested adding to the motion that it was also in compliance with the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District Design Guidelines. Mr. Ernest and Ms. Gensmer agreed, and the motion has been amended to reflect that. 221 City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 27, 2016 Mr. Yatabe pointed out that this particular case, their purview was 3.4.7, but compliance with the RDR guidelines was part of the discussion and that would be included in the minutes. Mr. Lingle disagreed, stating that it would be important to note in the motion that the Commission felt that the project complies with the RDR guidelines so that is clear to the P&Z. Mr. Yatabe explained that the minutes would be provided to the P&Z. Mr. Ernest asked if they could also reference LUC Section 4.17 in the motion, since that section establishes the RDR as a zone district. Mr. Yatabe said he has already recommended that the motion be based on 3.4.7, but if they are free to incorporate it in the motion if they wish. Chair Sladek said the reference to the RDR had already been added to the motion and seconded. Mr. Hogestad said he would not support the motion, stating that the south elevation is incompatible with the historic context of the area of adjacency because of the large quantity of material that references newer buildings rather than historic buildings. Ms. Dunn had located the document about the Quonset huts and noted several of them were assembled on their sites in the late 40’s and early 50’s, so there may be potentially eligible metal buildings in the area. She was concerned they hadn’t thought of including them in the area of adjacency. She asked if the list could be amended at this point. Mr. Yatabe said the motion on the table must first be dealt with in some manner. The motion could be withdrawn, and then they could discuss amending the area of adjacencies if they wish. Ms. Dunn asked if Ms. McWilliams knew about the eligibility of those buildings, but she stated she did not, and since the most recent study was conducted around 2000-2002, they do not have current determinations. Ms. Dunn withdrew her suggestion to amend the adjacencies, but she stated that they are part of the neighborhood and are corrugated metal. Mr. Hogestad added that the project proposes the use of composite metal panel, not corrugated metal, which is not similar to the historic material. Mr. Frick said that he would not support the motion for the same reasons Mr. Hogestad had mentioned, adding that three sides of the building look great, but the south side has too much metal. Motion passed 6:2. 222 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME LAKE STREET APARTMENTS PDP#160007 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a five-story, multi-family apartment building consisting of 102 dwelling units. The project consists of demolition and re- development of an existing house at 801 West Lake Street and the Beebe Christian School at 821 West Lake Street. There would be 388 total bedrooms arranged in a mix of bedrooms ranging from two to five bedrooms per unit. Leasing would be by the unit, not by the bedroom. There would be 253 parking spaces divided among surface, under- structure at-grade and under-structure below-grade. The project includes 403 bicycle parking spaces, clubhouse, indoor amenities, pool and an outdoor courtyard and deck. The site is 2.45 acres and zoned High Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (H-M-N). APPLICANT: Student Housing CSU, LLC c/o Ripley Design 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 20 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Student Housing CSU, LLC c/o Mr. Mike Fisher 2249 Pinehurst Drive Middleton, WI 53562 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. complies with the West Central Area Plan. The P.D.P. complies with the land use and development standards of the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district of Article Four. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. 223 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: Not Zoned CSU Main Campus - Arboretum S: H-M-N Existing Single Family Detached E: H-M-N Existing Multi-Family (Blue Ridge Apartments) W: H-M-N Place of Worship (Plymouth Congregational Church) The two subject parcels were platted as part of College Heights Subdivision, approved in 1926. The existing single family house and the Beebe Christian School have been established for decades. 224 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 2. Compliance with the West Central Area Plan: The West Central Area Plan was adopted in March of 2015 as an update to the 1999 Plan. The WCAP provides a vision and policy direction for the neighborhoods generally bounded by Mulberry Street and Lake Street on the north, Shields Street and the Mason Corridor to the east, Drake Road to the south and Taft Hill Road to the west. One of the primary visions of the Plan relates to Land Use and Neighborhood Character and that the Plan promotes: “LU: Vibrant and diverse neighborhoods that provide a high quality of life.” In addition, the Plan acknowledges that with close proximity to CSU there is an ongoing demand for student-oriented housing. Consequently, the Plan promotes: “LU3: New development that is compatible with existing development.” The P.D.P. is located in the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. This area is described by the Plan as follows: “This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. While five-story buildings are allowed, the height, mass and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact the neighborhood and community. The allowable density and proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed-use buildings and campus-related uses as well.” “Significant new development/redevelopment anticipated on vacant parcels, potentially resulting in change of use or intensity.” Under the Neighborhood Character section, the Plan states: “The height, mass and scale of new development in the HMN zone district should be compatible with adjacent development and sensitive to the context of the area. Additionally, new development should be pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use and contribute to a vibrant streetscape to support and integrate with surrounding neighborhoods.” With regard to multi-family near campus, the Plan states: “Multi-family redevelopment and infill should emphasize compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and relate to a dominant residential character. The guidelines emphasize means of articulation or modulation to reduce large, monotonous masses and feel more residential in scale. In addition, consistent yet varied rooflines, front porches, human-scale detail (such as brackets/corbels and consistent fenestration patterns) are encouraged. Commercial-type multi- family structures lacking these elements are discouraged. “Land Use Policy 1.9 - Neighborhood Character: The height, mass and scale of new development in the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district…should be compatible with adjacent development and sensitive to the context of the area.” “Land Use Policy 1.10 - Emphasize and respect the existing heritage and character of neighborhoods through a collaborative design process that allows for neighborhood dialogue. The neighborhoods are generally characterized by Craftsman, Prairie and Mid-Century Modern 225 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 4 architectural styles (and their various derivations). These styles are well-accepted and should serve as a starting point for achieving neighborhood compatibility.” In general, the P.D.P. complies with the broad parameters of the policies of the WCAP. More specifically, however, the design guidelines of the WCAP will be considered in the evaluation of the P.D.P. by the standards of Articles Three and Four of the Land Use Code. 3. Compliance with the Applicable Standards of the H-M-N Zone: A. Section 4.10(B)(3) – Land Use: As a residential use consisting of more than 50 multi-family dwellings, the P.D.P. is permitted in the H- M-N zone district subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.10(D)(1) – Density: The P.D.P. contains 102 dwelling units on 2.45 acres for a density of 41.6 dwelling units per acre which exceeds the required minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. C. Section 4.10(D)(2)(a) – Dimensional Standards – Maximum Height: The P.D.P. is five stories which is the maximum allowable height. D. Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) – Dimensional Standards – Setbacks: This standard requires that for all setbacks, building walls over 35 feet in height must be setback an additional one foot beyond the minimum required, for each two feet of wall that exceeds 35 feet. Since West Lake Street is classified as a collector street, not an arterial street, the minimum required setback is 15 feet per Section 3.5.2(E)(2). (Since the front elevation is well-articulated with various recesses and projections, the setback is measured from the primary wall plane.) The building is 50 feet high for floors one through four. The standard requires these floors to be setback from Lake Street by the minimum required 15 feet, plus the eight additional feet, for a total of 23 feet. (50’-35’ = 15’) (15’ / 2 = 8’) (8’+15’ = 23’). In compliance, the first four floors are setback from Lake Street by 23 feet. The building is 60 feet high at the fifth floor. The standard requires that this floor be setback from Lake Street by the minimum required 15 feet, plus 13 additional feet, for a total of 28 feet. (60’-35’ = 25’) (25’ / 2 = 13’) (13’ + 8’ = 28’). In compliance, the fifth floor is stepped back from the fourth floor by a range by five to nine feet resulting in a setback from Lake Street ranging between 28 and 37 feet. E. Section 4.10(E)(1)(a) – Buildings – Doorways Facing Streets: The main doorway is located in the middle of the north elevation and faces Lake Street. This entrance is prominently featured with architectural details. In addition, in order to further activate the street, four additional entrances to individual ground-floor units, two on each side of the main entrance, also face Lake Street. These four entries are highlighted by stoops, railings and overhangs that are subordinate to the main entry. F. Section 4.10(E)(1)(b) – Relationship of Doorways to Streets: 226 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 5 As mentioned, the north-facing doorways along Lake Street allow the building to establish a connection to the public street as well as to the larger neighborhood. The fact that the apartments are student- oriented and that the building faces the Main Campus further connects the building to the surrounding area. G. Section 4.10(E)(1)(c) – Front Yards: The front yard between the street and the building ranges from 20 to 37 feet (with the primary wall plane at 23 feet). This area is landscaped with a variety of trees and shrubs. The main entrance and the four individual unit entrances are all accented with architectural details. H. Section 4.10(E)(1)(d) – Roof Form: The building features a symmetrical series of sloped overhangs and dormers at the top of the fourth floor. The overhangs are supported by decorative brackets evocative of the Craftsman style. The fifth floor features a flat roof. The use of the two roof forms is balanced. Neither the sloped or flat roofs dominate the architectural character of the building. I. Section 4.10(E)(1)(e) – Façade Variation: The facades are articulated with a series of repeating modules that are separated by changes in the wall plane. Windows and balconies are repeated in a common pattern. Variety is achieved by a mix of exterior materials that includes stone veneer, board and batten siding (vertical pattern), lap siding (horizontal) and standing seam metal accent roofs. J. Section 4.10(E)(1)(f) – Outdoor Activity: As mentioned, the street-facing elevation includes five entries, each with its own accent features. On all four sides, balconies are provided. In addition, there is an outdoor, south-facing courtyard that is framed on three sides by the building. This area includes a pool. On the second level, a south-facing deck is provided over the surface parking lot. K. Section 4.10(E)(2)(a) – Site Design – Street Sidewalks: A new sidewalk will be constructed along Lake Street. In compliance with the WCAP, this sidewalk will be eight feet wide and attached to the curb. Normally, new sidewalks are five feet wide and detached. But, as part of a future capital project, this walk will be separated from the travel lane by an on-street bike lane. This bike lane, in turn, is protected from the travel lane by a raised landscape planter bed. This feature is similar to a landscape median except that it will not be in the middle of the road. With eight feet of width, the attached sidewalk is expected to accommodate a high volume of pedestrians providing a high level of access to south campus destinations including the stadium. As noted, the future capital project acknowledges that Lake Street will carry an increased level of bikes and pedestrians due to its location at the south edge of the Main Campus and as the only public street serving the new CSU Stadium. The right-of-way will be widened to 75 feet from the existing 60 feet. The additional right-of-way will be on the north side of the road. There will still be a two-lane cross- section with on-street parking on both sides. The new concept of installing a planted buffer between the east-bound travel lane and the on-street bike lane is designed to implement a low stress bicycle network on the public streets around the Main Campus. It is expected that CSU will install the new cross-section as part of the Stadium mitigation. 227 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 6 L. Section 4.10(E)(2)(b) – Parking Lots: The surface parking lot is located to the west side and rear of the site. Landscaping will be provided to help screen this parking lot from Lake Street. 4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) - Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. provides for a variety of trees and shrubs behind the attached sidewalk on Lake Street and on all four sides of the building. Foundation shrubs are provided around the perimeter of the building that does not face the driveway or parking lot. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping As mentioned, the surface parking lot is located to the west side and rear of the building in order to minimize the view from Lake Street. The western edge of the parking lot directly adjoins the Plymouth Congregational Church. Accordingly, the west property line is screened by a six-foot high solid wood fence accented by masonry columns. The applicant has agreed to remove the existing fence owned by the church. A continuous row of plant material will be located between the fence and the parking stalls. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Since the surface parking lot contains less than 100 spaces (73), 6% of the lot is required to be in the form of landscaping. The P.D.P. meets this minimum standard by providing landscaping in the form of islands and along the entrance drive. D. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access Circulation and Parking The site is an infill location surrounded by existing development and Lake Street. A pedestrian connection will be provided in cooperation with the Blue Ridge Apartments to the east. A future connection to the south is provided for in the event that the adjoining property re-develops. Both of these pedestrian connections are placed in access easements. There will be only one driveway access from Lake Street. There are no other opportunities for any future driveways to adjoining properties. E. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities: With a total of 388 bedrooms, 403 bicycle parking spaces are required with 95% (383) to be enclosed and 5% (20) in fixed outdoor racks. The number of bike spaces, and their allocation to enclosed spaces, exceeds the minimum requirements. Bike racks are distributed throughout the site but mostly within the at-grade under-structure parking lot. F. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) and (L)(2) - Parking Lots - Required Number of Spaces and Compact Spaces The project is located in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone. There are 2 two-bedroom units, 35 three-bedroom units, 46 four-bedroom units and 19 five-bedroom units. This number of units, at the proposed mix of bedrooms, requires a total of 144 parking spaces. The P.D.P. provides 253 spaces thus exceeding the standard by 109 spaces. In addition, the project provides for one car-sharing vehicle for use by all tenants 228 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 7 Parking is distributed in the following manner: • 73 surface spaces • 43 at-grade, under-structure spaces • 137 below grade spaces There will be 38 compact spaces, 15% of the total, well below the 40% allowed. G. Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources: There are no structures adjacent to the site that are designated, found to be eligible or potentially eligible as having any historic significance. H. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(D)(E)(F) - Building and Project Compatibility This section of the General Development Standards is superseded by more specific standards in Article Four. The standards in Article Four are considered more specific and, therefore, in accordance with Section 1.7.2, prevail over the standards in Article Three. I. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was completed for this P.D.P. The evaluation utilized Fort Collins specific trip generation rates for apartment projects (calculated by the bed, not by the unit) in the vicinity of Colorado State University. The Study assumed that there would be 400 beds and the final plan is showing 388 bedrooms – as such the TIS is conservative. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study: • At full development, the project will generate approximately 1,060 daily vehicle trip ends, 76 morning peak hour vehicle trip ends and 168 afternoon vehicle trip ends. • The operation of the intersections at Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersection as well as the proposed driveway entrance is acceptable both in the current condition and upon full buildout of this development. No improvements are required. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. • A pedestrian connection will be provided to the adjoining apartment complex (Blue Ridge Apartments) and the P.D.P. provides for a future walkway connection to the south if and when the adjoining property redevelops. • Currently, Transfort serves this area with Routes 2,7,19 and 32. The site is also within one- half mile of the Around the Horn transit service which is the free on campus shuttle with a stop at Prospect and Center Avenue. J. Section 3.8.16(E) – Increasing the Occupancy Limit: This section requires that with respect to multiple-family dwellings that propose more than three bedrooms per unit, additional amenities are provided in order to adequately serve the occupants and to 229 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 8 protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such amenities may include passive open space, buffer yards, on- site management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and services. In compliance with the standard, the P.D.P. includes: • Parking at a rate that exceeds the required minimum • Car-share service • Outdoor courtyard, pool and second level deck • Indoor amenities • Passive open space Combined, these features mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood due to the increased number of persons per unit in compliance with the standard. K. Section 3.8.30(D) - Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards – Block Requirements: (As mentioned, since the P.D.P. is within the T.O.D., Section 3.8.30 subsections (C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place, and (E) Buildings do not apply.) This standard requires that multi-family development be arranged in a pattern of blocks with each block not to exceed seven acres. At least 40% of the block face must be a building, plaza or other functional open space. In response, the subject site represents the redevelopment of two parcels that are confined by existing development such that there is no established block pattern along Lake Street. The building frontage along Lake Street represents 72% of the lot total. 5. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on December 9, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. A wide range of topics were discussed. Representatives of the Plymouth Congregational Church expressed concern about the level of quality of the west elevation of the building and about the potential for tenants to cut through their parking lot as a short cut between Prospect Road and Lake Street. Other more general concerns centered on increased traffic, sufficient parking, adequacy of stormwater quality and detention and the quality of the architecture. Finally, issues related to property management and various operational aspects related to student behavior were raised although not a purview of the Land Use Code. Overall, the various issues have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. In particular, the west elevation of the building has been upgraded and the applicant has agreed to install an operational gate at the driveway entrance to Lake Street on the Plymouth Congregational Church parking lot. With regard to fencing, the applicant has agreed to remove the existing church fence and replace it with a six foot high solid wood fence with masonry columns. With regard to parking, since the neighborhood meeting, the project has been reduced in the number of bedrooms from 400 to 388 and increased the number of parking spaces from 200 to 253. This raises the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms from .50 to .65. 230 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 9 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the West Central Area Plan. (1.) This is because, in a broad sense, the P.D.P. complies with the land use and density expected for the H-M-N zone district. Since the Plan confirmed the purpose, density, height and development standards of the H-M-N zone, the P.D.P. complies with this aspect of the West Central Area Plan. (2.) The Plan, however, also provides considerable guidance to ensure that development in the H- M-N zone is compatible with the surrounding area. As noted, the site is located between an existing apartment building on the east and a place of worship on the west. And, it’s across the street from the CSU Main Campus. The two residential properties to the south are buffered by landscaping and an 87-foot setback. Given this context, the P.D.P. is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. (3.) The P.D.P complies with the Plan by employing features reminiscent of the Craftsman architectural style. The perspective views indicate that the extent of articulation and modulation reduces the large mass and scale of the building and meets the expectation of the Plan. B. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the applicable standards of the High Density Mixed-Use zone district of Article Four. C. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve the Lake Street Apartments P.D.P. #PDP160007, based on the Findings of Fact found on page 10 of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Planning Objectives (PDF) 2. SITE PLAN (PDF) 3. Basement Floorplan (PDF) 4. Main Floorplan (PDF) 5. Landscape Plan (PDF) 6. Rendered Elevations (PDF) 7. East View Perspective (PDF) 8. Lighting Plan (PDF) 9. Plat (PDF) 10. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 11. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 12. Email from Citizen (PDF) 231 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Lake Street Apartments (821 West Lake Street) Project Development Plan Narrative: The site is adjacent to the CSU campus and the proposed development is a high-quality apartment community designed for a predominantly student population. Two, three, four, and five bedroom units make up a total of 102 units which will be rented by the unit. There are 253 parking spaces included in the development divided between surface parking and an underground parking structure. The site design places the active spaces on Lake Street, parking to the rear of the site and residential apartments around a generous landscaped courtyard and outdoor amenity center. Pedestrian circulation is convenient with the main building entry located on the Lake Street façade leading directly to a well-appointed lobby and community facilities. Private, direct- access apartment entries will be provided to the first floor apartments that front Lake Street to provide an engaging pedestrian-scale façade. The vehicular circulation is minimized and will enter from Lake Street along the east property line and provide access to the under-building parking. The majority of the parking will be located underground with the balance of the parking located under the building on the first floor level and screened from view with architectural and landscape elements. The impacts of the cars and parking on the surrounding properties are minimized. An intensively designed hardscape and landscape environment is planned for the Lake Street frontage and courtyard space. The landscaped courtyard will provide a social gathering space for the residents and include an outdoor cooking station, fire pit, pool, hot-tubs and seating for casual dining and conversation. Care was taken to preserve large existing trees around the perimeter of the site. The site drainage patterns that exist now will be maintained with storm water generally flowing to Lake Street. Storm water from the new development will be collected and detained underground at the rear of the site, treated and released as required by ordinance to the Lake Street right-of-way. The building is designed using a craftsman-style architecture that is chosen for compatibility with the adjacent CSU campus and as suggested in the West Central Area Plan. A locally sourced stone veneer, wood and steel trim details will be used in combination with a synthetic stucco and fiber-cement siding for an attractive and durable exterior. Using the Craftsman styling, the five-story building will have articulated facades and step-downs to mitigate the size of the building and to provide a transition to the adjoining neighbors. During the neighborhood meeting the Plymouth Congregational Church raised concerns about the proximity of the building to the shared property line. In response, Student Housing, LLC has Attachment 1 232 Planning Objectives - PDP Lake Street Apartments Page 2 of 2 purchased the adjacent land to the east and moved the entire building east. They have also worked with the Church to mitigate visual impacts and parking concerns. The current parking ratio is .65 spaces per unit. This exceeds the required minimum of .37 spaces per unit. In addition, on-street parking is allowed along Lake Street and there is a loading zone space within the site. This site is adjacent to the CSU campus and a block away from the proposed stadium. It is anticipated that the majority of the vehicles are parked long term and only moved occasionally. Current negotiations with the adjacent church include the installation of a gate on their property to prevent students from parking in their lot. Owners: Student Housing CSU, LLC 2249 Pinehurst Dr. Middleton, WI 53562 Partners: Mike Fisher Jim Corcoran Jeff Stentz Don Schroeder Tim Stracka Attachment 1 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 Attachment 10 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 821 West Lake Street Multi-Family Apartments LOCATION: 821 West Lake Street (Currently the Beebe Christian School) DATE: December 9, 2015 APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: Randy Bruce, KNB Architects Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Nick Hawes, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner As proposed, the project consists of demolition and re-development of the Beebe Christian School at 821 West Lake Street. There would be approximately 100 multi- family units located in one five-story building. There would be about 400 total bedrooms arranged in a mix of bedrooms per unit. Some units would feature four and five bedrooms. Leasing is by the unit, not by the bedroom. Approximately 200 parking spaces are proposed with roughly 140 spaces located below grade. In addition, parking would also be provided at-grade under the structure. There would be one bike parking space per unit. The project includes a clubhouse, pool and indoor amenities and an outdoor courtyard. The site is 1.8 acres and zoned High Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (H-M-N). Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. We represent the adjoining property to the west and could you further describe the west elevation and how the courtyard relates to the building? A. The courtyard is at-grade and fully enclosed by the building so outdoor activity area will be completely screened from the west. Along the west elevation, the courtyard is formed by the one-story, at-grade parking garage. We have not yet finalized the design of the exterior wall of the parking garage but we know it will some openings for air circulation. We intend to carry the architecture around to all four sides so the west elevation will not look inferior to the balance of the building. 261 Attachment 10 2 2. Will all the units have balconies? A. Yes. 3. Could you elaborate on the setback from Lake Street? A. The setback from the front property line will be 30 feet at the main entrance in the middle which is then flanked on either side by ground floor units 15 feet setback from the front property line. In the case of Lake Street, the front property line will be at the back of the proposed eight-foot wide attached sidewalk. 4. What about the side yard setback along the east side? A. The east side yard setback is about 12 feet. 5. Will there be landscaping along the east and west sides? A. Yes, we plan on providing foundation shrubs and we intend on planting trees where there are no conflicts with stormwater detention or utilities. 6. As adjoining property owners to the west, we are concerned about how the building, and its parking and activity areas, impacts our property. Presently, we have a solid wood fence which may not be sufficient to buffer our property. Could you describe your approach to buffering our property? A. As mentioned, the west elevation will be articulated and feature the same mix of materials as the front elevation. The courtyard wall is the at-grade parking structure and it will only be one story in height. With the courtyard, the full height of the building is reduced along the west. At this time, the landscape plan is conceptual but we will make an effort to place as much landscaping as feasible along the west property line. We would like to work with the church on a mutual solution to fencing along the shared property line. 7. How much outdoor activities will there be outside the courtyard? Are there walkways around the building? Are there multiple entries along the sides and rear? What can we expect in terms of your tenants congregating and socializing outside near our properties? A. There are two stair towers on each side of the building. But, we expect most residents will choose to enter and leave the building from the front because that is where the elevators are and the north side of the building is in the direction of campus. Other than walkways for the stair towers, we are not planning on providing any outdoor amenities other than within the enclosed courtyard. 262 Attachment 10 3 8. I see where you have four ground-floor units with exterior entrances along the north elevation facing Lake Street. Will there be similar units facing east? A. No, the ground floor units on the east elevation will have individual balconies but no exterior entrances like on the north elevation. 9. I’m concerned about your proposed parking ratio. It looks like that on a per bedroom basis (400) you are providing only 50% (200) parking spaces. Are you sure this is enough parking? A. Our approach to parking is that with our close proximity to campus, our parking demand will be less that what would otherwise be typically needed. In addition to one bike parking space per bedroom, we plan on providing a car for sharing much like a Zip Car. We are also considering providing a van that tenants can check out for various activities such as excursions to the mountains or other destinations. 10. Where will you be putting the 400 bike parking spaces? A. We have not yet finalized this aspect of the design but our thinking is that there would be about 50 – 60 spaces in the southeast corner of the at-grade, under- structure parking area. We are thinking there would also be parking below-grade as well. And, in addition, there would be some bike parking located in exterior bike racks. 11. Where is the stormwater detention? A. Based on our preliminary design, the stormwater detention will be placed along the south end of the parcel. Depending on how much volume we need, some of this detention may wrap around a portion of the east and west sides. Detained flows will then be released and conveyed to Lake Street as the outfall. 12. The structure looks massive. It needs articulation. A. Thank you for this comment. We are in preliminary design and expect the architecture to be refined as the project moves forward. 13. The project is too dense. A five story building is too high. 14. I’m concerned about the number of cars having only one outlet to Lake Street. I know you are counting on most tenants heading over to campus but I have observed cars exiting Rams Crossing every morning on a daily basis just like typical commuters. I think you are going to be loading up Lake Street to the point where your tenants will want to cut through the church parking lot over to Prospect Road. 263 Attachment 10 4 A. Our traffic engineer has not yet completed the Transportation Impact Study. This will help us with the data on the number of cars that will be entering and exiting the site during the peak times. The City’s Traffic Operation Department will then evaluate this Study and make their findings. 15. The church representatives will want to meet with your team outside this meeting to discuss various impacts associated with the proposed project, not the least of which is cars not only cutting through our parking lot between Prospect and Lake but illegally parking overnight as well. A. We look forward to meeting with the church to discuss all aspects of our project. 16. Your project will be unique in that you are proposing four and five bedroom units and not renting by the bedroom. What is your policy if only three out of four or four out of five tenants within a single unit come up with the rent? A. Our lease establishes that the unit as a whole is responsible for the full month’s rent. We are comfortable with this approach. 17. I think this project will have a hard time complying with the compatibility standards of the Land Use Code, particularly the standards in Section 3.5. 18. What about emergency access for the Poudre Fire Authority? A. We have met with P.F.A. and we are aware of the access issues. There are a variety of methods by which to comply with access that are under consideration. At this stage, we are investigating a combination of building and site designs that would resolve the issues. One approach would be to treat the building as if it were a high rise where the building itself provides for fire access and life safety. 19. What are the proposed Lake Street improvements? A. Lake Street will be improved per the design agreed to between the City and the C.S.U. in the Intergovernmental Agreement that addresses the impacts associated with the new stadium. This includes two travel lanes, on-street bike lanes, and eight-foot wide attached sidewalk. These improvements will be constructed by whatever entity goes first, with the other entity then reimbursing for the expenses. 20. Back to stormwater detention, will you be matching existing grades or do you need retaining walls? A. We intend to match existing grades. 21. You mentioned that there would be some rooftop activities? 264 Attachment 10 5 A. Yes, on the fifth floor, in the northwest corner, we have proposed a common activity room that connects to an outdoor deck. 22. I think with your mix of four and five bedrooms, that you will find that there is potential for rowdy parties, large gatherings, and unwanted behavior. How do you plan on controlling out of control parties, vandalism, loud music, etc.? A. We have an on-site resident manager who is on-hand 24/7 to monitor parties. As to vandalism, we have cameras in the hallways and common areas to deter property damage. Our experience in other projects, such as in Iowa City, is that the cameras are an effective deterrent. In addition, we have parents co-sign the leases and we inform parents when there are violations with the lease. 23. As property owners to the west, we are concerned about the overall aesthetics of the property particularly with the potential for the west facing balconies to become cluttered with junk and unattractive miscellaneous items. Students are known for storing bikes and other objects that don’t fit into the unit and we are worried about the impact on how we enjoy our property. A. Thank you for this comment. Again, our experience in Iowa City is that this is not a problem. We have confidence in our onsite management to control balcony clutter. 24. It would help us if you prepared a perspective of the west elevation. A. We plan on providing a perspective of all sides as we move forward. 25. What about trash and recycling? Will this be enclosed or exterior? A. This will all be enclosed. 26. Do you have a loading zone for move-in and move-out days? A. We will be looking at providing a loading zone and guest parking spaces. 27. Are you providing any pedestrian / bike access to the south to Prospect Road? A. No, there is no access to the south at this time. 265 821 WEST LAKE STREET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FEBRUARY 2016 Prepared for: Student Housing CSU, LLC 2249 Pinehurst Drive Middleton, WI 53562 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #1593 Attachment 11 266 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 2 Roads .............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrians Facilities ...................................................................................................... 5 Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 9 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 9 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 9 Background Traffic Projections ....................................................................................... 9 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 13 Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................. 13 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 13 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 13 Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................................................................... 19 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 19 Transit Level of Service ................................................................................................. 19 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 20 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .................................................................................... 7 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 9 3. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 16 4. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 17 Attachment 11 267 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Intersection Geometry.................................................................................. 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 10 5. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 11 6. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 12 7. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 14 8. Short Range (2020) Total Veicle Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 15 9. Short Range (2020) Geometry ................................................................................ 18 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions form and related information B. Recent Peak Hour Traffic C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS Standards D. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation F. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Attachment 11 268 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (ITIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed 821 West Lake Street. The proposed 821 West Lake Street site is located north of (adjacent to) Lake Street and east of Shields Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project developer (Student Housing CSU, LLC), the project planning consultant (Ripley Design), and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). The study involved the following steps: • Collect physical, traffic, and development data; • Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; • Determine peak hour traffic volumes; • Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; • Analyze signal warrants; • Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. Attachment 11 269 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the 821 West Lake Street site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily institutional (CSU) or residential. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. This site is near the center of Fort Collins. Colorado State University and the Fort Collins CBD are north of the proposed 821 West Lake Street site. This site is adjacent to the CSU Campus. Roads The primary streets near the 821 West Lake Street site are Prospect Road, Shields Street, Whitcomb Street, and Lake Street. The existing geometry at the key intersections is shown in Figure 2. Prospect Road is to the south of the 821 West Lake Street site. It is classified as a four-lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has a four-lane cross section in this area. At the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection, Prospect Road has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes and two travel lanes in each direction. According to LCUASS, a westbound right-turn lane is required with the existing traffic volumes at the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection. Typically with constrained conditions, when turn lanes are shown to be required based on volumes, they are not built unless the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable. The Prospect/Whitcomb intersection has signal control. The existing speed limit in this area is 35 mph. Shields Street is to the west of the 821 West Lake Street site. In this area, it is a north-south street designated as a four-lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a four-lane cross section with a center median lane. At the Shields/Lake intersection, Shields Street has a southbound left-turn lane and two through lanes in each direction. According to LCUASS, a northbound right-turn lane is required with the existing traffic volumes at the Shields/Lake intersection. The Shields/Lake intersection has signal control. The existing speed limit in this area is 30 mph. Whitcomb Street is a north-south street designated as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Whitcomb Street has a two-lane cross section with parking on both sides of the street. At the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection, Whitcomb Street has the northbound movements combined in a single lane, a combined southbound left-turn/through lane, and a southbound right-turn lane. The existing speed limit in this area is 25 mph. Attachment 11 270 Shields Prospect Rolland Moore Centre Lake Whitcomb Laurel Pitkin South University Plum Meridian East SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 Page 3 Attachment 11 271 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2015 Page 4 Prospect Lake Shields Whitcomb - Denotes Lane Attachment 11 272 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 5 Lake Street is an east-west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Lake Street has a two-lane cross section with parking on both sides of the street. At the Shields/Lake intersection, Lake Street has separate westbound left-turn and right-turn lanes. The existing speed limit in this area is 25 mph. Existing Traffic Figure 3 shows the recent peak hour traffic counts at the Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersections. Recent count data at the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was obtained in November 2014 by the City of Fort Collins. Recent count data at the Shields/Lake intersection was obtained in May 2014 by the City of Fort Collins. Raw count data is provided in Appendix B. Existing Operation The Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing signal control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010HCM). A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Prospect/Shields intersection is in an area termed “mixed- use district.” In areas termed “mixed-use districts,” acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better for the overall intersection, and level of service E or better for any leg or movement. It is important to note that, since the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection has shared left- turn/through lanes on the Whitcomb Street legs, the signalized analysis, using the 2010HCM software, has anomalies using shared lanes. The anomalies have been recognized by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer also. Therefore, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM) software and the operation is also shown in Table 1. Subsequent analyses for the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection use the 2000HCM software. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Prospect Road, Shields Street, Whitcomb Street, and Lake Street. Attachment 11 273 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2015 Page 6 7/5 2/6 25/24 23/161 0/5 37/250 61/35 994/747 13/5 184/89 391/1019 11/45 744/1344 123/92 1104/1180 154/48 37/157 11/116 Prospect Lake Shields Whitcomb Attachment 11 274 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 7 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Whitcomb (signal) EB LT A (A) C (A) EB T A (A) B (A) EB T/RT A (A) B (A) EB APPROACH A (A) B (A) WB LT A (A) B (A) WB T A (A) B (B) WB T/RT A (A) B (B) WB APPROACH A (A) B (B) NB LT/T/RT D (D) C (C) SB LT/T D (D) F (D) SB RT A (D) C (D) SB APPROACH D (D) F (D) OVERALL A (A) C (B) Shields/Lake (signal) WB LT E E WB RT D D WB APPROACH E E NB T A A NB T/RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL A A (2000HCM) Attachment 11 275 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 8 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist on Shields Street and Lake Street. Prospect Road has no bicycle lanes. Bike lanes are not required on local streets. Transit Facilities Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes 2, 7, 19, and 32. There are transit stops very close to this site. Attachment 11 276 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The 821 West Lake Street development is a proposed residential redevelopment with approximately 400 beds. Figure 4 shows a site plan of the 821 West Lake Street development. The site plan shows access to/from Lake Street. he 821 West Lake Street development will replace the Beebe Christian School building. The short range analysis (Year 2020) includes development of the 821 West Lake Street site and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth, and other approved developments in the area. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9 th Edition, ITE is customarily used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at a site. However, the City of Fort Collins has developed trip generation rates for apartment projects similar to 821 West Lake Street. The Fort Collins trip generation rates are specifically applied to student housing projects. Table 2 shows the daily and peak hour trip generation for the 821 West Lake Street site. It is assumed that alternative modes (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) have been compensated for with the City of Fort Collins’ rates for apartments. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartment 400 Beds 2.65 1060 0.04 15 0.15 61 0.27 108 0.15 60 Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the 821 West Lake Street site. Figure 5 shows the vehicle trip distribution used for the 821 West Lake Street site. Background Traffic Projections Figure 6 shows the short range (2020) background peak hour traffic projections at the key intersections. Traffic at the key intersections was increased at a rate of one percent per year for the short range (2020) background traffic forecasts. In addition to this, site generated traffic from the 808 W. Prospect development (The Slab) was included in the traffic forecasts. Attachment 11 277 SCALE: 1"=50' SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 Page 10 Attachment 11 278 Shields Prospect Lake Whitcomb Pitkin South Meridian 5% 50% 20% 20% NOM 5% NOM SCALE: 1"=500' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 Page 11 Attachment 11 279 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2015 Page 12 7/5 2/6 25/24 25/176 0/5 39/265 65/37 1055/793 13/5 195/94 417/1096 11/45 790/1427 132/103 1175/1256 163/51 39/167 12/123 Prospect Lake Shields Whitcomb Attachment 11 280 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 13 Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 5, Figure 7 shows the assignment of the site generated peak hour vehicle traffic. The site generated vehicle traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figure 8 shows the short range (2020) total peak hour vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). None of the stop sign controlled intersections are expected to meet peak hour signal warrants. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2020 condition. As mentioned earlier, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection has shared left-turn/through lanes on the Whitcomb Street legs. Therefore, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was analyzed using both the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010HCM) and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM) software. Using the short range (2020) background peak hour traffic volumes, the Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections operate acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the key intersections operate in the short range (2020) total condition as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections operate similar to the background operation with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Geometry The short range (2020) geometry is shown in Figure 9. The geometry at the Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersections is the existing geometry. As mentioned earlier, according to LCUASS, a northbound right-turn lane at the Shields/Lake intersection and a westbound right-turn lane at the Prospect/Whitcomb Attachment 11 281 AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2015 Page 14 3/22 3/26 12/12 12/12 Prospect Lake Shields Whitcomb 9/60 6/48 24/24 37/36 Site Access 3/3 31/30 8/54 Attachment 11 282 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2015 Page 15 Prospect Lake Shields Whitcomb 48/285 9/60 291/150 6/48 24/24 37/36 Site Access 7/5 2/6 25/24 28/179 0/5 70/295 65/37 1055/793 13/5 103/148 417/1096 11/45 790/1427 135/125 1175/1256 166/77 51/179 24/135 Attachment 11 283 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 16 TABLE 3 Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Whitcomb (signal) EB LT A (A) C (B) EB T A (A) B (B) EB T/RT A (A) B (B) EB APPROACH A (A) B (B) WB LT A (A) B (A) WB T A (A) B (B) WB T/RT A (A) B (B) WB APPROACH A (A) B (B) NB LT/T/RT D (D) C (C) SB LT/T D (D) F (E) SB RT A (D) C (D) SB APPROACH D (D) F (D) OVERALL A (A) D (B) Shields/Lake (signal) WB LT E E WB RT A D WB APPROACH E E NB T A A NB T/RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL A A (2000HCM) Attachment 11 284 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 17 TABLE 4 Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Whitcomb (signal) EB LT A (A) C (B) EB T A (A) B (B) EB T/RT A (A) B (B) EB APPROACH A (A) B (B) WB LT A (A) B (A) WB T A (A) B (B) WB T/RT A (A) B (B) WB APPROACH A (A) B (B) NB LT/T/RT D (D) C (C) SB LT/T D (D) F (E) SB RT A (D) C (C) SB APPROACH D (D) F (D) OVERALL A (A) D (C) Shields/Lake (signal) WB LT E E WB RT A D WB APPROACH E E NB T A A NB T/RT A A NB APPROACH A A SB LT A A SB T A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL A A Lake/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT/RT B B WB LT/T A A (2000HCM) Attachment 11 285 SHORT RANGE (2020) GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2015 Page 18 Prospect Shields Whitcomb - Denotes Lane Lake Site Access Attachment 11 286 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 19 intersection are required with the existing traffic volumes. Typically at constrained locations, when turn lanes are shown to be required based on volumes, they are not built unless the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable. According to the “West Central Area Plan” (adopted March 17, 2015), the right- of-way of Lake Street will be widened to 75 feet from the existing 60 foot right-of-way. There will still be a two-lane cross section with on-street parking on both sides of Lake Street. A “planted buffer” will shield the bike lanes and sidewalks from the roadway. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the 821 West Lake Street site. The 821 West Lake Street site is located within an area termed as a “pedestrian district,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A & B for all measured factors. There are three destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed 821 West Lake Street: 1) the Colorado State University Campus; 2) the residential neighborhood west of the site; and 3) the residential neighborhood to the southwest of the site. In most cases, sidewalks exist within the pedestrian influence area. It is assumed that sidewalks will be completed as properties develop. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination area (CSU) within 1320 feet of the 821 West Lake Street. The bicycle level of service is acceptable. The bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. There will be bicycle storage facilities on site. Transit Level of Service Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes 2, 7, 19, and 32. There are transit stops very close to this site. There is a bus stop just north of the Shields/Lake intersection. According to the “West Central Area Plan,” there will be transit stops on Lake Street in the future. Attachment 11 287 DELICH 821 West Lake Street TIS, February 2016 ASSOCIATES Page 20 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the impacts of the 821 West Lake Street development on the short range (2020) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: • The development of the 821 West Lake Street site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the 821 West Lake Street site will generate approximately 1060 daily vehicle trip ends, 76 morning peak hour vehicle trip ends, and 168 afternoon peak hour vehicle trip ends. • Current operation at the Prospect/Whitcomb and Shields/Lake intersections is acceptable. • In the short range (2020) future, given development of the 821 West Lake Street site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections operate acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing at the Prospect/Whitcomb, Shields/Lake, and Lake/Site Access intersections in the morning and afternoon peak hours. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines. Attachment 11 288 289 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMUNITY DIALOGUE STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the 2015-16 BFO process Parking Services proposed to pilot an on-street paid parking program. At that time, City Council’s perspective was that additional public outreach was necessary so funding was limited to a community dialogue aimed at exploring the merits of various parking management strategies. Planning Services began updating the Downtown Plan in 2015 which supported the Downtown Parking Community Dialogue. The Downtown Plan public engagement effort has included thousands of people through numerous engagement methods such as open houses, focus groups, public events, workshops, charrettes, boards and commissions, community groups, and online and text message questionnaires. Collaborating with the Downtown Business Association (DBA), some parking-specific outreach has been targeted at downtown business and property owners. The community dialogue has focused on strategies to achieve the following objectives as identified in the early phases of the Downtown Plan and the 2013 Parking Plan: • Increase the availability, ease of access to, and turnover of, on-street parking; • Develop a parking management system that is supportive of businesses, neighborhoods, and visitors; • Provide and communicate a variety of options for parking and for traveling to and around Downtown; • Encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation to reduce parking demand; and • Identify a sustainable funding source for future access and transportation infrastructure investment. Staff has presented materials providing many case studies, strategies and options for achieving the above objectives. Generally, the options have been focused on how best to manage on-street and garage parking facilities, and additional strategies to complement these resources. Although opinions are divided, the process has been gaining informed consent to make the changes necessary to more effectively manage current parking assets and plan for future parking infrastructure. 290 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 Recommendations 1. Implement an on-street paid parking program; 2. Implement a system to collect parking utilization data; 3. Adjust enforcement: i. Explore expanding enforcement to weekends and evenings after 5 p.m.; ii. Limit 2-hour parking to an specific zone; 4. Create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program; 1. On-Street Paid Parking Program Parking Management Presently, on-street public parking is limited to two hours, Monday through Saturday 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. The public garages cost $1 per hour, with the first hour free. Being that the free on-street parking offers the most convenient and desirable spaces, the pricing system has been called “upside-down” which causes “garage avoidance” and trolling for available spaces creating congestion and increased exhaust emissions. Also, we’ve learned that many downtown employees are “gaming the system” by moving their vehicles every two hours to a different block face, thus parking on-street all day long. The two-hour time limit also reduces flexibility for customers and visitors who want to stay longer. Funding Public Parking The 2013 Parking Plan states that “the City’s parking program will be self-funded.” And, “a parking enterprise or revenue fund will be used to account for all financial aspects of the parking program including, but not limited to, daily operations, maintenance, new parking infrastructure, neighborhood programs, and parking demand reduction initiatives.” Currently, the parking enterprise fund is only covering daily operations. New infrastructure, as evidenced by the Downtown Hotel Parking Garage public-private partnership, has been required to find other funding sources such as the City’s general fund. The Parking Plan identifies a need of up to an additional 1,510 public parking spaces by 2021 for which there is currently not a sustainable funding source. Recommendation The recommended on-street paid parking system would effectively manage parking resources and create a revenue source to invest in needed infrastructure and programs. An on-street paid parking program encourages people to park in the most appropriate locations based on the length of their stay. If they are planning to stay for the entire day, it would be more cost effective to park in the parking garages which would also create availability of on-street spaces for those planning a short visit. In 2013, a parking revenue model verified that an on-street paid parking program could service bond debt in order to invest in parking garages to meet the need identified in the Parking Plan (The model is being updated with current revenue and cost assumptions). 2. System to Collect Parking Utilization Data Currently, the collection of parking data is done by hand. This means that it provides point-in-time occupancy data that does not indicate how long a vehicle has been parked nor when it leaves. The recommendation is to invest in technology to collect parking utilization data. For each parking space, the 291 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 technology would indicate when a vehicle arrives, how long it stays, and when it leaves. This information will provide a much better understanding of parking behavior downtown and help with the implementation of on-street paid parking in terms of where the greater turnover is needed, when and where an expanded phase should begin, and inform variable rates based on demand. Additionally, staff is exploring technology that would inform the public where parking is available in real time. Staff proposes to implement this technology approximately a year before the on-street paid parking system. 3. Adjust Enforcement The most challenging times to find available on-street parking are when the 2-hour parking limit is not being enforced (i.e. after 6 p.m. and weekends). During these times people stay for extended amounts of time which doesn’t allow sufficient turnover; most likely, downtown employees working evening or weekend shifts. As noted above, many downtown employees are “gaming the system” by moving their vehicles every two hours to a different block face, thus parking on-street all day long. The recommendation to expand 2-hour enforcement is to encourage more turn-over during noted times. The creation of a 2-hour zone (in the downtown core) would allow people to park in the zone for two hours then they must move out of the zone as opposed to moving to another block face. The proposed adjustment in enforcement is to address these phenomena, in the short term, until on-street paid parking is implemented and supersedes these interim changes. 4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Many ideas came up during the parking dialogue that would reduce parking demand, such as encouraging alternative modes of transportation, providing transit passes, providing parking passes for garages, etc. A TDM program could coordinate with downtown employers to reduce the amount of single-occupancy vehicles coming to downtown. FC Moves currently has a 2017 - 2018 budget offer submitted for a TDM program. Implementation Timeline ASAP: Adjust Enforcement, Create TDM Program On-Street Paid Parking 2017 2018 Data- Collection System Collect data, research technology, communicate and market upcoming changes. 292 LMN 189,667 SQ.FT. (4.4 ACRES) LOT 4 LMN / C-L 378,309 SQ.FT. (8.7 ACRES) LOT 5 LMN 100,326 SQ.FT. (2.3 ACRES) LOT 3 C-L 95,440 SQ.FT. (2.2 ACRES) LOT 1 C-L 43,549 SQ.FT. (1.0 ACRES) LOT 2 LMN / C-L 117,632 SQ.FT. (2.7 ACRES) EXISTING WEST LAPORTE AVENUE (2-LANE ARTERIAL) CONCEPTUAL PUMPED DETENTION POND 2 (SIZED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT) LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 PUBLIC ROW CONCEPTUAL DETENTION POND 1 (SIZED TO RELEASE AT HISTORIC 2-YR INTO LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2) 1 2 3 CONCEPTUAL OVERFLOW WEIR TO MATCH FLOODPLAIN CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY FLOOD STUDY CONCEPTUAL ROW CONCEPTUAL ROW POND OUTFALL STRUCTURE FREE RELEASE INTO LAPORTE AVENUE AT HISTORIC RUNOFF RATES PROPOSED LOCATION OF PUMP STATION PROPOSED RIP-RAP FLOW SPREADER 1 15.30 2 3.99 3 0.62 FUTURE CITY REGIONAL DETENTION POND PUBLIC ROW EXISTING CITY EXISTING CITY 100-YR FLOODPLAIN 100-YR FLOODPLAIN EXISTING CITY HIGH RISK 100-YR FLOOD FRINGE EXISTING CITY HIGH RISK 100-YR FLOOD FRINGE EXISTING CITY 100-YR FLOODPLAIN NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 60 0 60 Feet 60 120 180 ODP OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN C. Snowdon B. Ruch 1" = 60' No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: R. Curtiss DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 03/08/16 PROJECT: 1067-001 Sheet Of 2 Sheets SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER - ODP DRAWING FILENAME: D:rojects\1067-001\DwgDP\1067-001_OGRAD.dwg LAYOUT NAME: ODP DATE: Apr 27, 2016 - 3:00pm CAD OPERATOR: cody LIST OF XREFS: [1067-001_xEXST] [1067-001_xSITE] [1067-001_xTOPO] [NES-xborder_ODP] [1067-001_xPUTIL] [1067-001_xGRAD] These drawings are instruments of service provided by Northern Engineering Services, Inc. and are not to be used for any type of construction unless signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in the employ of Northern Engineering Services, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET E N G I N E E R I N G N O R T H E RN 03/08/16 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 www.northernengineering.com Phone: 970.221.4158 FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4953 PROPOSED CONTOUR 93 PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED INLET FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (AC) DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY B2 1.45 ac LEGEND: CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Date Date Date Date Date Date APPROVED: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: City Engineer Water & Wastewater Utility Stormwater Utility Parks & Recreation Traffic Engineer Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL 111 FO OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE FO FO FO FO FO E M FO FO FO T E G FO W ELEC V.C.P. O. V.C.P. O. GV E ELEC ELEC C.V.P. O. E E E E E CONTROL IRR V.C.P. O. V.P. S S OHE OHE E E E E G T T T T E E CTV CTV E E SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS WV WV H2O H2O H2O WV WV WV VAULT ELEC T C S VAULT ELEC FO VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC FOT T FO FO WV M VAULT F.O. AC AC AC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC C S VAULT ELEC CABLE VAULT S ELEC WV WV M WV W W M W M M H2O AC V.P. C.V.P. O. V.P. GAS V.P. V.P. V.P. V.P. MH ELECC ELEC M T C ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC T W H2O ELEC T VAULT F.O. H2O WV WV H2O H2O WV WV WV VAULT ELEC T C S VAULT ELEC FO VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC FOT T FO FO WV M VAULT F.O. B M B M B M B M B M B B M M AC AC AC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC C S VAULT ELEC CABLE VAULT S ELEC WV WV M WV W W M W M M H2O AC V.P. C.V.P. O. V.P. GAS V.P. V.P. V.P. V.P. MH ELECC ELEC M T C ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC T GV GV GV RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER STUB CONSTRUCTED WITH SALUD TEMPORARY CLINIC EXISTING 20" CAST IRON WATER CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE CONCEPTUAL 8" SANITARY CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL SANITARY SERVICE LOT 6 LMN 189,667 SQ.FT. (4.4 ACRES) LOT 4 LMN / C-L 378,309 SQ.FT. (8.7 ACRES) LOT 5 LMN 100,326 SQ.FT. (2.3 ACRES) LOT 1 C-L 43,549 SQ.FT. (1.0 ACRES) LOT 2 LMN / C-L 117,632 SQ.FT. (2.7 ACRES) EXISTING WEST LAPORTE AVENUE (2-LANE ARTERIAL) CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL SANITARY SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL SANITARY SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL SANITARY SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL SANITARY SERVICE FUTURE OUTFALL TO CITY REGIONAL DETENTION POND CONCEPTUAL ROW CONCEPTUAL PARTIAL ROW EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER INTERIM PUMP STATION. DISCHARGE PIPE TO FLOW SPREADER. SEE ODP REPORT FOR DICUSSION LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 CONCEPTUAL OUTLET STRUCTURE W S F CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL SANITARY SERVICE CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL FIRE SERVICE CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER GABRIEL PROPERTIES, LLC DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN WILLIAM S. ECKERT 1760 W. LAPORTE AVE, LLC LAPORTE AVENUE LLC LAPORTE AVENUE LLC DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN GABRIEL PROPERTIES, LLC DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN ERNEST M. & KRISTEN K. SCHMIDTBERGER ERNEST M. & KRISTEN K. SCHMIDTBERGER CITY OF FORT COLLINS JACOB BROADCASTING OF COLORADO JACOB BROADCASTING OF COLORADO CONCEPTUAL STORM OUTFALL FOR LOT 5 INTERIM FLOW SPREADER. SEE ODP REPORT FOR DICUSSION CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER WITHIN CHERRY STREET LOT 3 C-L 95,440 SQ.FT. (2.2 ACRES) LAPORTE AVENUE LLC EXISTING MAPLE STREET PUBLIC ROW CONCEPTUAL 6" SANITARY SERVICE FOR LOT 5 CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER CONCEPTUAL 8" WATER W W W W W S S S S S OVERFLOW WEIR TO MATCH FLOODPLAIN CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY FLOOD STUDY EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAYS EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAY FREY AVE. GRANDVIEW AVE. EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAY NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 60 0 60 Feet 60 120 180 ST EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE W/ MH SS EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE W/ MH CONCEPTUAL WATER LINE W/ FITTING OU1 OVERALL MASTER UTILITY PLAN C. Snowdon B. Ruch 1" = 60' LEGEND: EASEMENT LINE EXISTING EDGE OF GRAVEL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES OHE X CONCEPTUAL ROAD ROW LINE EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY CONCEPTUAL SANITARY SEWER LINE W/ MH GENERAL NOTES: 1.ALL WATER LINES TIE INTO CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER. 2.ALL SANITARY SEWER LINES TIE INTO CITY OF FORT COLLINS SANITATION. 3.ALL STREET ALIGNMENT, PROPOSED UTILITIES SHOWN WITH THE MASTER UTILITY PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND MAY CHANGE AT PRELIMINARY DESIGN. No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: R. Curtiss DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 03/08/16 PROJECT: 1067-001 Sheet Of 2 Sheets SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER - ODP DRAWING FILENAME: D:rojects\1067-001\DwgDP\1067-001_OUTIL.dwg LAYOUT NAME: OU1 DATE: Apr 27, 2016 - 3:00pm CAD OPERATOR: cody LIST OF XREFS: [NES-xborder_ODP] [1067-001_xEXST] [1067-001_xSITE] [1067-001_xPUTIL] These drawings are instruments of service provided by Northern Engineering Services, Inc. and are not to be used for any type of construction unless signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in the employ of Northern Engineering Services, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET E N G I N E E R I N G N O R T H E RN 03/08/16 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 www.northernengineering.com Phone: 970.221.4158 CONCEPTUAL STORM SEWER LINE W/ MH S D CONCEPTUAL LOT LINE EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING ROAD ROW LINE CONCEPTUAL FIRE HYDRANT CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what's below. Call before you dig. R 110 traffic will enter via Fairway Lane and the Frontage Road. The remaining ten percent of site‐generated traffic is expected to enter via Palmer Drive and the Frontage Road. 87 3 9 . 2 7 ' ǻ = 9 0 ƒ 0 0 ' 0 0 " 6ƒ ( 1ƒ ( 1ƒ : 26' public and emergency access easement 20' access easement 1ƒ : 10.00' 42.01' 10' electric easement 5' 6ƒ ( 49.54' 15' electric easement 6ƒ ( drainage easement drainage easement 6ƒ ( HARMONY ROAD FAIRWAY LANE PALMER DR S. COLLEGE AVE S. MASON ST CREST RD BOARDWALK DR FOSSIL CREEK PKWY MAIL CREEK DITCH APPLE BLOSSOM LARKBUNTING DR SITE LOCATION MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE: The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements warranted hereunder, the full and complete maintenance and repair of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty and guarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional Land Use Regulations, as applicable. This guarantee applies to the streets and all other appurtenant structures and amenities lying within the rights-of-way, Easements and other public properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainage pipes, culverts, catch basins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/or repair required on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or department. The Owner shall maintain said improvements in a manner that will assure compliance on a consistent basis with all construction standards, safety requirements and environmental protection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause to be corrected and repaired, all damages to said improvements resulting from development-related or building-related activities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, then said damages may be corrected by the City and all costs and charges billed to and paid by the Owner. The City shall also have any other remedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior to the end of said two (2) year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shall remain the responsibility of the Owner. REPAIR GUARANTEE: In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby agree to hold the City harmless for a five (5) year period, commencing upon the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and all claims, damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of public improvements of the property shown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to make necessary repairs to said public improvements, to include, without limitation, the roads, streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges within the right-of-way, Easements and other public properties, resulting from failures caused by design and/or construction defects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes defects in materials and workmanship, as well as defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches, fills or excavations. Further, the Owner warrants that he/she owns fee simple title to the property shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or his/her successors in interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting from negligence in exercising engineering techniques and due caution in the construction of cross drains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses of streams and rivers, flooding from natural creeks and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any and all monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the Owner. I further warrant that I have the right to convey said land according to this Plat. Notice Of Other Documents: All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to this Development which create certain rights and obligations of the Development, the Owner and/or subsequent Owners of all or portions of the Development site, many of which obligations constitute promises and covenants that, along with the obligations under this Plat, run with the land. The said documents may also be amended from time to time and may include, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And Landscape Covenants, Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations, which documents are on file in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all persons interested in purchasing any portion of the Development site. ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all persons signing this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatories under the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other information discovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) of the Land Use Code. Attorney:______________________________________________ Address:_______________________________________________ Registration No.:__________________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER: By the City Engineer of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this day of , A.D., . _______________________________________ City Engineer PLANNING APPROVAL: By the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this day of A.D., . _________________________________________________ Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION: Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned owner(s) of the following described land: REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES, Lots 11-16 and a portion of Lot 10 , County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: &RQVLGHULQJWKH6RXWKOLQHRI/RW5(3/$72)$3$572))$,5:$<(67$7(6DVEHDULQJ1ƒ :ZLWKDOOEHDULQJVFRQWDLQHGKHUHRQ relative thereto. %(*,11,1*DWWKH6RXWKZHVWFRUQHURI/RW5(3/$72)$3$572))$,5:$<(67$7(6WKHQFH1ƒ (DORQJWKH:HVWOLQHRIVDLG/RW 16 and the West line of Lots 10-15, said REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES a distance of 201.10 feet; thence leaving said east line S ƒ (IRUDGLVWDQFHRIIHHWWRWKH(DVWOLQHRIVDLG/RWWKHQFH6ƒ :DORQJWKH(DVWOLQHRIVDLG/RWVIRUDGLVWDQFHRI IHHWWRWKH6RXWKHDVWFRUQHURIVDLG/RWWKHQFH1ƒ :DORQJWKH6RXWKOLQHRIVDLG/RWIRUDGLVWDQFHRIIHHWWRWKH POINT OF BEGINNING. (which above described tract contains 1.153 acres, more or less) for themselves and their successors in interest Colorado EC Land, LLC (collectively,"Owner") have caused the above described land to be surveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as REPLAT OF PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES LOTS 11-16 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10. (the "Development"), subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of record or existing or indicated on this Plat. The rights and obligations of this Plat shall run with the land. CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION: The Owner does hereby dedicate and convey to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (hereafter ³&LW\´  for public use, forever, a permanent right-of-way for street purposes and the ³(DVHPHQWV´ as laid out and designated on this Plat; provided, however, that (1) acceptance by the City of this dedication of Easements does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain the Easements so dedicated, and (2) acceptance by the City of this dedication of streets does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain streets so dedicated until such time as the provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee have been fully satisfied. The streets dedicated on this Plat are the fee property of the City as provided in Section 31-23-107 C.R.S. The City's rights under the Easements include the right to install, operate, access, maintain, repair, reconstruct, remove and replace within the Easements public improvements consistent with the intended purpose of the Easements; the right to install, maintain and use gates in any fences that cross the Easements; the right to mark the location of the Easements with suitable markers; and the right to permit other public utilities to exercise these same rights. Owner reserves the right to use the Easements for purposes that do not interfere with the full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The City is responsible for maintenance of its own improvements and for repairing any damage caused by its activities in the Easements, but by acceptance of this dedication, the City does not accept the duty of maintenance of the Easements, or of improvements in the Easements that are not owned by the City. Owner will maintain the surface of the Easements in a sanitary condition in compliance with any applicable weed, nuisance or other legal requirements. Except as expressly permitted in an approved plan of development or other written agreement with the City, Owner will not install on the Easements, or permit the installation on the Easements, of any building, structure, improvement, fence, retaining wall, sidewalk, tree or other landscaping (other than usual and customary grasses and other ground cover). In the event such obstacles are installed in the Easements, the City has the right to require the Owner to remove such obstacles from the Easements. If Owner does not remove such obstacles, the City may remove such obstacles without any liability or obligation for repair and replacement thereof, and charge the Owner the City's costs for such removal. If the City chooses not to remove the obstacles, the City will not be liable for any damage to the obstacles or any other property to which they are attached. The rights granted to the City by this Plat inure to the benefit of the City's agents, licensees, permittees and assigns. Owner: Colorado EC Land, LLC By: _____________________________________ Sameer Virani, President of Operations The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______________ day of _________________________, 2016 by Colorado EC Land, LLC, as Owners of REPLAT OF PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES REPLAT LOTS 11-16 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10. State of Colorado ) )SS County of Larimer ) WITNESS my hand and official seal. ___________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires:________________ REVISIONS By By By Description Description Date Description Date Date SHEETS SHEET NO. NO. OF PROJECT NO. ST TITLE PM PLS Field Date Scale Party Chief PLS Group 6843 North Franklin Avenue, Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: 970.669.2100 Fax: 970.669.3652 CLIENT Z:\PLS Group\Project\2015\15034\dwg\15034d003.dwg February 29, 2016 - 10:50am NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. 15034.003 1 1 Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West, 6th P .M., Larimer County, Colorado Final Plat REPLAT OF FAIRWAY ESTATES LOTS 11-16 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10 n/a MTS MBS 03/17/2015 1" = 20' DCB SMV Capital Legend: denotes found nail and 1" brass disk stamped PLS 32444 denotes found 0.5" iron rebar & 1.0" plastic cap stamped "LS 32444" unless otherwise noted. ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES. NOTICE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: I, M. Bryan Short, a Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby state that this Subdivision Plat was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the forgoing Plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. ______________________________________________ M. Bryan Short Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor # 32444 NOTES: 1. This survey and legal description is based on a title commitment provided by The Group Guaranteed Title, ///3)LOH1R(IIHFWLYH'DWH)HEUXDU\DW$0 2. Legal Description per title commitment: Lot 10, Less the North 15 feet; All of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Replat of a part of Fairway Estates. County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 3. Property Address: 4858 South College, Fort Collins CO 80525 4. Bearings are based on the South Line of Lot 16, A Replat of a Part of Fairway Estates, City of Fort Collins EHDUV1ƒ :DVVKRZQRIWKHSODWWKHUHRIHQGLQJRQVDLGPRQXPHQWVDVVKRZQKHUHRQ 5. Distances shown are in U.S. Survey Feet Vicinity Map n.t.s. Scale 1 inch = 20 feet 20 0 10 20 40 2-29-2016 MTS EASEMENTS ADDED TO DRAWING 45 00 01 01 01 01 01 02 01 (50' ROW) SERVICE ROAD N 89°23'54" W 249.76' 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. (50276 S.F. - 1.154 AC.) S 00°44'03" W 201.03' 97 97 HEM-7 SJ-5 CA-5 JR-12 SJ-14 JR-4 SJ-1 CA-7 HEM-7 JR-1 HEM-17 SJ-7 CA-3 CA-5 SJ-4 SJ-3 CA-2 Know what's R LOT 10, LESS THE NORTH 15 FEET; ALL OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, REPLAT OF A PART OF FAIRWAY ESTATES FORT COLLINS EMERGENCY CENTER SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 0 1 inch = 20 ft. 20 10 20 40 4858 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE DECEMBER 21, 2015 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LANDSCAPE PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3-8-16 PER COMMENTS 3 of 10 SYMBOL Decorative Rock: Denver Granite, 1 1/2" Diameter (with weed barrier) DESCRIPTION Rock Cobble: Arkansas Tan, 2-4" Diameter (with weed barrier) APPROX. SF Non-Irrigated Seed: Seed mix 'A' Decorative Boulders: Broadmoor 3' DIA. - 0 EACH 18" DIA. - 0 EACH DECIDUOUS TREES: ORNAMENTAL GRASSES: DECIDUOUS SHRUBS: EVERGREEN SHRUBS: Symbol Abbr. Quanity Botanical Name Common Name 18" x 12" #1 CONT. # 5 # 5 5-8' x 5-6' Shademaster Honeylocust 14,230 SF 2 STEEL EDGE BORDER. TYPICAL. SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. TRASH ENCLOSURE SBG 1,527 SF 3,412 SF PROTECT EXISTING TREES ON ADJACENT SITE. TYPICAL 4-8" COBBLE SET 3" BELOW GRADE FOR EDGING. TYPICAL. NON-IRRIGATED NATIVE SEED. REFER TO NOTES EVERGREEN TREES: Juniperus sabina Tamariscifolia Spiraea vanhoutte Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tilia cordata 'Glenleven' L L Pennisetum alopecurdides 'little bunny' 3 8 38 0 18 34