Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/19/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 October 19, 2017 Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley 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 October 19, 2017 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 October 19, 2017 1. Draft September 14, 2017, P&Z Board Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the September 14, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Fox Hills Second Annexation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a petition by residents of the Fox Hills subdivision to annex and zone 20.4 acres into the City of Fort Collins. The annexation is located approximately 3,300 feet west of the intersection of County Road 38E (Harmony Road) and Taft Hill Road. The annexation area includes all of Red Fox Road, which is located on the south side of County Road 38E. The annexation area also includes 31 single-family dwellings and residual open land that are part of the Fox Hills subdivision west of Red Fox Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Residential Foothills (R-F) zone district, which complies with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential uses. The main purpose of the annexation is to allow the streets within the Fox Hills subdivision to be maintained by the City. Street and sidewalk improvements have been requested by City staff and are currently under construction. Residents of the Fox Hills subdivision have funded these street improvements within the annexation boundary and continue to coordinate these improvements with City staff. APPLICANT: STAFF ASSIGNED: Richard Smith Fox Hills HOA 2627 Luther Lane Fort Collins, CO 80526 Kai Kleer 3. Highway I-25 Third Annexation and Zoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone approximately 282 acres located along the eastern boundary of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The annexation consists solely of Interstate 25 public right-of-way and the requested zoning districts for this annexation match the abutting zone districts are; Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL). APPLICANT: OWNER: STAFF ASSIGNED: Johnny Olson Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 10601 West 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO 80222 Kai Kleer Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 October 19, 2017 4. Reasonable Accommodation Land Use Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding revisions to the Land Use Code concerning Reasonable Accommodations. APPLICANT: STAFF ASSIGNED: City of Fort Collins Noah Beals • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. Hansen Farm ODP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) for the vacant 69 acre parcel located on the west side of S. Timberline Road at the intersection of Zephyr Road. The property lies within multiple zone districts, including the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N), and Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) districts. The Neighborhood Commercial zone district will include primary and/or secondary uses. The Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods zone district will include primary or secondary uses including multi-family dwellings. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district will consist of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family dwellings. APPLICANT: OWNER: STAFF ASSIGNED: TB Group Kristin Turner 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 Lorson North Development Corp. c/o Jeff Mark 212 N. Wahsatch Ave, Ste. 301 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Pete Wray 6. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an amendment to the existing Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Overall Development Plan (ODP). The amendment to the ODP will reflect the current proposal for an addition of the existing worship hall on the southwest side of the multi-use building constructed during Phase I of the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church PUD. APPLICANT: OWNER: Cathy Mathis, The Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Ave. Berthoud, CO 80513 Archdiocese of Denver, C/O St. Elizabeth Seton Parish 5450 S Lemay Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Planning and Zoning Board Page 4 October 19, 2017 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clay Frickey 7. Fort Collins Jeep PDP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to re-develop a vacant site and building as a full- service vehicle dealership located at 224 West Harmony Road. The existing building is 25,430 square feet and would be expanded to 34,752 square feet. Additions are proposed on both the north and south. The area west of the railroad right-of-way is approximately .87 acre and would remain as is for inventory storage. A Modification of Standard is requested to allow less than the required parking lot setbacks along portions of the two public streets (Section 3.2.2(J). The parcel is 4.48 acres, located at the northwest corner of W. Harmony Road and S. Mason Street and zoned C-G, General Commercial. APPLICANT: OWNER: STAFF ASSIGNED: Fort Collins Dodge Chrysler Jeep c/o Mr. Steve More Commercial Building Services 7561 S. Grant Street, A-4 Littleton, CO 80122 Moreland Properties, LLC c/o Mike Downey 1653 Layton Drive Englewood, CO 80113 Ted Shepard 8. Small Cell Land Use Code Changes PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding updates to the Land Use Code related to small cell wireless technology in public right-of-way. These proposed revisions add language to Section 3.8.13 addressing small cells and revises the definition of development in Article 5 that addresses small cells. APPLICANT: STAFF ASSIGNED: City of Fort Collins Clay Frickey • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME DRAFT SEPTEMBER 14, 2017, P&Z HEARING MINUTES STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the September 14, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing minutes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft September P&Z Minutes (DOC) Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast 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 September 14, 2017 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, and Whitley Absent: Schneider Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Wray, Frickey, Hahn, Tatman-Burruss, Virata, Wilkinson, Andrews, and Cosmas Agenda Review Vice Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He 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 Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised, including the 2018 Annual Work Plan. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Mark Houdashelt, 429 Lyons Street, is the Chair of the Air Quality Advisory Board, and he extended an invitation to the P&Z Board to work together in the future on any topics related to air quality. Vice Chair Hansen asked Staff to pursue a future meeting with this Board. 2018 Annual Work Plan Vice Chair Hansen asked whether the Board had any further revisions for the 2018 Annual Work Plan. This item will be revisited at the end of the hearing for further discussion. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 17, 2017, P&Z Hearing 2. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP Amendment 3. Hansen Farm ODP 4. Ziggi’s Coffee PDP Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the September 14, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 5. 4406 Seneca Street Group Home 6. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use (APU) Project: 4406 Seneca Street Group Home Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to convert a single-family residence into a ten-bedroom group home at 4406 Seneca St (parcel # 9734411014). The proposal would serve as an assisted living facility that is licensed by the State of Colorado for eight elderly residents. The site plan indicates the conversion of the existing two-car garage into two bedrooms with a shared bathroom totaling 5 bedrooms on the first floor. The basement will consist of five bedrooms and the additional access gained from a new stairwell on the east side of the residence. The applicant indicated that there will be an on-site manager and installation of a sprinkler system. The site will include parking on a circular driveway for 3 cars. The project is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district and is subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 3 Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that 1 email was received in support of this project and 2 emails were received with concerns related to the zoning use of this parcel and whether it is consistent with the neighborhood. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project, along with one modification. Greg Baustert, Applicant, gave a detailed presentation, describing the way the house would be altered (interior alterations only), the emergency plan for residents, and how he believes the changes will be minimal for the neighborhood. Planner Frickey also gave more information on the modification, showing illustrations of the resident and related square feet requirements. He discussed where the group home standard originated for determining number of allowable residents. He also discussed the size of the open space for residents both onsite and nearby, adding that residents will not be allowed to own a car, so there would be little impact on future traffic. Based on all of these considerations, Staff finds this modification request to be equal to or better than a compliant plan, saying that the proposal satisfies the requirements in article 2, 3 and 4; therefore, staff recommends approval. Member Rollins asked how many parking spaces will be provided; Planner Frickey responded there will be three total. She also asked how many caretakers will be onsite; Mr. Baustert responded that there will be two during the day. She also asked whether there will be visitor parking; Planner Frickey added that the proposal meets the parking requirement, which is for the number for employees only. Member Hobbs asked whether there would be a steady flow of caregivers and other medical professionals; Mr. Baustert responded that the primary caregivers will live onsite, and the outside agencies will come and go, but not in a consistent manner. Planner Frickey added that on-street parking is allowed on Seneca Street, because the applicant residence is opposite green space. Member Rollins asked about the parking requirements for this type of institution; Planner Frickey responded that this residence requires two parking spaces for every three employees and one space for every four adults; therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the code. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Oliver Mueller, 4400 Craig Drive, has a concern that there could be a total of 10 people living in the house in question. He is also concerned that the garage will be converted into two bedrooms, which violates the neighborhood covenants. Finally, he is alarmed that there could be some parking on the driveway, which could exceed parking limitations, and this could impact the neighboring school and access for emergency vehicles. He is very opposed to the garage conversion, saying that it is unlikely it would ever be converted back to a garage in the future. Amy Raasch, 4401 Craig Drive, read a letter to the Board from her parents, who are residents in the neighborhood. Her parents are not in favor of the proposed modification, saying that it is not in compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC) standards and is too close to the Elementary school. In addition, they feel that the modification is in direct opposition to the homeowner covenants, and the garage conversion could have a negative effect on home values. Parked vehicles could block the street, putting emergency vehicles at risk. Finally, they would like to see fewer residents and no garage conversion, which wouldn’t lock this home into being a group home forever and respects the community. Steve Gottschalk, 4511 Hilburn, has a concern with the garage conversion and future parking issues, saying schools share parking already. He reiterated the 2-car garage requirement listed in the covenants, and he asked whether empirical data could be provided to show property value changes. He asked why Steps 2-12 have not been addressed (these were alluded to at the neighborhood meeting). Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 4 Staff and Applicant Response Planner Frickey stated that the City does not enforce neighborhood covenants. In addition, he stated that maintaining property values in not a criterion within the LUC, so there wouldn’t be any related data to evaluate. He discussed lot sizes and minimum requirements, saying that the parking spaces being provided are properly within code requirements. Mr. Baustert also stated that he doesn’t anticipate many visitors to these homes; therefore, traffic jams are unlikely. He added that he doesn’t believe he is violating the covenants, according to a similar case heard by the Colorado Supreme Court. Board Questions and Deliberation Vice Chair Hansen asked about the potential change of ownership in the future; Planner Frickey responded that any changes would have to go through the development review and approval process at that time. He also asked about the rates that will be charged and why the Applicant wants to increase the house limit to 8 residents. Mr. Baustert stated that this number is allowed by the State of Colorado (they are the overseeing regulatory agency), and he plans to charge an average monthly rate of $4,500 per resident. Vice Chair Hansen asked the citizen about the missing document, and he clarified that the document was on page 7 of the Staff Report; Planner Frickey restated that there is a link to the hearing documents online, adding that the citizen was referencing the Development Review Guide steps 1-12 (this project is only on step 5 of 12 total steps). Member Rollins asked what the required number of caretakers is for the group home; Mr. Baustert responded that there are no such requirements, and each institution designs its own policies and procedures. Member Heinz asked about any outdoor space requirements per resident; Planner Frickey responded that the LUC requires a lot area standard, not a building area standard. The modification request is for the overall lot size, which is a 60% variance. Member Hobbs clarified that the lot and house size would support only 5 residents, not including caregivers, and the Applicant is requesting to increase the residents from 5 to 8. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that the amount of rent is not a consideration for the Board at this time, so he asked the Board to strike that information from consideration. Member Hobbs asked the applicant if he currently operates any other similar facilities; Mr. Baustert replied that he does not at this time. Member Heinz asked whether the building code has specific requirements for garage conversions; Planner Frickey stated that it would have to meet the building code, which will be reviewed later in the process. Member Whitley asked what Applicant’s qualifications are for developing this property; Mr. Baustert responded that he has been a business owner, and has parents are now of age to live in a place like this, so he believes it would be a good place for seniors. Vice Chair Hansen addressed the homeowner covenant concerns, saying there are multiple layers to navigate, and those would be dealt with at a different level than this Board. Member Carpenter stated that she doesn’t feel this modification is nominal and inconsequential and isn’t equal to or better than a compliant plan, so she will not be supporting the modification. Member Rollins agrees, saying she will not be supporting this modification. Member Heinz also agrees and will not support the modification. Member Hobbs also agrees and feels the applicant may be asking for things that are detrimental to the public good. Member Whitley is conflicted because of the need for such a facility, but he won’t be supporting the modification. While Vice Chair Hansen agrees, he feels that the project fulfills a public need, and he isn’t convinced that the modification will be detrimental to the public good. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the 4406 Seneca Street Group Home modification to increase the number of residents to 8 from 5, in that the modification would not promote the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:1, with Vice Chair Hansen dissenting. More discussion followed regarding the Project Development Plan. Member Hobbs will support the proposal for the maximum of 5 residents. Members Whitley agreed. Member Rollins stated she has no Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 5 concern with parking or traffic as the PDP is proposed. Members Carpenter and Heinz will also support this project. Member Hobbs asked for clarification regarding the garage modification; Planner Frickey confirmed that this is now a moot point from a LUC perspective. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 4406 Seneca Street Group Home PDP170024, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Heinz seconded. Yatabe suggested that the staff findings related to the modification be excluded; Member Hobbs amended his motion to reflect this exception. Vote: 6:0. The Board took a recess at 7:02pm; they reconvened at 7:28pm. Assistant Attorney City Yatabe stated that there were a number of people who were in attendance earlier in the hearing that did not understand the consent versus discussion process of approving hearing items. Because those citizens came to testify on several items but did not take advantage of this opportunity, he recommended that the P&Z Board reconsider those items at a later date. Those agenda items include the Hansen Farm ODP and the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP. Assistant Attorney City Yatabe described the prescribed solution to the Board members. Member Carpenter expressed concerned that continuing those two items will strain the Applicant’s time frame for project development. Both Planner Frickey and Senior Planner Wray confirmed that continuing these items should not present a hardship to the Applicants. Member Whitley made a motion to reconsider the vote on the consent agenda; Member Hobbs. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion to adopt the original Consent agenda, excluding the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP and the Hansen Farm ODP and moving those items to the Discussion agenda; Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. The previous motion is still in good standing regarding adopting the Consent agenda; vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion to continue St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP to the October 19,, 2017, P&Z Hearing; Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion to continue the Hansen Farm ODP to the October 19, 2017, P&Z Hearing; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Project: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use (APU) Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 60 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on- the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) is not an allowed use in the LMN zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 6 Recommendation: Approval Member Heinz excused herself due to a conflict of interest at 7:39pm. Secretary Cosmas reported that 1 email has been received in support of this project, and 3 emails were received with concerns related to livability, property resale, granting zoning variances, and potential safety issues. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of the project proposal. Ken Bradtke, Operations Manager with Atlas Tower, gave a detailed presentation, including some background of his company, wireless signal coverage needs and gaps in the north end of Fort Collins, zoning criteria, and some design elements of the project. He provided justification for the location, citing coverage gaps in the area and the importance of emergency calls being reliable. He showed some visual slides of what the project would look like and the view from surrounding areas. He provided some explanation of the requirements of communications towers, including restrictions on tower height, communication coverage, etc. Staff Analysis and Board Questions Planner Frickey discussed the APU process for an Applicant who is seeking a use that is not currently allowed in that particular zone. He reviewed each of the uses of the criterion in question, explaining that the City Council will make the final determination for this project. He stated that the fundamental issue for this project relates to design; therefore, since the function is consistent with the use, Staff finds the design meets the stated criterion 1. He reviewed each successive criterion: • 2 – Conforming to basic characteristics of the zone district (relating to zoning use). • 3 – Location size and design of the proposed facility. Explanation: based on a federal law requiring cities to permit cell towers, the Applicant has provided a coverage map to justify location selected. Planner Frickey has investigated other surrounding area, but they are not available (due to schools or other companies). He also showed some images from Google Earth that depict adjacent neighborhoods. Staff had requested the Applicant to provide proof that they could not get a lease on any of the sites that had appropriate zoning and could accommodate a cell tower (Fort Collins Country Club (FCCC) and Anheiser-Busch). He went on to explain the difficulties that had arisen while conducting this investigation. From a design standpoint, he feels that the cell tower silo proposed meets the stealth technology requirement if the two conditions of approval are approved. • 4 – Minimizing negative impacts. • 5 – Use will not change character of neighborhood. • 6 – Is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district. • 7 – Staff held two neighborhood meetings. • 8 – Is not a marijuana-related business. He also discussed the standards 1-4 of the Land Use Code as long as the conditions of approval are met: • Applicant reduce the height of the proposed WTF to 45 feet or less, and • Location of WTF be moved further north to be closer to outbuildings. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 7 Member Carpenter asked about future redevelopment of this area and how this silo will fit in with the neighborhood; Planner Frickey responded that any subsequent changes would need a new review. Member Hobbs asked who owns the land this WTF will be located on; Planner Frickey stated that the parcel is an owner-occupied parcel, and the company will be leasing the land from them. Vice Chair Hansen asked if there are any visual comparisons available to illustrate the silo at 45 feet in height; Planner Frickey does not have a visual depiction of that. Mr. Bradtke stated that the external material on the silo will be a fiberglass material, but there are many design options. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe reminded the group that, per the Federal Telecommunications Act section 332(C)(7)(b)iv, the City is prohibited from regulating the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions, which includes precluding any consideration of potential health effects of frequency emissions. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Nancy Eason, 1909 Turnberry Road, asked for additional minutes to present the comments that represent at least 35 neighbors. Vice Chair Hansen granted her 10 minutes. Ms. Eason gave a written statement to the Board to be entered into the record. She stated her concern that approving this project will set a dangerous precedent for other residential communities. She did not feel that the resident questions were properly answered during the neighborhood meetings, so she doesn’t feel that due diligence was performed. She isn’t convinced that the Applicant contacted all available adjacent areas to investigate the possibility of placing the WTF in another location. She urged the City to make sure the future buildout of infrastructure has been done before approving this, and she suggested hiring experts in this case. She is concerned with approving this APU, because similar projects could continue in other zones. She questioned the conformance with criterion 4, in that adverse effects on public health and safety could occur; she requested a note be added to the documentation that that part of the code requirement was intentionally omitted because of the Federal regulation. Tanya Andreas, 1900 Turnberry Road, has a concern that the development process is difficult to navigate for residents, adding that almost 2 years have elapsed since the beginning of this process. She also requested that a third party of radiofrequency (RF) engineers evaluate this proposal, and she encouraged the City to investigate this option. Marilyn Anderson, 1935 Sherell Drive, is opposed to this cell tower proposal, saying she would like the proposed WTF to be as far away from the road as possible. She feels that this use is not in character with the neighborhood and is concerned that it could ultimately decrease property values. Debbie Corey, 2000 Rangeview Drive, is opposed to this proposal. She questioned who would have the responsibility of disassembling the WTF if it becomes obsolete in the future and who would assume liability. She also suggested that proper signage be installed if the WTF is built, since this area is frequented by neighbors and their children. Jim Miles, 3403 Apiatan Court, is a resident of Hearthfire subdivision; he acknowledged that, while the cell phone service in this area is inadequate, Fort Collins should continue to keep pace with development. Therefore, he supports this project. Don Eason, 1909 Turnberry Road, has safety concerns related to the RF engineering and emissions. He is aware that the P&Z Board does not have purview over this, but he questioned how the federal guidelines will be enforced and checked to maintain safety. Ted Wolf, 2120 Sherwood Forest Court, stated that 78 new homes have been built in the last 2 years, adding that he feels the developer did not do a good job of identifying better locations because of cost. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 8 He doesn’t feel that putting a tower on this location will enhance the area. Kevin Forbes, 2908 Turnberry Road, is related to the property owners, and he is aware of the poor cell phone service. He explained that the outbuildings are being used and maintained, and this parcel is a single-family dwelling on 8 acres. He believes that due diligence was properly performed and that this site works well. Applicant/Staff Response and Board Questions Planner Frickey addressed several of the citizen questions regarding due diligence performed and investigation of alternate locations. Regarding the precedent issues, he explained that such projects are evaluated as unique cases, so precedents are rarely set. Regarding the development process, the complete application was just recently received, and Staff scheduled it for P&Z review as early as possible. Regarding the “working farm” issue, he feels that this application should be analyzed as it is at present. He continued by saying he is not aware of any cell towers in any residential zones in Fort Collins since 1996 – this project would be the first APU of its type. Vice Chair Hansen asked whether the third party consulting suggestion is viable; Planning Frickey stated he had contacted the Center for Municipal Solutions, but no agreement was made to analyze cell tower proposals. There are approximately 100 WTFs within Fort Collins, and the cost to monitor these facilities by a third party would cost more than $100,000 (one-time fee). Vice Chair Hansen also asked what considerations were made for the specific location on this site and the consequences if it were abandoned. Mr. Bradtke responded by saying that they considered the setback requirements, and his company would take responsibility of dismantling and disposal of the WTF. He stated that construction would start in early 2018. He also gave some detail of how security would be maintained, including a security fence and a lock on the gate. Member Rollins asked if locating the WTF on the city-owned property to the east was considered; Planner Frickey stated that there is an administrative City policy that won’t allow new leases on their property, mainly due to prior back-lash in response to a proposed cell tower. Member Hobbs asked what the zoning is on that city property; Planner Frickey responded that it is low-density, mixed-use neighborhood, which is public open land and can be zoned for a park. Member Whitley asked why the negotiations failed with FCCC and Anheiser-Busch; Michael Powers, Director of Legal Affairs with Atlas Towers, stated that negotiations were attempted over several years. Anheiser- Busch was completely unresponsive, even after letters and phone calls were used to reach them. They also contacted the FCCC, but they would not even allow a discussion of their proposal. Member Rollins asked if this entire area is a residential zone; Planner Frickey showed the Board a simplified version of the structure plan map, which includes City Plan annexations and some areas that wouldn’t allow this use. Member Hobbs also asked what the possibility would be for this area to be covered by other cell towers; Ram Nandiraju, an RF Engineer with Verizon Wireless, explained how coverage works, based on the height of towers farther away and the maximum coverage by higher towers. He added that the main factors that influence service include cell tower radius, height, and terrain. The maximum diameter for service is generally one mile in each direction, adding that a most “millennials” want wireless coverage in neighborhoods, so they are not averse to having WTFs in their neighborhoods. He stressed that his company is serious about compliance with regulations. Member Hobbs asked for a larger view of the zone district to identify the most likely zones that would allow WTFs; Planner Frickey pointed out several adjacent zones that would require negotiation with Larimer County. Board Deliberation Member Whitley does not see specific issues with this proposal. Mr. Hobbs stated that while he recognizes that the lack of cell phone service in this area needs to be addressed, he is not convinced that all possible solutions such as towers to the north and new technologies have been explored. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 9 He doesn’t feel that the proposal meets the compliance conditions, saying its use isn’t compatible and could have negative impacts, so he will not support this proposal. Member Carpenter is also concerned with the future implications, so she isn’t sure she will support it. Member Rollins is also struggling with this proposal, and she would like to have an outside RF engineer review it first, so she won’t support it. Vice Chair Hansen supports this proposal, based on the need for cell service needs and the fact that grain silos are an appropriate vehicle for a camouflaging device. Member Whitley also stated that a 60- foot tower would reach a greater number of users. Member Hobbs stated that his research indicated that an average silo is about 30-35 feet in height, so the proposed silo of 45 feet in height may not blend in with the farm. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend denial to the City Council for the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, on the basis that the use would not conform to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the location, size, and design would not be compatible and could have negative impacts on the use of nearby properties; Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 4:1. Other Business 2018 Annual Work Plan Member Carpenter moved to approve the 2018 P&Z Annual Work Plan as presented; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. Vice Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:21pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Hansen, Acting Chair Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FOX HILLS SECOND ANNEXATION -- ANX160008 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a petition by residents of the Fox Hills subdivision to annex and zone 20.4 acres into the City of Fort Collins. The annexation is located approximately 3,300 feet west of the intersection of County Road 38E (Harmony Road) and Taft Hill Road. The annexation area includes all of Red Fox Road, which is located on the south side of County Road 38E. The annexation area also includes 31 single- family dwellings and residual open land that are part of the Fox Hills subdivision west of Red Fox Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Residential Foothills (R-F) zone district, which complies with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential uses. The main purpose of the annexation is to allow the streets within the Fox Hills subdivision to be maintained by the City. Street and sidewalk improvements have been requested by City staff and are currently under construction. Residents of the Fox Hills subdivision have funded these street improvements within the annexation boundary and continue to coordinate these improvements with City staff. APPLICANT: Richard Smith Fox Hills HOA 2627 Luther Lane Fort Collins, CO 80526 OWNERS: See Annexation Petition -- Attachment 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Fox Hills Second Annexation and initial zoning of R-F, Residential Foothills. Staff also recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment would be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be placed on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The Fox Hills Second Annexation gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Fox Hills (first) Annexation to the east, which was annexed in 1994, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. On October 3, 2017, City Council approved an Initiating Resolution to accept the annexation petition. The resolution also initiates the annexation process for the property by establishing the hearing dates for two readings of the ordinances annexing and zoning the area. The Board’s recommendation for this annexation will be forwarded to City Council as part of a proposed First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November 7, 2017. BACKGROUND: The Fox Hills neighborhood was developed in two phases. The second phase is located east of Red Fox Road, and this phase was annexed into the City in 1994 as a precursor to City development approval. The initial portion of the Fox Hills development, which is west of Red Fox Road, was developed in the County and was not eligible for annexation at the time of development. Because a portion of the Fox Hills development is in the City and the other portion is in the County, this is causing issues for the residents and the Fox Hills HOA, which is currently responsible for the long term road maintenance within the County portions of the development. Because the Fox Hills HOA is currently divided between owners that are located within the City (Fox Hills First Annexation) and those that are outside of the City in Larimer County west of Red Fox Road, this current division between city and county is not logical for maintenance across the HOA. This annexation would unify the Fox Hills HOA so that all property would be within the City of Fort Collins. The surrounding properties are residential land uses as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North County Zone District: FA-1 Farming Wildflower Ridge PUD, County Subdivision, single-family residential lots South County Zone District: FA-1 Farming Westridge Estates PUD East City Zone District: R-F, Residential Foothills Fox Hills 2nd Filing West County Zone District: FA-1 Farming Westridge Estates PUD Staff recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which was established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in certain geographical areas of the City that may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. An initial zoning of R-F, Residential Foothills is recommended. The portion of Fox Hills which is already annexed is also zoned R-F. The stated purpose of the Residential Foothills District designation is for low density residential areas located near the foothills. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH: An outreach process is not required by Colorado Revised Statues or the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code for the annexation. However, outreach meetings were conducted by the City with area residents to discuss options for future street maintenance in the area, which was the impetus for this annexation request. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: A. The Fox Hills Second Annexation is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the amended Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. B. The annexation area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. The requested zone district, R-F, Residential Foothills, is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. D. The annexation area is a residential land use and shall be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Fox Hills Second Annexation, ANX#160008, initial zoning of Residential Foothills (R-F), and that the property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District based on the findings of fact included in this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map (PDF) 2. Zoning Map (PDF) 3. City Structure Plan Map (PDF) 4. Letter from Fox Hills HOA Requesting Annexation (PDF) 5. Annexation Map (PDF) 6. Annexation Petition (PDF) Spring Canyon Community Park Platte Dr Westridge Dr Iowa Red Fox Rd Idledale Dr Ohio P i c a d i l l y Dr Windom St Arizona W e l l i n g t on Dr Illinois Mead St Brixton Rd Indiana Nevada Michigan Bighorn Xing Wyoming Dalton Dr Luther Ln Hidden Springs Rd H ors e t o o t h Dr Stallion Cir Gros v enor C t Wil d Ro s e Wa Olander Elementary POL RL POL RF RL LMN LMN LMN Spring Canyon Community Park Lynda Ln Platte Dr Goodell Ln Iowa Red Fox Rd W e s t r i d g e Dr Idledale Dr Bronson St Ohio P i c a d i l l y Dr Windom St Bi g h o r n X i ng Arizona We l l i n g t on Dr Illinois Mead St Brixton Rd Indiana 8E - City Structure Plan Map Boundaries Fort Collins GMA City Limits Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors CR 38-E Annexation - Area 1 inch = 0.3 miles Taft Hill Rd Cathy Fromme Prairie Nat. Area Annexation Boundary Pineridge Nat. Area Attachment 3 To: City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Re: Fox Hills Second Annexation This annexation petition is a request to the City of Fort Collins to approve the Fox Hills Second annexation and zoning as defined in this petition. The area to be annexed covers a portion of the Fox Hills Home Owners Association (HOA). The Fox Hills HOA is currently divided between owners that are located within the City (Fox Hills First Annexation) and those that are outside of the City in Larimer County. This current division between city and county is not logical for maintenance across the HOA. This annexation would unify the Fox Hills HOA so that all property would be within the City of Fort Collins. The area to be annexed is in Larimer County and is within the growth management area for the City of Fort Collins. The Fox Hills HOA, which is currently responsible for long term road maintenance within the County portions of the HOA, is currently planning to improve the existing roads to bring them up to acceptable standards as defined by the City of Fort Collins Infrastructure Services Department. Funding for these road improvements has already been budgeted and approved by the Fox Hills HOA. These planned road improvements would avoid any detriment to the City associated with road improvement for this annexation. Fox Hills HOA Attachment 4 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION AND ZONING STAFF Kai Kleer, Associate Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone approximately 282 acres located along the eastern boundary of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The annexation consists solely of Interstate 25 public right-of-way and the requested zoning districts for this annexation match the abutting zone districts are; Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL). APPLICANT: Johnny Olson Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 10601 West 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 OWNER: Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO 80222 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Highway I-25 Third annexation and zoning and placement into the Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL), zone districts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement for the Growth Management Area, and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The project satisfies the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL) zoning is consistent with the City’s Structure Plan Map. The item is scheduled for first reading by City Council on November 7, 2017 Background The applicant, Johnny Olson, Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4, has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of approximately 282 acres of public right-of-way into the City of Fort Collins. Analysis The requested annexation does not create an enclave. The property exists solely as Colorado Department of Transportation public right-of-way. The surrounding zoning and land uses are a combination of Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL), zone districts. The land uses contained within the adjacent zone districts include: natural areas, commercial retail, personal service, commercial office, and industrial. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. One-sixth contiguity is gained from the 11 previous annexations: 1. Highway 1-25 First Annexation, 1989 2. Highway I-25 Second Annexation, 1989 3. Frontage Road Industrial Associates, LTD. Annexation, 1990 4. Kirschner Annexation, 1993 5. Arapaho Bend Second Annexation, 1998 6. Interchange Business Park Third Annexation, 2005 7. Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation, 2008 8. Riverwalk Annexation, 2009 9. Fossil Creek 392 Annexation, 2009 10. Lodge Pole Investments LLC Annexation, 2015 11. Maverik First Annexation, 2016 While placing public right-of-way into zone districts is a common procedure, all of the land within the annexation is expected to remain under the jurisdiction of CDOT for highway purposes only and not develop as permitted uses available under the zoning. The requested zoning for this annexation is Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL), which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map, and correspond to zone district designations on abutting properties. The Land Use Code describes the four previously listed zone districts as follows: Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 Community Commercial (CC) • Purpose. The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. Industrial (I) • Purpose. The Industrial District is intended to provide a location for a variety of work processes and work places such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, child care centers and housing. While these Districts will be linked to the City's transportation system for multiple modes of travel, some may emphasize efficient commercial trucking and rail traffic as needed. Industrial and manufacturing processes used in this District may, by necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. Public Open Lands (POL) • Purpose. The Public Open Lands District is for large publicly owned parks and open lands which have a community-wide emphasis or other characteristics which warrant inclusion under this separate designation rather than inclusion in an adjoining neighborhood or other District designation. Rural Lands District (RUL) • Purpose. The Rural Lands District is intended for privately owned lands that are planned as a rural edge to the community. Rural lands include but are not limited to community separators, clustered residential development, large lot residential, agriculture, natural area buffers and corridors and other open lands of similar character and purpose Public Outreach No public outreach was conducted as part of this Annexation as public services are unchanged and no development rights area are created with the change in jurisdiction. Findings of Fact • The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. • The requested Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL), zoning districts is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. • The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Amended Intergovernmental Agreement - Growth Management Area. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 • The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies found in The City of Fort Collins - Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement, and the Windsor - Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, regarding cooperation on annexation, growth management, and related issues. • On September 19th, 2017, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Highway I-25 Third annexation and zoning and placement into the Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL), zone districts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Highway I-25 Third Annexation Area No. 1 Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Highway I-25 Third Annexation Area No. 2 Vicinity Map (PDF) 3. Highway I-25 Third Area No 1 Structure Plan Map (PDF) 4. Highway I-25 Third Area No 2 Structure Plan Map (PDF) 5. Highway I-25 Third Area No. 1 Zoning Map (PDF) 6. Highway I-25 Third Area No. 2 Zoning Map (PDF) 7. Highway I-25 Third Annexation Plat (PDF) 8. Combined Zoning Legal Descriptions (PDF) e la P o u d r e Re s e r vo ir I n l e t Box e l d e r C r e e k E Mulberry St !"`$ ÕZYXW Highway I-25 Third Annexation Printed: September 05, 2017 Scale500 1:12, Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Staff Folders\KKleer\Development_Review\Highway I-25 Third Annexation\AnnexationMap.mxd City Limits - Area Highway_I25_Annexation Railroad Lines 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles ° ! Highway Area I-No. 25 1 Third Area No. 1 Attachment 1 B ox e l d e r D i t c h T i m n a t h R e s e r v i o r F o s s il C r e e k F o s sil C r e e k R e s e r v oi r I n l e t C a c h e l a a P o u d r e Re s e r vo ir I n l e t Box e l d e r C r e e k E County Road 48 E Mulberry St !"`$ ÕZYXW Highway I-25 Third Annexation Scale500 1:12, Structure Plan Land Use Commercial Corridor District Neighborhood Commercial District Employment District Industrial District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles ° ! Highway Area I-No. 25 1 Third CC & I, Zoning Structure Plan Map - Area No. 1 Attachment 3 B ox e l d e r D i t c h e k R e s e r v oi r I n l e t C a c h e l a P o u d r e R i v e r R i g d e n R e s e r v o i r k R a P o u d r e Re s e r vo ir I n l e t Box e l d e r C r e e k E County Road 48 E Mulberry St !"`$ ÕZYXW LMN UE LMN I LMN UE CG UE LMN E CG I Highway I-25 Third Annexation Scale500 1:12, 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles ° ! Highway Area I-No. 25 1 Third CC & I, Zoning Zoning Map - Area No. 1 General Commercial (CG) Employment (E) Industrial (I) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Urban Estate (UE) Attachment 5 B ox e l d e r D i t c h B o x el d e r D i t c h e k R e s e r v oi r I n l e t k R e s e r v o i r C a c h e l a P o u d r “ ” “ ” DESCRIPTION: 5 1 REVISIONS: DATE: OF APPROVED BY: SHEET SCALE: DATE: 1"=300' 9-5-2017 RWH DATE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION CHECKED BY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Engineering JSV City of HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TWO TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED THE IN EAST HALF OF SECTION 9, THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THE SOUTHWEST 16, QUARTER OF SECTION 27, AND IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., AND IN SECTIONS 3, 10, AND 15, AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE , SIXTH P.M LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY............4896.04' TOTAL PERIMETER.....................18014.74' DENOTES CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY AREA................86.12 ACRES± 1/6TH PERIMETER......................3002.46' APPROVED: _______________________________________________ ____________ ________ ____________________, ____. _________________________________________________________ SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: _________________________________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: NOTES: AREA NO. 1 CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY............12,054.93' TOTAL PERIMETER....................53,967.77' AREA................196.12 ACRES± 1/6TH PERIMETER......................8,994.63' AREA NO. 2 “ ” “ ” N DENOTES CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Design\XXXXXXXX_C3D\I-25 3rd Annex SheetS 1-5.dwg 150 1 INCH = 300 FEET 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE N 5 2 REVISIONS: DATE: OF APPROVED BY: SHEET SCALE: DATE: 1"=300' 9-5-2017 RWH DATE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION CHECKED BY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Engineering JSV City of 600 HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TWO TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED THE IN EAST HALF OF SECTION 9, THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THE SOUTHWEST 16, QUARTER OF SECTION 27, AND IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., AND IN SECTIONS 3, 10, AND 15, AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE , SIXTH P.M LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Design\XXXXXXXX_C3D\I-25 3rd Annex SheetS 1-5.dwg 150 1 INCH = 300 FEET 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE N 5 3 REVISIONS: DATE: OF APPROVED BY: SHEET SCALE: DATE: 1"=300' 9-5-2017 RWH DATE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION CHECKED BY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Engineering JSV City of 600 HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TWO TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED THE IN EAST HALF OF SECTION 9, THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THE SOUTHWEST 16, QUARTER OF SECTION 27, AND IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., AND IN SECTIONS 3, 10, AND 15, AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE , SIXTH P.M LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ∆ ∆ S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Design\XXXXXXXX_C3D\I-25 3rd Annex SheetS 1-5.dwg 150 1 INCH = 300 FEET 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE N 5 4 REVISIONS: DATE: OF APPROVED BY: SHEET SCALE: DATE: 1"=300' 9-5-2017 RWH DATE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION CHECKED BY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Engineering JSV City of 600 HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TWO TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED THE IN EAST HALF OF SECTION 9, THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THE SOUTHWEST 16, QUARTER OF SECTION 27, AND IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., AND IN SECTIONS 3, 10, AND 15, AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE , SIXTH P.M LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ∆ S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Design\XXXXXXXX_C3D\I-25 3rd Annex SheetS 1-5.dwg 150 1 INCH = 300 FEET 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE N 5 5 REVISIONS: DATE: OF APPROVED BY: SHEET SCALE: DATE: 1"=300' 9-5-2017 RWH DATE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION CHECKED BY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Engineering JSV City of 600 HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TWO TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED THE IN EAST HALF OF SECTION 9, THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THE SOUTHWEST 16, QUARTER OF SECTION 27, AND IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., AND IN SECTIONS 3, 10, AND 15, AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE , SIXTH P.M LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Design\XXXXXXXX_C3D\I-25 3rd Annex SheetS 1-5.dwg DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONE, HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION PARCEL 1: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 15 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 TO BEAR N00°07'35"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, N89°13'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,422.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°46'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 37.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) COURSES: 1. N67°20'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 163.70 FEET; 2. N81°40'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 506.05 FEET; 3. N58°25'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 177.58 FEET; 4. N38°18'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 497.10 FEET; 5. N16°51'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 208.80 FEET; 6. N00°09'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 37.00 FEET; 7. N00°07'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 905.30 FEET; 8. N00°06'04"W, A DISTANCE OF 278.18 FEET; THENCE N89°53'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 372.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1. S03°36'58"W, A DISTANCE OF 245.20 FEET; 2. S00°14'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 940.70 FEET; 3. S00°03'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 37.90 FEET; 4. S13°59'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 206.20 FEET; 5. S38°05'41"E, A DISTANCE OF 442.05 FEET; 6. S58°25'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 233.20 FEET; 7. S81°25'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 290.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK THIRD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND CROSSING THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 14, S00°36'58"W, A DISTANCE OF 403.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25, WHICH IS ALSO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE MAVERIK FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) COURSES: 1. ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID MAVERIK FIRST ANNEXATION, S82°10'17"W, A DISTANCE OF 189.70 FEET; 2. CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, S66°30'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 19.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID MAVERIK FIRST ANNEXATION ; 3. S66°30'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET; 4. S42°25'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET TO A CORNER OF THE INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK THIRD ANNEXATION; 5. ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK THIRD ANNEXATION, S42°25'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 444.41 FEET; 6. CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK THIRD ANNEXATION, S19°54'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 380.42 FEET; 7. S19°54'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 15.41 FEET; Attachment 8 8. S00°11'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,538.04 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HIGHWAY I-25 SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, FROM WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION BEARS S51°53’12"W, 70.09 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID HIGHWAY I-25 SECOND ANNEXATION, S89°19'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 249.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES: 1. N00°11'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,314.65 FEET; 2. N10°48'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 509.26 FEET; 3. N28°13'29"W, A DISTANCE OF 286.40 FEET; 4. N54°14'29"W, A DISTANCE OF 427.20 FEET; 5. N82°23'29"W, A DISTANCE OF 503.60 FEET; 6. N67°25'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 161.60 FEET; THENCE N00°46'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 213.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 67.97 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. PARCEL 2: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST TO BEAR N00°27'19"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 AND ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, (WHICH IS ALSO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15), S00°29'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,342.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION AND ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE, S00°29'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 791.15 FEET; 2. DEPARTING SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AND CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION, S17°24'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 161.51 FEET; 3. CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION, S00°11'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 236.30 FEET; THENCE N89°48'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 295.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,182.69 FEET; THENCE S89°30'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 249.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 7.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. PARCEL 3: Attachment 8 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 15, AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22 TO BEAR N00°51’11"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, S89°42'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 170.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1. N00°11'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,163.34 FEET; 2. N04°06'12"W, A DISTANCE OF 165.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS LLC ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; 3. ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION, N04°06'12"W, A DISTANCE OF 523.98 FEET; 4. CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION AND ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, N18°24'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 264.10 FEET; 5. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION, N31°12'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 553.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES: 1. ACROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 392, N00°42'38"W, A DISTANCE OF 156.17 FEET; 2. CONTINUING ACROSS SAID RIGHT OF WAY, N33°26'08"E, A DISTANCE OF 90.10 FEET; 3. CONTINUING ACROSS SAID RIGHT OF WAY, N18°01'38"E, A DISTANCE OF 11.45 FEET; 4. N83°57'33"E, A DISTANCE OF 113.22 FEET; 5. N44°48'39"E, A DISTANCE OF 118.86 FEET; 6. N08°32'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 337.31 FEET; 7. N13°27'15"E, A DISTANCE OF 514.74 FEET; 8. N04°40'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 216.25 FEET; 9. N83°20'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 55.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1. N06°11'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 478.00 FEET; 2. N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 367.18 FEET; THENCE S89°48'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 265.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25, WHICH IS ALSO A POINT ON THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 THE FOLLOWING TEN (10) COURSES: 1. CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS ANNEXATION, S00°11'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 731.30 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PTARMIGAN BUSINESS PARK SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR; 2. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PTARMIGAN BUSINESS PARK SECOND ANNEXATION, S00°17'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 226.69 FEET; 3. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY AND ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PTARMIGAN BUSINESS PARK FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, S16°06'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,085.40 FEET; 4. CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PTARMIGAN BUSINESS PARK FIRST ANNEXATION, N89°41'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; Attachment 8 5. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S42°35'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 148.70 FEET; 6. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°35'41"E, A DISTANCE OF 79.98 FEET TO A CORNER OF THE WINDSOR HIGHLANDS ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR; 7. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WINDSOR HIGHLANDS ANNEXATION NO.7, S58°43'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 116.81 FEET; 8. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S89°40'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 49.83 FEET; 9. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S22°37'04"W, A DISTANCE OF 658.50 FEET; 10. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S05°25'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 803.31 FEET; 11. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°12'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,151.94 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID WINDSOR HIGHLANDS ANNEXATION NO. 7 WHICH LIES ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22; THENCE S89°41'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 78.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 47.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. ___________________________________________________________________________ I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Legals\ Zoning-CC.docx Attachment 8 Attachment 8 DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRIAL (I) ZONE, HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 9, AND IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 TO BEAR S00°07’35"W, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, S00°07'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 526.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S89°53'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 257.38 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES: 1. N00°06'04"W, A DISTANCE OF 506.28 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE BNSF RAILWAY, SAID POINT HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS POINT “A”; 2. N00°04'42"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID RAILWAY; 3. N02°02'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 214.80 FEET; 4. N01°58'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 660.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES, LTD. ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; 5. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION, N01°56'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 423.94 FEET; 6. CONTINUING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION, N00°08'13"W, A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE HIGHWAY I-25 FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY I-25 FIRST ANNEXATION, N89°42'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 220.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 9 FROM WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9 BEARS N00°07'40"E, A DISTANCE OF 687.88 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE HIGHWAY I-25 FIRST ANNEXATION, N89°42'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 39.18 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25, WHICH IS ALSO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE KIRSCHNER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES: 1. ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE KIRSCHNER ANNEXATION, S00°07'20"E, A DISTANCE OF 500.00 FEET; 2. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S04°06'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,410.52 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE BNSF RAILWAY; 3. S00°06'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY Attachment 8 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID RAILWAY; 4. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S89°02'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; 5. S05°33'58"W, A DISTANCE OF 294.27 FEET; 6. S03°36'58"W, A DISTANCE OF 205.80 FEET; THENCE S89°53'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 115.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT THAT LIES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE BNSF RAILWAY, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT “A”, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE N00°04'42"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY, S88°57'18"E, A DISTANCE OF 259.98 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY, S89°02'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 145.23 FEET; THENCE S00°06'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY, N89°02'25"W, A DISTANCE OF 146.20 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY N88°57'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 259.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 18.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 annexation 2017\ Legals\Zoning-I.docx Attachment 8 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) ZONE, HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION PARCEL 1: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST, AND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27 AND IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, AND CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 TO BEAR S01°46’53"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, N89°29'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 633.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, N89°29'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 20.81 FEET; THENCE N00°30'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 231.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FOURTEEN (14) COURSES: 1. N54°12'15"E, A DISTANCE OF 85.99 FEET; 2. N25°05'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 473.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE ARAPAHO BEND SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; 3. ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION, N25°05'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 178.22 FEET; 4. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY, N02°05'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 554.86 FEET; 5. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY, 1,027.93 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5,565.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°35'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N07°23'23"W A DISTANCE OF 1,026.47 FEET; 6. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY, N12°40'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 876.04 FEET; 7. S75°05'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 17.16 FEET; 8. N12°46'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 622.70 FEET; 9. N43°00'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 202.60 FEET; 10. N12°46'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 450.00 FEET; 11. N12°20'00"E, A DISTANCE OF 193.30 FEET; 12. N12°31'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; 13. N15°21'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 700.66 FEET; 14. N12°46'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 246.40 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S56°49'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 175.51 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 355.61 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,814.82 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°14'18", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S53°12'21"E A DISTANCE OF 355.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE Attachment 8 HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) COURSES: 1. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THOMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 3 TO THE TOWN OF TIMNATH AND THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY PROLONGATIONS THEREOF, S09°37'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 951.33 FEET ; 2. S57°12'00"E, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET; 3. N77°13'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID THOMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 3; 4. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID THOMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 3, S12°46'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 550.00 FEET; 5. S77°13'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 223.10 FEET; 6. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID THOMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 3 AND THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, S12°57'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 874.72 FEET; 7. S72°23'30"W, A DISTANCE OF 77.93 FEET; 8. S12°46'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 619.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34; 9. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S89°24'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 237.74 FEET TO THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, WHICH IS ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FLATIRON ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO THE TOWN OF TIMNATH; 10. ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION AND ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF FLATIRON ANNEXATION “NO. 1”, S00°10'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,889.31 FEET; 11. ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF FLATIRON ANNEXATION “NO. 1”, S16°49'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 389.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HARMONY ROAD SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF TIMNATH; THENCE ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION AND CROSSING THE RIGHT OF WAY OF HARMONY ROAD THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. S16°49'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 292.33 FEET; 2. S00°29'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 171.54 FEET; 3. S89°30'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 147.08 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25, WHICH IS ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE I-25 AND HARMONY ROAD ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF TIMNATH; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID I-25 AND HARMONY ROAD ANNEXATION, S14°35'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,216.81 FEET; 2. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, S01°46'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,406.49 FEET TO THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 3; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER SAID SECTION 3, N89°20'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 258.11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE RIVERWALK ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. N02°02'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,785.07 FEET; 2. N24°15'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 793.35 FEET; Attachment 8 3. N56°56'01"W, A DISTANCE OF 82.86 FEET; THENCE N00°30'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 105.59 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 79.84 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. PARCEL 2: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15 AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10 TO BEAR N00°27'19"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 AND ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, ( WHICH IS ALSO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15), S00°29'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,342.66 FEET; THENCE N89°30'24"W, A DISTANCE OF 249.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. THENCE N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,307.10 FEET; 2. THENCE N08°45'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 202.18 FEET; 3. THENCE N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,180.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 34E; THENCE S82°20'09"E, A DISTANCE OF 233.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 SAID POINT BEING THE CENTER SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SECTION 10; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S00°27'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,316.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 14.83 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. PARCEL 3: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10 TO BEAR N00°27'19"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND Attachment 8 THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, WHICH IS ALSO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, S00°29'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 2,133.81 FEET; 2. DEPARTING THE QUARTER SECTION LINE AND CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION, S17°24'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 161.51 FEET; 3. CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST BOUNDARY, S00°11'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 236.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION, S00°11'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 653.13 FEET; THENCE N89°48'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 265.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 25; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 4. N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 347.65 FEET; 5. N16°28'12"W, A DISTANCE OF 104.39 FEET; 6. N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 205.47 FEET; THENCE S89°48'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 295.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\ Legals\ Zoning-POL.docx Attachment 8 DESCRIPTION OF RURAL LANDS DISTRICT (RUL) ZONE, HIGHWAY I-25 THIRD ANNEXATION A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 10, AND IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER-SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10, AND CONSIDERINGTHE LINE BETWEEN SAID CENTER-SOUTH SIXTEENTH CORNER AND THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10 TO BEAR N00°27'20"E, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N82°20'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 233.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 34E AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25; THENCE ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES: 1. N00°13'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 3,414.52 FEET; 2. N18°08'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 463.76 FEET; 3. N82°50'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 534.40 FEET TO A CORNER OF THE RIVERWALK ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; 4. ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID RIVERWALK ANNEXATION, N00°55'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S89°04'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; 6. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N00°55'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 7. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N84°55'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 574.58 FEET; 8. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, 135.77 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,295.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°41'19", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N01°43'13"W A DISTANCE OF 135.77 FEET; 9. CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N02°02'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 2,400.28 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S89°20'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 258.11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25, SAID POINT BEING THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 3; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: 1. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, S01°46'51"E, A DISTANCE OF 2,052.09 FEET; 2. S19°54'15"E, A DISTANCE OF 537.16 FEET; 3. S83°16'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 415.26 FEET; 4. S00°55'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. S89°04'28"E, A DISTANCE OF 199.98 FEET; 6. S00°55'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 7. S86°29'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 777.90 FEET; Attachment 8 8. S00°00'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 438.57 FEET; 9. N89°54'34"W, A DISTANCE OF 1.27 FEET; 10. S00°08'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 2,112.45 FEET; 11. S00°13'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 666.58 FEET; 12. S00°14'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 660.65 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10; 13. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, N89°07'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 19.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 43.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\I-25 Annexation 2017\Legals\ Zoning-RUL.docx Attachment 8 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION LAND USE CODE REVISION STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT INFORMATION Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding revisions to the Land Use Code concerning Reasonable Accommodations. Applicant: City of Fort Collins STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND In recent years there have been changes to both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These changes require local jurisdictions to provide a process for qualified individuals to receive an exemption or modification to the zoning rules. These types of request come with different review criteria then those in the existing modification or variance requests already in the Land Use Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed Solution: Establish a Reasonable Accommodation review process in the Land Use Code. Revision Highlights: One Article of Land Use Code changes: • Article 2 - Add a new section outlining the review process o Qualifications of the applicant o Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director’s decision o Decision to be made within 45 days DISCUSSION DRAFT – SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION October 26, 2017 -1- ORDINANCE NO. XXX, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLES 2 OF THE LAND USE CODE TO ADD A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, because of changes to case law and interpretations regarding the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, staff has determined it necessary to add a reasonable accommodation process to exempt or modify the City’s zoning rules, policies and practices for qualified individuals when required by the FHA and ADA; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed and recommended _________; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments regarding a reasonable accommodation process are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section _________ of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to add a new first table entry to read as follows: (A) Intent. It is the policy of Fort Collins to provide reasonable accommodation for exemptions in the application of its zoning laws to rules, policies, and practices, and procedures forpractices for the siting, development, and use of housing, as well as other related residential services and facilities, to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for making a request for reasonable accommodation to individual persons with disabilities. (B) Application. Any person who requires reasonable accommodation, because of a disability, in the application of a zoning law which may be acting as a barrier to equal opportunity to housing opportunities, or any person or persons acting on DISCUSSION DRAFT – SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION October 26, 2017 -2- behalf of or for the benefit of such a person, may request such accommodation. For purposes of this section, “disabled,” “disability,” and other related terms shall be defined as in the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Fair Housing Act, or their successor legislation. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be made in the manner prescribed by Sec. ___ (C). (C) Required Information. (1) The applicant shall provide the following information: (a) Applicant’s name, address, and telephone number; (b) Address of the property for which the request is being made; (c) The current actual use of the property; (d) That the subject individual or individuals are disabled under the Acts. Any information related to the subject individual or individuals’ disability shall be kept confidential; (e) The zoning code provision, regulation, or policy from which accommodation is being requested; and (f) Why the reasonable accommodation is necessary for people with disabilities to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy the specific property accessible to people with disabilities. (2) Review With Other Land Use Applications. If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is being made also requires some other discretionary approvaldevelopment review (including but not limited to: site plan, development plan, transportation plan, etc.), then the applicant shall file the information required by Sec. ___ (C) together for concurrent review with the any other application for discretionary approvaldevelopment review. and any discretionary approval shall be contingent on the granting of the request for reasonable accommodation. The application for reasonable accommodation will be decided prior to any concurrent development review application that is affected by the request for reasonable accommodation. (D) Review Procedure. DISCUSSION DRAFT – SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION October 26, 2017 -3- (1) Director. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Director, or his/her designee. (2) Interactive Meeting. Upon either the request of the Director or the applicant, the applicant and Director or his or her designee shall hold an interactive meeting to discuss the reasonable accommodation request in order to obtain additional information or to discuss what may constitute a reasonable accommodation for a particular application. (3) Director Review. The Director, or his/her designee, shall make a written determination within forty-five (45) days of receiving an application, or having an interactive meeting, whichever date comes later, and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation in accordance with Sec. ___ (E). Information related to the subject individual or individuals’ disability shall be kept confidential and shall not be included in a public file. (E) Findings and Decision. (1) Findings. The written decision to grant, grant with conditions or deny a request for reasonable accommodation will be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following factors: (a) Whether the property, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual disabled under the Acts; (b) Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts; (c) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; (d) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city codeland use code provision, . including but not limited to land use and zoning; (3) (2) Conditions of Approval. In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the reviewing authority may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.45" DISCUSSION DRAFT – SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION October 26, 2017 -4- accommodation would comply with the findings required by Sec. ___ (E)(1). (4) Effect of Approval. An approval, with or without conditions, of an application for reasonable accommodation will be treated as compliance with the code section being accommodated but will not affect any concurrent review not related to the reasonable accommodation. (I) (F) Appeal of Determination. A determination by the reviewing authority to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation may be appealed to the City Manager in accordance with Article VI of this Code. No other review of a reasonable accommodation determination shall be allowed except what is expressly provided within this Section. (J) Fees. There shall be no fee for an application requesting reasonable accommodation. If the project for which the request is being made requires other planning permit(s) or approval(s), fees for applicable applications shall apply as otherwise established by the city. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___th day of ________, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the ___th day of _______, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Chief Deputy City Clerk Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.45", First line: 0" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.45" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1.45", No bullets or numbering DISCUSSION DRAFT – SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION October 26, 2017 -5- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of September, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Interim City Clerk Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME HANSEN FARM OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ODP170003 STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) for the vacant 69 acre parcel located on the west side of S. Timberline Road at the intersection of Zephyr Road. The property lies within multiple zone districts, including the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N), and Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) districts. The Neighborhood Commercial zone district will include primary and/or secondary uses. The Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods zone district will include primary or secondary uses including multi-family dwellings. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district will consist of residential uses, including single- family and multi-family dwellings. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent P.D.P. submittals. There is no established vested right with an O.D.P. APPLICANT: TB Group Kristin Turner 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: Lorson North Development Corp. c/o Jeff Mark 212 N. Wahsatch Ave, Ste. 301 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Hansen Farm Overall Development Plan. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has evaluated the proposed O.D.P. under the following applicable development standards found in the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) (1-7); the applicable Article Four L-M-N, M-M-N, and N-C zone district standards; and Article Three general development standards that can be applied at the level required for an overall development plan submittal. Staff finds that the O.D.P. complies with the applicable standards. It identifies the distribution of land uses permitted within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and the Neighborhood Commercial zone districts, and corresponding infrastructure in compliance with applicable standards for streets, utilities, and natural area buffers. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: L-M-N, R-L (Willow Springs Subdivision) S: L-M-N (Rennat Property) E: L-M-N (Bacon Elementary/Timbers Subdivision) W: R-L, P-O-L (Southridge Golf Course/Southridge Subdivision) The Hansen Farm property was included in the City’s Growth Management Area and was annexed on February 4, 2013 as part of the Hansen Farm Annexation. The proposed O.D.P. is generally consistent with the purpose and policy direction of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (FCP) and City Plan. The FCP and City Structure Plan include future land use designations for this property as Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhoods (LMN), Medium Density Mixed- use Neighborhoods (MMN), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC). These designations provided direction for and are consistent with existing zoning. 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies the criteria for reviewing O.D.P.’s. Section 2.3.2 (H) (1) - Permitted Uses and District Standards This criterion requires the O.D.P. to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an O.D.P. submittal. The O.D.P. includes three zone districts, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (L-M-N), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (M-M-N), and Neighborhood Commercial (N-C). Consideration for a future public neighborhood park may also be included if park land is acquired by the City, with future corresponding zoning of Public Open Lands (P-O-L). L-M-N Permitted Uses: The proposed L-M-N Tract A includes approximately 46.4 acres. The proposed primary land uses include single-family detached and attached dwellings, two-family and multi-family residential uses. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 M-M-N Permitted Uses: The proposed M-M-N Tract B includes approximately 16.7 acres. The proposed primary land use includes multi-family dwellings. The O.D.P. also indicates a potential public neighborhood park containing approximately three acres, within the M-M-N Tract B, which satisfies the standard that a public or private park is provided for development plans that exceed ten acres. Additional park land will be coordinated with the adjacent property as part of future development proposals. N-C Permitted Uses: The proposed N-C Tract C includes approximately 6.3 acres. The proposed primary and secondary uses, including potential gross leasable commercial space, are not provided in this O.D.P. The proposed O.D.P. currently indicates that all proposed uses comply with the permitted uses allowed per zone. B. Section 2.3.2 (H) (2) - Density This criterion requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the L-M-N or M-M-N zone district. The O.D.P., as proposed with Tract A and Tract B, includes the following range of residential units that meet density standards of the respective zone districts: • L-M-N: 46.4 acres (Tract A) - 157-417 dwelling units. • M-M-N: 16.7 acres (Tract B) - 170-255 multi-family dwelling units. In the L-M-N district, the required overall minimum average density is 4.00 dwelling units per net acre. The O.D.P includes a low range of 157 dwelling units consistent with 4 dwelling units per acre net. The maximum is 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. The proposed O.D.P. includes a potential for 417 dwelling units on the high range, resulting in 8.98 dwelling units per acre gross, less than the maximum of 9, thus complying with the standard. At the O.D.P. level, within the L-M-N zone, the range of lot sizes has not yet been determined. The O.D.P. includes notation to include a minimum number of 4 housing types consistent with this standard. In the proposed M-M-N district, the required overall minimum average density is 12.00 dwelling units per net acre of residential land. In Tract B of the O.D.P. comprising 16.7 acres, a range of 170 to 255 dwelling units is included. The O.D.P. includes a low range of 170 dwelling units, thus complying with the minimum density standard of 12. C. Section 2.3.2 (H) (3) - Master Street Plan This criterion requires the O.D.P. to conform to the Master Street Plan as required by Section 3.6.1 The following streets, and their classification, are included on the Master Street Plan: • S. Timberline Road - four lane arterial • Zephyr Road - two-lane collector Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 The O.D.P. indicates the widening of both of these roadways in compliance with the Master Street Plan. (The Master Street Plan does not address streets below the collector classification.) For informational purposes, the O.D.P. indicates the extension of Zephyr Road west of S. Timberline Road intersection, connecting to the adjacent property to the south. In general, the Hansen Farm O.D.P. demonstrates overall compliance with City Plan in that development is served by a network of public streets which provide safe and convenient internal and external connectivity. D. Section 2.3.2 (H) (3) - Street Pattern, Connectivity and Levels of Service This criterion requires the O.D.P. to conform to the street pattern and connectivity standards as required by 3.6.3 (A) through (F). In addition, the O.D.P. shall also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. Section 3.6.3 (B) is the general standard that requires the local street system to provide for safety, efficiency and convenience for all modes both within the neighborhood and to destinations outside the neighborhood. The proposed east-west collector, including proposed local street stub-outs, provide internal connections to future development south of the O.D.P. Pedestrian and bicycle trail connections are provided along the north perimeter of the O.D.P. to link to the future Power Trail to the west, and extending east across S. Timberline Road. Section 3.6.3. (C) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with a full-turning collector or local street at a maximum interval one-quarter mile, or 1,320 feet. The O.D.P. has approximately 1,300 linear feet of frontage along S. Timberline Road. A full-movement intersection is located at S. Timberline Road/Zephyr Road, with the type of access (full-movement or some left turns limited) to be determined by future, more detailed traffic studies. The proposed O.D.P. shows another access point approximately 700 feet north of Zephyr Road, with level of turning movement to be determined based on traffic study and further staff review. There is no segment of arterial roadway that exceeds 1,320 feet without a full-turning intersection. Section 3.6.3. (D) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with limited-turning collector or local street at a maximum interval of 660 feet. As noted above, a full-movement intersection is located at S. Timberline Road/Zephyr Road. The proposed O.D.P. shows another access point approximately 700 feet north of Zephyr Road, with the type of access (full-movement or some left turns limited) to be determined by future more detailed traffic studies during the P.D.P. process. Section 3.6.3.(E) requires that all development plans contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same square mile section from at least three arterial streets. It is notable that this particular square mile section in south east Fort Collins does not have access to three arterial streets. The existing rail corridor to the west combined with existing development limits connections to arterial streets in the area. South Timberline Road is a 4-lane arterial and Kechter Road is a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan near this O.D.P. Additional local-street connections to the Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 south are shown on the O.D.P. This standard acknowledges that such constraints may exist and allows for flexibility in that such street connections to three arterials would be rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. Therefore, the O.D.P. meets this standard to the extent reasonably feasible. Section 3.6.3.(F) requires that the O.D.P. incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary or provide for future public street connections along each boundary that abuts potentially developable land at maximum intervals of 660 feet. The proposed O.D.P provides local-street connections to the south and west, where future development can occur. As mentioned above, connections to existing streets to the west and north are precluded due to existing development pattern. Section 3.6.4 requires compliance with the adopted Level of Service Standards (LOS) in the City Land Use Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for impacted intersections. A Master Level Traffic Impact Study was submitted and was evaluated by staff as it relates to the O.D.P. It is a high-level overview and staff provides the following conclusions: • The traffic study identifies the overall geometric improvements needed for the transportation system in the area. Determining the phasing of the development project and associated timing of the transportation improvements will be completed with future P.D.P. submittals. • The widening of Timberline Road to 4 lanes from the point just south of Stetson Creek to Trilby is needed and funded. More detailed review and geometric needs of off-site intersections, including Timberline/Kechter and Timberline/Trilby will be coordinated between the development project and the upcoming capital improvement project. • If / when the project moves into the P.D.P phase, the study has identified the following as a starting point for additional improvements: - The completion of Timberline roadway frontage along the property including sidewalks and bike lanes. - The signalization of Timberline and Zephyr intersection. - The installation of auxiliary turn lanes at Zephyr and the northern site access location. F. Section 2.3.2 (H) (4) - Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties This criterion requires an O.D.P. to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the O.D.P. from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2 (C)(6). As noted, the proposed O.D.P provides local-street connections to the south and west, where future development can occur. As mentioned above, connections to existing streets to the west and north are precluded due to existing development pattern. The future development of the Power Regional Trail, however, represents an opportunity to make a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the northwest. This trail is a key component of the Parks and Trails Master Plan and is expected to serve most areas along the City’s south eastern edge between Fossil Creek Reservoir on the south and Poudre River on the north. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 6 G. 2.3.2 (H) (5) - Natural Features This criterion requires an O.D.P. to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone per Section 3.4.1.(E). This Overall Development Plan shows the general location and approximate size of all natural areas, habitats, and features within its boundaries and the proposed rough estimate of the natural area buffer zones as required by Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 (E). Detailed mapping of the site's natural areas, habitats, and features will be provided at the time of individual PDP submittals. General buffer zones shown on this O.D.P. may be reduced or enlarged by the decision maker during the Project Development Plan process (P.D.P.). The O.D.P. identifies 50 foot buffers along the Mail Creek Ditch and wetlands along the north boundary and along the Irrigation Ditch Lateral on the south boundary of the O.D.P. A small potential wetland is also located in Tract A. H. Section 2.3.2 (H) (6) - Drainage Basin Master Plan This criterion requires an O.D.P. to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The site is located within the Fossil Creek Master Drainage Basin. Development is anticipated to comply with the stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards of both this particular basin and city-wide best management practices. I. Section 2.3.2 (H) (7) - Housing Density and Mix of Uses This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire O.D.P. and not on each individual P.D.P. This standard allows the various parcels that are residential and zoned L-M-N and M-M-N to have a degree of flexibility in determining the distribution of density and housing mix but only on a per zone district. For example: • In the L-M-N, a single phase may develop up to 12 dwelling units (d.u.)/gross acre but only as long as the overall zone district does not exceed 9.00 d.u./gross acre. • Similarly in the L-M-N, a single phase may develop below 4.00 d.u./net acre but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 4.00 d.u./net acre. The O.D.P. includes a range of 157-417 dwelling units, within the minimum net density of 4 and maximum gross density of 9. • In the L-M-N, four housing types are required on an overall basis but not with each phase. • In the M-M-N, a single phase may develop below 12.00 d.u./net acre but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 12.00 d.u./net acre. The proposed O.D.P. shows a range of 170-255 dwelling units, meeting the minimum density of 12 per net acre. The benefit of a large-scale O.D.P. is that it provides a higher degree of flexibility and creativity than development on small parcels. The applicant is aware of these various development options. Staff will monitor compliance on an individual P.D.P. basis. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 7 3. Neighborhood Meeting: Staff conducted a neighborhood meeting and the summary is provided with this Staff Report. The meeting allowed surrounding residents to provide staff with their comments, concerns and to discuss issues related to land development on the 69-acre property. The wide range of topics included various aspects of developing the tracts as proposed as well as off-site issues as part of the O.D.P. process and future P.D.P. submittals. Two major themes were identified during the meeting and highlighted below. A. Transportation and Traffic Primary neighborhood comments included traffic concerns related to the lack of full arterial improvements along S. Timberline Road and additional improvements to Zephyr Road. The traffic study submitted with the O.D.P. identifies needed short-term and long-term geometric improvements for the transportation system. Challenges with limited access, turning movements, and congestion near existing development in the area were identified as key issues to be addressed with this project. There will be additional traffic studies needed to determine detailed improvements required for each future P.D.P. B. Housing Density and Compatibility with Existing Neighborhoods Residents identified concerns related to the proposed residential densities, lot sizes and housing types in relation to the existing Willow Springs neighborhood to the north and West Chase to the east. Compatibility concerns were also identified, with a preference for similar housing design in this proposed development and existing homes in the area. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Hansen Farm O.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The O.D.P. is generally consistent with the policy direction of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and City Plan. B. The O.D.P. continues to comply with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H). C. The O.D.P. continues to comply with applicable zoning standards in Article Four. D. The O.D.P. continues to comply with applicable General Development Standards in Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Hansen Farm Overall Development Plan, #ODP170003, based on the Findings of Fact in this staff report. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. ODP SHEETS (1-2) (PDF) 3. MDP and MUP (PDF) 4. Planning Objectives (PDF) 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 6. Traffic Report August 2017 (PDF) Bacon Elementary Goddard School Traut Core Knowledge Southridge Golf Course Southridge Golf Course Harmony Park Owens Ave W hit e W i l l o w D r Carmichael St R e d O a k Ct W e s t c h a s e R d P a r a g o n Pl S p r u c e C r e e k D r Rosen Dr A S. TIMBERLINE ROAD KECHTER ROAD S. LEMAY AVENUE ZEPHYR ROAD S. TIMBERLINE ROAD KECHTER ROAD S. LEMAY AVENUE ZEPHYR ROAD X X X X X LMN PRIMARY USES 139 TO 417 DU +/- 46.40 ACRES WILLOW SPRINGS SECOND FILING ZONED RL/LMN RENNAT PROPERTY ZONED LMN 50' DITCH BUFFER FROM TOP OF BANK A WILLOW SPRINGS SECOND FILING ZONED RL/LMN IRRIGATION DITCH LATERAL IRRIGATION DITCH LATERAL MAIL CREEK DITCH FUTURE CONNECTION TO POWER TRAIL BY OTHERS POTENTIAL WETLAND PROPERTY BOUNDARY ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY PEDESTRIAN/BIKE ROUTE ACCESS POINT DITCH BUFFER TOP OF BANK PEDESTRIAN/BIKE ROUTE - FORT COLLINS MASTER PLAN TRAILS RIGHT OF WAY DEVELOPMENT PARCEL BULBBLES (FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY) BIKE/PED ACCESS POINT 6029 S. Timberline Road Ft Collins, Colorado GROUP landscape architecture|planning|illustration 444 Mountain Ave. E E E V AULT F.O. T ELEC ELEC GAS VAULT F.O. VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC TRAFFIC VAULT C VAULT F.O. VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC ELEC ELEC T VAULT F.O. B M TELE X X X X X M F.O. MM GAS M F.O. MMN PRIMARY &/OR SECONDARY USES 150 - 255 DU +/- 16.69 ACRES LIEBEL PROPERTY ZONED MRD THE TIMBERS WESTCHASE ZONED PUD POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT X X 12" W 12" W X ST T GAS C T B M X X TELE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M F.O. MM G AS M F.O. 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 2 1 4 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST DETENTION POND 1 ±11.0 AC-FT ±1.7 CFS RELEASE DETENTION POND 3 ±0.8 AC-FT ±1.3 CFS RELEASE MMN PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY USES ±16.69 ACRES NC PRIMARY AND/OR X X 12" W 12" W X ST T GAS C T B M X X TELE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M F.O. MM G AS M F.O. 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W 16" W SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S Hansen ODP Planning Objectives July 21, 2017 This proposal is for an Overall Development Plan submittal for the Hansen property located west of S. Timberline Road at the intersection of Zephyr Road. The property is owned by Lorson North Development Corp. and contains approximately 69 acres. The property has multiple zone districts including Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), Neighborhood Commercial (NG) and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN). The property currently is undeveloped. The Neighborhood Commercial Zone District will include primary and/or secondary uses. The MMN Zone District will include primary or secondary uses including. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District will consist of residential, including single-family and multi-family housing. Uses surrounding the property consist of the following: South: Rennat Property West: Railroad, Southridge Subdivision North: Willow Springs Subdivision East: Poudre School District, Westchase Subdivision (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: Hansen meets the following applicable City Plan Principles and Policies: 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 Required setbacks from the Mail Creek Ditch will be used to help ensure the protection of these waterways. 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. Attachment 4 Hansen Planning Objectives 7.21.17 Page 2 Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Low Impact Development (LID) encompasses many aspects of the proposed design. Permeable pavers will be utilized within private drives and/or parking lots as required. The site will be planned with the intent to provide green space buffers and swales to minimize directly connected impervious areas and promote infiltration. Rain Gardens and/or drywells will be utilized where applicable to treat stormwater prior to entering detention areas. Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements. Policy LIV 1.1 – Utilize a Growth Management Area This development is located within the existing GMA and adjacent other existing residential and employment development. Principle LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. Policy LIV 4.1 – Ensure Adequate Public Facilities Development is planned in an area which can be adequately served by critical public facilities and services. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. This development will provide a variety of housing types in a location. In addition, several distinct housing types will be used which will expand the options for residents in an area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations A variety of housing types and densities shall be provided within the development. This could include single-family housing, attached single-family housing and multi- family. 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 Attachment 4 Hansen Planning Objectives 7.21.17 Page 3 All new streets will be designed to meet City street standards. The intention is to provide a safe, functional and visually appealing street network. Shade trees and landscaping will be included throughout the developments street network. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Street trees will be incorporated into the streetscape for all public streets in addition to open spaces and parks. Tree species and quantities will meet the requirements of the Land Use Code 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 This development will utilize quality landscape materials throughout the site, including enhanced entryway and screening in any appropriate areas. 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 The street system will provide an interconnected network with transportation options to cars, bicycles and pedestrians while providing direct access to community amenities, employment areas and commercial development. Principle LIV 23: Neighborhoods will feature a wide range of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens, play fields, natural areas, orchards and community gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces to provide linkages and recreational opportunities both for neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Policy LIV 23.1 – Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces A variety of open spaces and parks are envisioned for this development. These could include pocket parks, open spaces areas and trails. 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 Policy T 3.2 – Bicycle Facilities Policy T 4.4 – Attractive and Safe Neighborhood Streets A mix of land uses and programming will provide multiple efficient options for movement throughout this development. Bike trails and bike lanes will be used Attachment 4 Hansen Planning Objectives 7.21.17 Page 4 where appropriate to provide alternative methods of travel throughout the development. Development streets will be safe for cars, pedestrian and bicycles as well as attractive. The use of street trees and street lighting will contribute to the safety and aesthetics. (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. There are two ditches within the property boundary near the northern end of the site (Mail Creek Ditch) and running down the west/southern side of the site (irrigation ditch lateral). A minimum of 50’ buffers will be maintained along ditches. Pedestrian and bicycle trails are envisioned along these waterways as well. In addition to natural areas, parks and/or pocket parks will be integrated into the development. Various modes of circulation will be provided between specified uses, parks and natural areas will be provided. (iii) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. The type and quantity of commercial has not yet been determined therefore an estimated number of employees cannot be determined. This information will be provided at PDP. 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. All open space will be maintained by an HOA. If the Parks Department determines that a portion of the neighborhood park will be located on the Hansen property, it will be constructed and maintained by the City of Fort Collins Parks Department. (iv) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The purpose of the ODP is to achieve the following: 1. Define the anticipated phasing. 2. Define the anticipated density. 3. Locate a potential City Neighborhood Park site. (v) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 21, 2016. The following points were made: 1. Residents of the Willow Springs neighborhood located to the north of the property requested confirmation that neighborhood streets would not be extended to the Hansen property. a. Response: Access per the proposed ODP is from S. Timberline Road aligned with Zephyr Road (full movement). In addition, a second access is proposed north of Zephyr Road along S. Timberline Road. Additional access points will be located along the southern property boundary at the time the property to the south develops. Attachment 4 Hansen Planning Objectives 7.21.17 Page 5 2. Neighbors had concerns about general traffic along S. Timberline Road (existing traffic, and anticipated increase due to the proposed development in the area) a. Response: City Staff addressed what could and could not be required of the applicant as well as how these other development projects would have to contribute to the mitigation of their respective impacts along Prospect Road. They also announced that S. Timberline Road has received funding to be built to the ultimate street section. 3. Neighbors had concerns about traffic that would be generated by Hansen. a. Response: The applicant would be required to provide improvements in specified locations, as defined by the Traffic Impact Study. 4. Neighbors had concerns about the lack of a conceptual plan for the MMN and NC zone districts. a. Response: The MMN and NC zone districts will go through the entitlement process once those phases are ready to move forward. Neighbors will have another opportunity to review plans and comment at that time. The purpose of this neighborhood meeting was to focus on the LMN parcel. 5. Neighbors had concerns about the size of the lots adjacent to their property. a. Response: The concept plan was revised multiple times to remove the smallest lots along the northern boundary. Ultimately the largest lots within this development are now proposed along the northern boundary. The lot sizes ‘feather’ down moving towards the south. 6. Neighbors had concerns about the overall density of the development and believe it should be less dense. a. Response: The proposed plan for Hansen meets the zoning designations set by the City. There are minimum density requirements that must be achieved which is different than the Willow Springs neighborhood. (vi) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project is called Hansen. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. There is one ditch within the property boundary near the northern end of the site (Mail Creek Ditch) and a second that runs along the west and southern property boundary (irrigation ditch lateral). A minimum of 50’ buffers will be maintained along ditches. Proposed Development Phasing It is anticipated that the residential development in the LMN zone district will be the first phase to move forward. The full build-out of the residential zone district is expected to include multiple phases. Both multi-family and single-family are included in the development but the type of residential product that moves forward first will be based on market interest. Attachment 4 Hansen Planning Objectives 7.21.17 Page 6 Both the multi-family within the MMN zone district and the commercial development are anticipated to be future phases of development. It is feasible that these zone districts could move forward at any time depending on interest by commercial users. Attachment 4 Hansen Farm – Mixed-Use Project Neighborhood Meeting Notes (6/20/2017) Overview City Staff: Project Planner: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, AICP Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Marc Virata, Civil Engineer III Nicole Hahn, Civil Engineer II Suzanne Bassinger, Parks Anna Simpkins, Planning Technician Jeff Mark, Applicant – The Landhuis Company Kristen Turner, Applicant – TB Group Neighborhood Meeting Date: June 20, 2017 Proposed Project  Purpose of meeting is to share conceptual plans at an early stage in process and gather feedback from neighbors for inclusion in record.  Hansen Farm – 6029 S Timberline Rd.  This is a conceptual review project and an application has not been submitted to the City  Majority of the site is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) District, and the eastern section falls in to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) District and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone Districts.  Maximum allowable building height in LMN is 2 and one half stories.  Proposed initial phase of development includes 126 Single-Family detached Residential lots, and 60 single-family attached (townhome) residential Units. The remaining zoning identified for future phases includes a neighborhood commercial center, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (multi-family) residential, and small neighborhood park, located at the southeastern corner of the parcel.  Type 2 review and hearing, with the Planning and Zoning Board as acting decision maker. Applicant Presentation  The applicant is in the conceptual review stage. A formal development proposal has not yet been submitted to the City for review.  Applicant proposed a mixed-use development with single family lots, townhomes, multi-family structures and open park space that will be dedicated to the City.  Primary access off Timberline Drive. Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview Attachment 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 6029 S Timberline Rd | Hansen Farm Page 2 Questions/Comments and Answers General Topics:  What is the HOA plan for this development? Applicant explains that the development will have an HOA; likely multiple HOAs for the different uses. HOAs would comply with Colorado standards.  Questions regarding the quality and aesthetic of the development; approximate value, square footage, price range, height? Developer ventured that the price would be based off of the lot price, with properties selling in the ballpark of $500,000. Houses would range from 2,000-3,000 square feet but could be larger. Developer did not comment on the aesthetic/layout of the houses until they have a builder. Developer states that these will be one and two story homes. Pete Wray explained that when the developer submits a formal proposal to the city, the proposal includes detailed site plans and elevations, all of which are available for public view online. [Development Review website: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/]  Can you make lot sizes more in balance with the Willow Springs lots to the north? Developer explained that there is a sizable landscape buffer off of the Mail Creek Ditch along the north property boundary, and as a result, this is the plan they are putting forth consistent with existing zoning, and they do not intend to change lot sizes.  Do petitions have any sway with the city? Pete Wray explained that this proposal would be subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval, and that the Planning and Zoning board wants to see all comments made throughout the review process. Citizens are also able to comment at Planning and Zoning Board hearings. Sylvia Tatman-Burress encouraged attendees to refer to existing plans that have already been adopted by City Council and reference where they believe the proposed development fits or does not fit with existing zoning or land use. She also mentioned that the Planning and Zoning board functions with legal parameters and they like to hear from neighbors.  Why would you put commercial on Timberline? Pete Wray answered that this Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone designation was added to the Fossil Creek Plan in the late 1990s and City Structure Plan maps, with the intent that the center would be smaller than a typical shopping center with grocery store. These policy plans established future land use and zoning both approved by City Council. The intent of the zoning would be for a neighborhood supported uses such as a coffee shop, offices, convenience stores, or laundromat. The Applicant explained that any future commercial development would have to go through normal steps with the City; the developer was just putting that designation on their plan. The Attachment 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 6029 S Timberline Rd | Hansen Farm Page 3 Applicant also mentioned that the city only allows certain uses for the site specific to the existing assigned zoning, and any new application would go through the development review process (at a later time) and any potential use would have to meet the land use code.  Question regarding the lot sizes proposed. Residents were told when they purchased Willow Springs lots that any future development to the south would mirror their lot size. What changed? Pete Wray explained that the original 1998 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan determined future land uses and densities. The area south of Willow Springs was amended about 6 years after the original plan to include a neighborhood commercial center and medium density mixed-use neighborhood land use designations. Previous public discussions at that time included recognizing similar single-family development abutting Willow Springs with future development as being more compatible, while locating the multi-family and commercial further to the south. The current LMN zoning is different than the zoning and development in Willow Springs. The density range is between 4-9 dwellings units per acre. The potential for a transition of residential densities and lot sizes is reflective in the Plan and zoning. The Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods zoning adjacent to Willow Springs allows for flexibility with future development for providing a range of lot sizes and feathering of density in the area. The proposed design shows single family detached dwellings on the north edge and next to Willow Springs with slightly smaller lots sizes than the existing neighborhood, but consistent with current zoning.  Question regarding the proposed spacing between the new residential buildings on these smaller lots? Applicant indicated that their building plans would meet all city requirements for setbacks and spacing appropriate to the various zone districts present. The minimum side yard setback is 5’ from the property line to the building. Pete Wray and Suzanne Bassinger explained that the Mill Creek Ditch runs along the south side of Willow Springs. The ditch has a 30 foot easement that would create open space between the existing lots and proposed lots. The City is proposing a regional trail connection along the ditch.  Why don’t you know specifics about what is going in development and when will you know? The applicant explained that the Overall Development Plan (ODP) is the next phase after this conceptual review. The ODP includes defining density, access, trails, etc. This is a phased project with the LMN zone district going in first, with the multi-family residential and commercial to be developed later as part of separate development applications. The density is defined by the existing zoning, and the layout will again be available for public comment. All proposals will meet the land use code. Applicant explained that with development today, single-family residential lots are planned out first. Townhomes, apartments, and commercial development are more complicated and typically occur as future phases, until a user is present to determine layout and amenities. Based on the market, the developer is certain the need is there. Anyone buying a home in the proposed development knows the adjacent areas are zoned as they are and should anticipate the multi- family units and commercial developing in the future. Attachment 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 6029 S Timberline Rd | Hansen Farm Page 4  Comment stating the proposed multi-family units are not needed since there are 300 apartments up the road that are very expensive.  Resident who previously assisted in drafting the Fossil Creek plan brought up density in the area, indicating Willow Springs density is just over 3 dwelling units/acre. The density is going up almost double for proposed development. Does not match with Fossil Creek Plan (Pg 16 Ch 2) regarding transitions at neighborhoods. Applicant responded that the higher density multi-family units are not adjacent to the 3 dwelling units/acre found, and the zoning for the MMN requires a minimum of 12 dwelling units/acre. The largest lots are along the ditch backing up to Willow Springs and density is feathered in the middle. Schools:  What are the impacts on education? Where will these kids go to school? Existing schools do not have capacity; Poudre School District needs to be aware. Also a safety risk having additional traffic around Bacon Elementary. Pete Wray explained how all of the existing schools in southeast Fort Collins were coordinated with PSD in the late 1990s while drafting the Fossil Creek plan. PSD is aware of future development opportunities. Planner did not want to speak on behalf of PSD regarding enrollment capacity. Planner offered to check with school district if those interested desire further information and can call or email him. Nicole Hahn indicated that improvements for Timberline would have a separate public meeting. The purpose of the traffic study required from the developer is a way to determine possible future impacts that may indicate when larger infrastructure projects occur and ensuring safety near the school is a high priority. Parks:  Would the proposed regional trail provide a railroad crossing? Neighborhoods are cut off from major trail networks. What is the timeline for a crossing? Suzanne Bassinger explained that a study of trail connections was completed a couple of years ago. One option would be an above grade connection at Keenland, but an underpass was no longer feasible. Some neighbors concerned about an above grade crossing near existing neighborhood. Any proposal for an above grade railroad crossing visible from neighborhoods would require a neighborhood meeting to discuss conceptual designs. It is possible that this could be accomplished in 5-6 years.  Comment stating the proposed multi-family units are not needed since there are 300 apartments up the road that are very expensive. Attachment 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 6029 S Timberline Rd | Hansen Farm Page 5 Zoning:  Can you change the zoning plan as times change? Pete Wray explained that the developer is entitled to the current zoning. The City has a process for proposed changes to zoning, with a decision by City Council. Traffic:  Multiple attendees expressed that they do not want this development to have a vehicular connection through to the Willow Springs neighborhood. One Willow Springs resident asked developer for a commitment that they would not change the street pattern shown in the rendering provided at the meeting. Applicant responded that it was not their intent to provide any access directly into Willow Springs or make any alterations from what was shown, and that fire requirements are what determine access.  What is the plan for Timberline? Where does widening occur? What is the Timeline? Nicole Hahn explained that planning and design to widen Timberline to its 4-lane capacity is underway and is funded. A detailed timeline would be considered once preliminary designs are complete. Nicole Hahn and Mark Virata explained that widening Timberline between Stetson Creek and Trilby will likely occur on both sides of the existing roadway depending on the frontage available. Potential environmental impacts resulting from the widening would be considered in planning.  Does the City plan to widen Trilby, too? Mark Virata responded that there are no current plans to widen Trilby since heavy development along the corridor has not yet occurred. Nicole Hahn explained that Trilby is, however, a future consideration and the City is anticipating how the corridor may grow.  How do you assume density without more specific plans to determine traffic needs? Nicole Hahn explained that with a development proposal of this size, the developer is required to submit a traffic study with density and other parameters set. If parameters change, then a new traffic study is required. Multi-family residential is included in density.  What is happening with Zephyr? Is it being extended to the west, south of the proposed development like the rendering shows? Pete Wray explained that the City wants that connection, but currently have no control over the property south of where the development is proposed. The developer does not own the property to the south.  Attendee asked what measures the City was taking to improve traffic monitoring. Noted there are already too many crashes on Timberline and people speed through yellow lights because they know how short the cycle is. Attachment 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 6029 S Timberline Rd | Hansen Farm Page 6 Nicole Hahn explained that the traffic study that is required with plan submittal would help the city determine which intersections may become signaled, and that Zephyr is an important connection in the area. She explained that crash data from the area indicates the majority of collisions are rear ends and that the short lights on side streets keeps traffic moving. It can also be a neighborhood effort to look at other monitoring options, including additional flashing signaling near schools.  Please consider all grandfather clauses before moving forward with development. Is the developer responsible for improvements to Timberline? Nicole Hahn answered that the developer would be responsible for frontage on Timberline Rd and would pay into a fund that helps pay for overall street and traffic improvements. The City is looking at phasing for various connectors in the south end of town.  Resident who previously assisted in drafting the Fossil Creek plan in the late 1990s questioned timetable and status of transportation improvements. Pete Wray explained that this area includes additional street connections and improvements based on the Master Street Plan. Trilby is also in need of improvements. Nicole Hahn explained that an east west connection over the railroad between Harmony and Trilby is still an intention; however, such a connection is not funded at this time. Marc Virata confirmed Keenland is still identified as a crossing on the master street plan, but coordinating with railroad and determining funding is a lengthy process.  Does the City require the developer to provide access to Willow Springs? Will the streets be as narrow as Willow Springs and West Chase? Mark Virata explained that in the single-family area, the public streets are designed to local residential standards, and private drive has a narrower width for rear-loaded units. Regarding the multi-family residential units, the City now requires a 36’ flowline to improve navigation adjacent to parked cars. Street access from this project to Willow Springs is not required since an existing street stub-out is not provided from the north. Public Involvement:  Is there anything neighbors can do to stop the project? Sylvia Tatman-Burress explained that this proposal is only in the conceptual review stage and the meeting is happening so that neighbors can have their concerns heard. Concerns are listed in the meeting notes and are considered by planning staff who make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board. Comments can continue to be submitted to Sylvia Tatman-Burress or Pete Wray. All comments are considered throughout the process and citizens have the opportunity to voice concerns at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Public comments will not necessarily stop a project, but other things could come up throughout the Development Review process. Pete Wray explained that all present attendees would receive a copy of the notes taken at the meeting and they would also be sent to the Planning and Zoning Board. Emailed comments are also included in the Planning and Zoning Board record. Pete Wray encouraged citizens to attend the Planning and Zoning Board hearing since they are the decision-maker. Planner Attachment 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 6029 S Timberline Rd | Hansen Farm Page 7 explained that based on the current zoning of the parcel, the developer has the right to develop the property within those zoning parameters, requiring they meet the land use code. If the project is not in compliance with Land Use Code requirements, planning staff will not recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Board. All appeals to Planning and Zoning Board decisions are heard by City Council.  To whom do we direct questions that are not addressed now? Pete Wray encourages attendees to call, email, or come in and meet with him for further project clarification. Sylvia Tatman-Buress also encouraged attendees to sign up for weekly Development Review emails through Development Review website where she explains where plans are in the overall process. She encouraged attendees to reach out to her if they have trouble finding any information on the Development Review website. Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 HANSEN | FORT COLLINS 45’ X 85’ LOTS - 47 UNITS 50’ X 110’ LOTS - 45 LOTS 60’ X 110’ LOTS - 34 UNITS TOWNHOMES - 60 UNITS (4) 7-UNIT (4) 5-UNIT (3) 4-UNIT 186 TOTAL UNITS (4 DU/ACRE) LOT ANALYSIS TIMBERLINE ROAD ZEPHYR ROAD DETENTION MULTI FAMILY MULTI FAMILY COMMERCIAL DITCH BUFFER DITCH BUFFER DITCH BUFFER 8 Figure 4 CONCEPT PLAN Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 From: Thomas Barlow [mailto:barlowtk@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:43 PM To: Pete Wray Subject: Hansen Farm Hearing Pete, I am planning to speak at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing for the Hansen Farm ODP next Thursday, October 19, 2017. A copy of my handouts is attached for distribution to the Board and inclusion in the record for the hearing. Please acknowledge receipt of the attachment. Please call or email if you have any questions. Thank you, Tom Barlow (970) 204-0508 From: Bobowski.col To: Pete Wray Subject: Hansen (Farm) Proposed ODP170003 (and associated Hansen Farm - Mixed Use CDR17002) Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:26:17 PM Attachments: 2017 Short Bobowski Resume Personal and Professional.doc Dear Mr. Ray: I reside at 2001 Rosen Drive, Apt 3-212 (Crowne at Timberline Apartments). My second- floor unit is immediately adjacent to Rosen Drive, with windows/balcony facing both Timberline and Rosen Drive, looking north and across the proposed area of the Hansen Farms proposed mixed use. As an resident at the adjacent multi-family development and as a retired real estate market analyst (over 30 years before retiring in 2007), I have some concerns with portions of the proposed concept plan. These concerns are primarily associated with the proposed commercial development portion of the site, a piece of roughly 6.3 acres, at the site’s SE corner, edging both Rosen Drive and Timberline. Natural Animal Habitat/Mature Tree Concentration: My husband and I enjoy our views of the mountains and the adjacent Hansen Farms land area's open fields immensely. A major part of our enjoyment of the adjacent property's current state is the concentrated grove of mature deciduous and pine trees at the corner of Rosen and Timberline. This grove of mature trees occupies a large portion, primarily the southeasternmost portion of the 6.3+/- acres proposed for commercial use. In that grove of trees, we have, along with several of our neighbors, observed several owls – roosting, nesting and hunting. While my husband and I didn't move into our unit until March 2017 our downstairs neighbors (the development's Maintenance Supervisor and his family) became aware of the owls' presence and activities on the site since early 2016. I’m not sure of what the city’s animal habitat protection policies are, but if there are any in place that might apply, I hope that this issue of protecting an owl habitat area is investigated as part of the property review/approval process. While specific site plans for the commercial portion of the site are at this point, not developed, I conjecture that to develop that area, not only would the mature trees and owl habitat have to be demolished, but it is likely that garbage truck access/garbage stations/tall lighting would need to be placed on the site - most probably edging the Rosen Drive portion. This would have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of residents of the first two buildings at the Crowne Apartments that edge Rosen east of Timberline (including my own building 3). Questionable Market Viability and Cost-Effective Development: I question the viability of the commercial portion of the site for development for several reasons as noted below. My background as a basis for my comments. As you will see from the attached resume, I have an extensive background in real estate market analysis and a lesser background in community planning/demographic and market evaluation of community facility and service needs. For many years I worked as a real estate market analyst, partnering with civil engineers and landscape architects as well as certified experienced urban planners. There I determined the nature and extent of demand for various types of these developments for our private for-profit or non-profit clients to aid their development planning and/or entitlement processes. As part of that process, I often worked, in iterative fashion, with those involved with the physical planning and civil engineering for our clients’ sites to determine the most physically site- appropriate, engineering-appropriate and market-appropriate location for the various proposed uses - and their timing. Given my background, I have a professional experience-based concern with the placement as well as the potential extent of the proposed commercial on this site. Historic home. First, I note that there is an historic home near the Timberline frontage of the commercial-designated portion of the site. That home's use for residential would be adversely impacted by as well as adversely limit the extent and configuration of market-viable commercial on the proposed commercial portion of the overall site. Site configuration. Second, even were the historic home to be removed or used for commercial purpose, the scale of the site along with its configuration and with my (and maybe the city's?) desire to retain as much in the way of mature tree cover and animal habitat, I think it unlikely that much in the way of viable retail space could be accommodated on this portion of the overall site. Small scale commercial use, especially in locations lacking access to both full east-west and north-south traffic volumes of note, tend not to fare well - unless destination style commercial (i.e., medical and professional office use). Zephr, even if extended west into the subject property, is not proposed to cross the rail lines to the west. Small scale retail tends to get quickly passed by when traffic is fast and not four-way. While I'm not a site planner, I wonder if the 6.3+/- acres could yield much more retail space than 80,000 to 100,000 square feet of single-story structures. And neither the location or the amount of land proposed for commecial development is appropriate for more intense retail/office use Recommendation for changing the location of the commercial use as proposed. In lieu of small-scale retail commercial or office use at the SE edge this site, I propose it be placed in another more viable/visible/readily accessible location. This would be along the portion of the site north of the propsed Zephr extension, fronting Timberline. While relocation of the commercial area to this portion of the wite would reduce the area proposed for multi-family, mixed use multi-family could take place near the Timberline frontage (2nd and 3rd floor st apartments, 1 floor office/retail) and make up some of the difference. Or else the multi- family portion could be extended west into the lower density portion of the site. Enhancement of commercial use visibility and accessibility with relocation of the commercial piece: Were the commercial portion of the overall Hansen (Farm) ODP to be relocated northward as described above, southbound Timberline traffic could both readily see AND more readily access the commercial piece before continuing south through the Zephr/Timberline intersection (planned, I believe, for signalization). Enhanced visibility would occur since those stopping at the light as they head south on Timberline could gain awareness of the adjacent commercial uses to their right. Given the increasing traffic load on Timberline, this visibility enhancement would not occur as drivers accelerate through the intersection after stopping at the light, were the commercial to remain as the developer proposes. Access AND visibility are keys to retail tenant recruitment and tenant retention, especially for small-scale non-destination use. With a relocated commercial portion of the site, southbound Timberline traffic could easily turn right into the site and then right into the relocated commercial portion as opposed to right into the site and then almost immediately left into the commercial as might occur under current plans. As it stands, with commercial south of Zephr edging Timberline vs. north of Zephr edging Timberline, traffic traveling west into the site to shop/visit offices etc., would have to turn across the eastbound lane to access the commercial portion. This could be awkward and as well as potentially increase congestion near the site’s entry. In a similar fashion, with the commercial component relocated as I recommend, northbound traffic on Timberline would turn left/west into the site and then right into the relocated commercial portion, involving no crossing of lanes and thus minimizing potential congestion on-site or backed into Timberline. This same situation would take place for traffic entering the site from westbound Zephr – no internal roadways would need to be crossed to access the relocated commercial piece. Open space/park usage: With the relocation of the commercial uses northward onsite, the opportunity to enhance the site’s open space area/neighborhood park becomes evident. This could occur by relocating all or a portion of the neighborhood park from its current proposed location well west of Timberline and well north of Rosen Drive to all or portion of the area now proposed as commercial use. This would have the result of preserving the mature trees and owl habitat, facilitate residential retention or low-impact reuse of the historic home, as well as buffer the adjacent new residential west of this area of the site from the noise and congestion of Timberline. Thank you for consideration of my comments. I am unable to attend the public meeting on this development scheduled for later in October and thus offer this detailed set of comments. I sincerely hope that my comments and concerns as an adjacent resident and as a former real estate market analyst will be considered as the city moves forward with the development review and approvals for this property. Sincerely, Deborah M Bobowski 248.508.8184 From: Bobowski.col To: Pete Wray Subject: Hansen (Farm) Proposed ODP170003 (and associated Hansen Farm - Mixed Use CDR17002) Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:26:17 PM Attachments: 2017 Short Bobowski Resume Personal and Professional.doc Dear Mr. Ray: I reside at 2001 Rosen Drive, Apt 3-212 (Crowne at Timberline Apartments). My second- floor unit is immediately adjacent to Rosen Drive, with windows/balcony facing both Timberline and Rosen Drive, looking north and across the proposed area of the Hansen Farms proposed mixed use. As an resident at the adjacent multi-family development and as a retired real estate market analyst (over 30 years before retiring in 2007), I have some concerns with portions of the proposed concept plan. These concerns are primarily associated with the proposed commercial development portion of the site, a piece of roughly 6.3 acres, at the site’s SE corner, edging both Rosen Drive and Timberline. Natural Animal Habitat/Mature Tree Concentration: My husband and I enjoy our views of the mountains and the adjacent Hansen Farms land area's open fields immensely. A major part of our enjoyment of the adjacent property's current state is the concentrated grove of mature deciduous and pine trees at the corner of Rosen and Timberline. This grove of mature trees occupies a large portion, primarily the southeasternmost portion of the 6.3+/- acres proposed for commercial use. In that grove of trees, we have, along with several of our neighbors, observed several owls – roosting, nesting and hunting. While my husband and I didn't move into our unit until March 2017 our downstairs neighbors (the development's Maintenance Supervisor and his family) became aware of the owls' presence and activities on the site since early 2016. I’m not sure of what the city’s animal habitat protection policies are, but if there are any in place that might apply, I hope that this issue of protecting an owl habitat area is investigated as part of the property review/approval process. While specific site plans for the commercial portion of the site are at this point, not developed, I conjecture that to develop that area, not only would the mature trees and owl habitat have to be demolished, but it is likely that garbage truck access/garbage stations/tall lighting would need to be placed on the site - most probably edging the Rosen Drive portion. This would have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of residents of the first two buildings at the Crowne Apartments that edge Rosen east of Timberline (including my own building 3). Questionable Market Viability and Cost-Effective Development: I question the viability of the commercial portion of the site for development for several reasons as noted below. Attachment 8 My background as a basis for my comments. As you will see from the attached resume, I have an extensive background in real estate market analysis and a lesser background in community planning/demographic and market evaluation of community facility and service needs. For many years I worked as a real estate market analyst, partnering with civil engineers and landscape architects as well as certified experienced urban planners. There I determined the nature and extent of demand for various types of these developments for our private for-profit or non-profit clients to aid their development planning and/or entitlement processes. As part of that process, I often worked, in iterative fashion, with those involved with the physical planning and civil engineering for our clients’ sites to determine the most physically site- appropriate, engineering-appropriate and market-appropriate location for the various proposed uses - and their timing. Given my background, I have a professional experience-based concern with the placement as well as the potential extent of the proposed commercial on this site. Historic home. First, I note that there is an historic home near the Timberline frontage of the commercial-designated portion of the site. That home's use for residential would be adversely impacted by as well as adversely limit the extent and configuration of market-viable commercial on the proposed commercial portion of the overall site. Site configuration. Second, even were the historic home to be removed or used for commercial purpose, the scale of the site along with its configuration and with my (and maybe the city's?) desire to retain as much in the way of mature tree cover and animal habitat, I think it unlikely that much in the way of viable retail space could be accommodated on this portion of the overall site. Small scale commercial use, especially in locations lacking access to both full east-west and north-south traffic volumes of note, tend not to fare well - unless destination style commercial (i.e., medical and professional office use). Zephr, even if extended west into the subject property, is not proposed to cross the rail lines to the west. Small scale retail tends to get quickly passed by when traffic is fast and not four-way. While I'm not a site planner, I wonder if the 6.3+/- acres could yield much more retail space than 80,000 to 100,000 square feet of single-story structures. And neither the location or the amount of land proposed for commecial development is appropriate for more intense retail/office use Recommendation for changing the location of the commercial use as proposed. In lieu of small-scale retail commercial or office use at the SE edge this site, I propose it be placed in another more viable/visible/readily accessible location. This would be along the portion of the site north of the propsed Zephr extension, fronting Timberline. While relocation of the commercial area to this portion of the wite would reduce the area proposed for multi-family, mixed use multi-family could take place near the Timberline frontage (2nd and 3rd floor st Attachment 8 apartments, 1 floor office/retail) and make up some of the difference. Or else the multi- family portion could be extended west into the lower density portion of the site. Enhancement of commercial use visibility and accessibility with relocation of the commercial piece: Were the commercial portion of the overall Hansen (Farm) ODP to be relocated northward as described above, southbound Timberline traffic could both readily see AND more readily access the commercial piece before continuing south through the Zephr/Timberline intersection (planned, I believe, for signalization). Enhanced visibility would occur since those stopping at the light as they head south on Timberline could gain awareness of the adjacent commercial uses to their right. Given the increasing traffic load on Timberline, this visibility enhancement would not occur as drivers accelerate through the intersection after stopping at the light, were the commercial to remain as the developer proposes. Access AND visibility are keys to retail tenant recruitment and tenant retention, especially for small-scale non-destination use. With a relocated commercial portion of the site, southbound Timberline traffic could easily turn right into the site and then right into the relocated commercial portion as opposed to right into the site and then almost immediately left into the commercial as might occur under current plans. As it stands, with commercial south of Zephr edging Timberline vs. north of Zephr edging Timberline, traffic traveling west into the site to shop/visit offices etc., would have to turn across the eastbound lane to access the commercial portion. This could be awkward and as well as potentially increase congestion near the site’s entry. In a similar fashion, with the commercial component relocated as I recommend, northbound traffic on Timberline would turn left/west into the site and then right into the relocated commercial portion, involving no crossing of lanes and thus minimizing potential congestion on-site or backed into Timberline. This same situation would take place for traffic entering the site from westbound Zephr – no internal roadways would need to be crossed to access the relocated commercial piece. Open space/park usage: With the relocation of the commercial uses northward onsite, the opportunity to enhance the site’s open space area/neighborhood park becomes evident. This could occur by relocating all or a portion of the neighborhood park from its current proposed location well west of Timberline and well north of Rosen Drive to all or portion of the area now proposed as commercial use. This would have the result of preserving the mature trees and owl habitat, facilitate residential retention or low-impact reuse of the historic home, as well as buffer the adjacent new residential west of this area of the site from the noise and congestion of Timberline. Attachment 8 Thank you for consideration of my comments. I am unable to attend the public meeting on this development scheduled for later in October and thus offer this detailed set of comments. I sincerely hope that my comments and concerns as an adjacent resident and as a former real estate market analyst will be considered as the city moves forward with the development review and approvals for this property. Sincerely, Deborah M Bobowski 248.508.8184 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 September 7, 2017 Willow Springs Neighbor Pete Wray – City of Fort Collins Re: Hansen Farm O.D.P. Thank you for taking your time to read this and digest what is here. The whole Hansen Farm Overall Development Plan, ODP170003, is 244 pages. I have to admit confusion and frustration with this process with the reasons as follow. I hope you are able to attend this meeting and express your concerns as well. Below, I have summarized the 244 page summary. Chris McElroy, 21-year resident of Willow Springs. 1. What is the final number of housing types and range of lot sizes and can this change? The O.D.P., as proposed with Tract A and Tract B, includes the following range of residential units that meet density standards of the respective zone districts: • L-M-N: 46.4 acres (Tract A) - 185-417 dwelling units. • M-M-N: 16.7 acres (Tract B) - 200-255 multi-family dwelling units. In the L-M-N district, the required overall minimum average density is 4.00 dwelling units per net acre. The maximum is 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. The proposed O.D.P. includes a potential for 185 to 417 dwelling units, within the required density range, thus complying with the standard. At the O.D.P. level, within the L-M-N zone, the range of lot sizes and the final number of housing types has not yet been determined. 2. Are the buffer zones 50’ or 30’? The O.D.P. identifies 50 foot buffers along the Mail Creek Ditch and wetlands along the north boundary and along the Irrigation Ditch Lateral on the south boundary of the O.D.P. A small potential wetland is also located in Tract A. A minimum of 50’ buffers will be maintained along ditches. Pete Wray and Suzanne Bassinger explained that the Mill Creek Ditch runs along the south side of Willow Springs. The ditch has a 30 foot easement that would create open space between the existing lots and proposed lots. The City is proposing a regional trail connection along the ditch. 3. What is the proposed spacing between the new residential buildings on these smaller lots? Applicant indicated that their building plans would meet all city requirements for setbacks. The minimum side yard setback is 5’ from the property line to the building. 4. Can you make lot sizes more in balance with the Willow Springs lots to the north? Developer explained that there is a sizable landscape buffer off of the Mail Creek Ditch along the north property boundary, and as a result, this is the plan they are putting forth consistent Attachment 9 with existing zoning, and they do not intend to change lot sizes. Comment: The Fossil Creek Plan states: FC-LUF-5 Relationships and Transitions at Edges of Neighborhood Development. Where a new neighborhood develops next to existing lower- density residential development, the neighborhood design and layout should COMPLEMENT the established patterns of buildings and outdoor spaces along the edge, with no drastic and abrupt increase in the size of buildings or intensity of building coverage. Comment: The dictionary definition of complements: it completes it, enhances it, or makes it perfect. The proposed lots are 55 X 110 (6050 square feet) and 60 X 110 (6600 square feet) that back up against Willow Springs. Willow Springs lots that back to Mail Creek Ditch average 10,000 square feet. Residents who previously assisted in drafting the Fossil Creek plan brought up density in the area, indicating Willow Springs density is just over 3 dwelling units/acre. The proposed density is almost double for this proposed development. Comment: This does not match with Fossil Creek Plan (Pg. 16 Ch. 2) regarding transitions at neighborhoods. Applicant responded that the higher density multi-family units are not adjacent to the 3 dwelling units/acre found, and the zoning for the MMN requires a minimum of 12 dwelling units/acre. The largest lots are along the ditch backing up to Willow Springs and density is feathered in the middle. This is a phased project with the LMN zone district going in first, with the multi-family residential and commercial to be developed later as part of separate development applications. 5. What is the traffic plan for Timberline? Where does widening occur? What is the Timeline? Nicole Hahn explained that planning and design to widen Timberline to its 4-lane capacity is underway and is funded. A detailed timeline would be considered once preliminary designs are complete Comment: This appears to be a ‘flagpole’ development allowing the interior to develop prior to the road improvement. The road improvements which impact traffic should be made prior to the development. 6. A Timberline Street traffic study was submitted in August to determine growth impact. How do you assume density without more specific plans to determine traffic needs? Nicole Hahn explained that with a development proposal of this size, the developer is required to submit a traffic study with density and other parameters set. If parameters change, then a new traffic study is required. Multi-family residential is included in density. Nicole Hahn explained that the traffic study that is required with plan submittal would help the Attachment 9 city determine which intersections may become signaled, and that Zephyr is an important connection in the area. She explained that crash data from the area indicates the majority of collisions are rear ends and that the short lights on side streets keeps traffic moving. Comment: This traffic study was completed in July, during the low season of traffic. CSU Students were not in town, school was not in session, residents were on vacation. The report was released in August, a bit misleading. 7. What is the description of rational behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant? The purpose of the ODP is to achieve the following: 1. Define the anticipated phasing. 2. Define the anticipated density. 3. Locate a potential City Neighborhood Park site. Comment: Note phasing, density, and City Neighborhood Park – all seem to be determined after the O.D.P. 1 Overall Drainage Report Date: August 29, 2017 Project: Hansen Overall Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Mr. Wes Lamarque Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Mr. Lamarque: This letter report accompanies the submittal for the Hansen Overall Development Plan (ODP). Specifically, this letter report serves to document the overall drainage impacts associated with the proposed Hansen Development. The proposed development site is located south of the Willow Springs residential development in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is situated south of Kechter Road, north of Zephyr Road and, west of Timberline Road. The Hansen property is bordered on the northy by the Mail Creek Ditch, on the south by an irrigation lateral, on the west by the private property and the Union Pacific Railroad, and on the east by Timberline Road. The overall Hansen site is roughly 70 acres in size. Zoning across the site includes Low-Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN). The proposed development site is in the City of Fort Collins Fossil Creek Master Drainage 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. An 18” RCP storm drain was stubbed to the site from The Timbers project. This stub is located just west of Timberline Road at Zephyr Road. The drainage report for The Timbers indicated a flow of 8 cfs allowable from the Hansen property. This is generally less than the 2-year historic for the Fossil Creek Basin. As this is the only drainage outfall for the site that does not require a drainage easement from an adjacent property, this outfall is planned to be utilized for the majority of the site. 2 This master drainage plan delineates the site into 4 basins. Approximate detention volumes are shown on the Master Drainage Plan. These volumes were calculated utilizing the Percent Imperviousness Relationship to Land Use (Table RO-14, Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual) and an EPA Stormwater Management Model. These detention volumes will be adjusted as the site further develops and proposed percent impervious are further refined with Project Development Plan submittals. Percent Impervious calculation and detention volume calculations are provided in the Appendix. Basins 1, 2, and 3 will drain into on-site detention ponds which will release into the existing 18” RCP. Basin 4 will be detained in an on-site detention pond that will release to the historic drainage route. This route will require a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner. 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 with each respective Project Development Plan submittal. No floodplains are located on this site. In summary, this Overall Drainage Report letter adequately addresses any potential stormwater changes associated with the proposed Overall Development Plan Amendment. 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 Stephanie Thomas, PE Project Engineer Enc APPENDIX Hansen Development CHARACTER OF SURFACE 1 : Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: Hansen LMN Zoning 0.55 60% Calculations By: S. Thomas MMN Zoning 0.65 70% Date: August 29, 2017 NC Zoning 0.95 90% Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………………………………….0.95 100% . Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………………………………….0.95 90% . Gravel (packed) ……….…………………….….…………………………..………………………………………….0.50 40% . Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………………………………………… 0.95 90% Pavers…………………………...………………..……………………………………………………………………… 0.40 22% Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.10 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….0.15 0% . Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Clayey Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….0.25 0% . Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.35 0% 2-year Cf = 1.00 10-year Cf = 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25 Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Table RO-11 Sub-Basin ID Sub- BasinBasin Area (ac) Area of LMN Area of MMN Area of NC 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient Composite % Imperv. 1 46.77 42.50 4.28 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.70 61% 2 16.65 4.03 11.97 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.80 68% 3 3.29 0.00 0.07 3.22 0.94 0.94 1.00 90% 4 3.10 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 1. Table RO-11 | Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis Composite Runoff Coefficient with Adjustment PROPOSED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 8/29/2017 12:44 PM D:\Projects\911-015\Drainage\Hydrology\911-015_MP_Rational_Calcs.xlsx\Composite C SUB1 SUB2B SUB3 SUB4 SUB2A EXPIPE OUT4 OUT1 OUT2 OUT3 OUT2A J1 O1 O2 POND1 POND2B POND3 POND4 POND2A FORTCOLLINS 03/15/2016 00:15:00 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 hansen Concept Drainage.inp [TITLE] ;;Project Title/Notes [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW_UNITS CFS INFILTRATION HORTON FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH MIN_SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO START_DATE 03/15/2016 START_TIME 00:00:00 REPORT_START_DATE 03/15/2016 REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00 END_DATE 03/20/2016 END_TIME 06:00:00 SWEEP_START 01/01 SWEEP_END 12/31 DRY_DAYS 0 REPORT_STEP 00:15:00 WET_STEP 00:05:00 DRY_STEP 01:00:00 ROUTING_STEP 0:00:30 INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W VARIABLE_STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 12.557 MAX_TRIALS 8 HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM_STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters ;;-------------- ---------------- CONSTANT 0.0 DRY_ONLY NO Page 1 hansen Concept Drainage.inp [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source ;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ---------- FORTCOLLINS INTENSITY 0:05 1.0 TIMESERIES 100-YR [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- SUB1 FORTCOLLINS POND1 46.77 61 19000 0.5 0 SUB2B FORTCOLLINS POND2B 11.55 71 5000 0.5 0 SUB3 FORTCOLLINS POND3 3.29 90 2900 0.5 0 SUB4 FORTCOLLINS POND4 3.1 90 2700 0.5 0 SUB2A FORTCOLLINS POND2A 5.10 62 2000 0.5 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- SUB1 .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB2B .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB3 .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB4 .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET SUB2A .016 .25 .1 .3 0 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment MaxRate MinRate Decay DryTime MaxInfil ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- SUB1 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB2B 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB3 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB4 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 SUB2A 3.0 0.5 4 7 0 [JUNCTIONS] ;;Name Elevation MaxDepth InitDepth SurDepth Aponded ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- J1 51.2 5 0 0 0 [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- O1 50.5 FREE NO O2 0 FREE NO [STORAGE] ;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IMD ;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Page 2 hansen Concept Drainage.inp POND1 54 5 0 TABULAR POND1 0 0 POND2B 52 5 0 TABULAR POND2 0 0 POND3 53 5 0 TABULAR POND3 0 0 POND4 57 5 0 TABULAR POND4 0 0 POND2A 53 5 0 TABULAR POND2 0 0 [CONDUITS] ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EXPIPE J1 O1 200 .012 0 0 0 0 [OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- OUT4 POND4 O2 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT4 NO OUT1 POND1 J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT1 NO OUT2 POND2B J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT2B NO OUT3 POND3 J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT3 NO OUT2A POND2A J1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT2A NO [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EXPIPE CIRCULAR 2 0 0 0 1 [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- OUT1 Rating 0 0 OUT1 5 2 ; OUT2B Rating 0 0 OUT2B 5 6.5 ; OUT3 Rating 0 0 OUT3 5 1.5 ; OUT4 Rating 0 0 OUT4 5 .68 ; OUT2A Rating 0 0 OUT2A 5 1.3 ; POND1 Storage 0 278.25 POND1 0.2 1292.99 POND1 0.4 3071.68 Page 3 hansen Concept Drainage.inp POND1 0.6 5602.1 POND1 0.8 8928.84 POND1 1 13162.03 POND1 1.2 18831.61 POND1 1.4 34985.77 POND1 1.6 48136.39 POND1 1.8 63298.51 POND1 2 80505.54 POND1 2.2 99123.33 POND1 2.4 118549.42 POND1 2.6 139269.76 POND1 2.8 160198.93 POND1 3 179905.38 POND1 3.2 198141.5 POND1 3.4 215087.17 POND1 3.6 230516.53 POND1 3.8 244234.25 POND1 4 255383.52 POND1 4.2 264964.63 POND1 4.4 273632.33 POND1 4.6 281815.59 POND1 4.8 289299.76 POND1 5 296213.49 ; POND2 Storage 0 0 POND2 1 35000 POND2 2 35000 POND2 3 35000 POND2 4 35000 POND2 5 35000 ; POND3 Storage 0 0 POND3 1 9000 POND3 2 9000 POND3 3 9000 POND3 4 9000 POND3 5 9000 ; POND4 Storage 0 0 POND4 1 9000 POND4 2 9000 POND4 3 9000 POND4 4 9000 POND4 5 9000 [TIMESERIES] Page 4 hansen Concept Drainage.inp ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 100-YR 0:05 1 100-YR 0:10 1.14 100-YR 0:15 1.33 100-YR 0:20 2.23 100-YR 0:25 2.84 100-YR 0:30 5.49 100-YR 0:35 9.95 100-YR 0:40 4.12 100-YR 0:45 2.48 100-YR 0:50 1.46 100-YR 0:55 1.22 100-YR 1:00 1.06 100-YR 1:05 1 100-YR 1:10 .95 100-YR 1:15 .91 100-YR 1:20 .87 100-YR 1:25 .84 100-YR 1:30 .81 100-YR 1:35 .78 100-YR 1:40 .75 100-YR 1:45 .73 100-YR 1:50 .71 100-YR 1:55 .69 100-YR 2:00 .67 ; 5-YR 0:05 .40 5-YR 0:10 .45 5-YR 0:15 .53 5-YR 0:20 .89 5-YR 0:25 1.13 5-YR 0:30 2.19 5-YR 0:35 3.97 5-YR 0:40 1.64 5-YR 0:45 .99 5-YR 0:50 .58 5-YR 0:55 .49 5-YR 1:00 .42 5-YR 1:05 .28 5-YR 1:10 .27 5-YR 1:15 .25 5-YR 1:20 .24 5-YR 1:25 .23 5-YR 1:30 .22 5-YR 1:35 .21 Page 5 hansen Concept Drainage.inp 5-YR 1:40 .20 5-YR 1:45 .19 5-YR 1:50 .19 5-YR 1:55 .18 5-YR 2:00 .18 [REPORT] ;;Reporting Options INPUT NO CONTROLS NO SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS -1395.210 0.000 11395.210 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ J1 5853.316 3213.455 O1 6794.467 3158.453 O2 4304.290 2369.043 POND1 3838.323 5592.814 POND2B 5926.652 3739.033 POND3 6103.882 2645.097 POND4 4820.359 2395.210 POND2A 6089.820 4838.323 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ OUT1 4736.527 3748.503 OUT1 5383.234 3221.557 OUT2A 7071.856 4143.713 [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ SUB1 640.719 8275.449 SUB1 640.719 7916.168 SUB1 772.455 7269.461 SUB1 832.335 6143.713 Page 6 hansen Concept Drainage.inp SUB1 1263.473 6095.808 SUB1 1946.108 5604.790 SUB1 2664.671 4934.132 SUB1 3299.401 4299.401 SUB1 3970.060 3760.479 SUB1 4353.293 3568.862 SUB1 4616.766 4000.000 SUB1 4616.766 4275.449 SUB1 5275.449 5221.557 SUB1 5646.707 5293.413 SUB1 5826.347 5556.886 SUB1 6089.820 5820.359 SUB1 5610.778 6143.713 SUB1 5455.090 6251.497 SUB1 4868.263 6502.994 SUB1 4233.533 6718.563 SUB1 4005.988 6898.204 SUB1 3658.683 7089.820 SUB1 3059.880 7221.557 SUB1 2568.862 7389.222 SUB1 2544.910 7520.958 SUB1 2568.862 7700.599 SUB1 2365.269 7952.096 SUB1 2161.677 8191.617 SUB1 1910.180 8263.473 SUB1 628.743 8263.473 SUB2B 4892.216 3239.060 SUB2B 5179.641 2855.826 SUB2B 5383.233 3263.012 SUB2B 5862.275 3059.419 SUB2B 6257.485 3023.491 SUB2B 6257.485 4424.689 SUB2B 6113.773 4460.617 SUB2B 5838.323 4472.593 SUB2B 5395.210 4616.306 SUB2B 5347.305 5263.012 SUB2B 4652.695 4328.880 SUB2B 4628.742 4005.527 SUB2B 4329.341 3586.365 SUB3 5347.305 3245.509 SUB3 5826.347 3065.868 SUB3 6281.437 2994.012 SUB3 6281.437 2035.928 SUB3 6005.988 2047.904 SUB3 5838.323 2143.713 SUB3 5610.778 2479.042 Page 7 hansen Concept Drainage.inp SUB3 5143.713 2874.251 SUB4 4544.910 2203.593 SUB4 5215.569 2215.569 SUB4 5395.210 2059.880 SUB4 5994.012 1844.311 SUB4 6257.485 1844.311 SUB4 6269.461 2023.952 SUB4 5970.060 2035.928 SUB4 5646.707 2479.042 SUB4 5167.665 2886.228 SUB4 5083.832 2802.395 SUB4 4748.503 2838.323 SUB2A 5646.707 5293.413 SUB2A 5766.467 5473.054 SUB2A 6089.820 5820.359 SUB2A 6269.461 5712.575 SUB2A 6245.509 4443.114 SUB2A 5802.395 4467.066 SUB2A 5407.186 4622.754 SUB2A 5347.305 5233.533 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ FORTCOLLINS 5047.904 7868.264 [BACKDROP] FILE "D:\Projects\911-015\Drainage\Modeling\911-015 Hansen ODP Page 001.jpg" DIMENSIONS -1395.210 736.527 11395.210 9263.473 Page 8 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.010) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ MAR-15-2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. MAR-20-2016 06:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 21.345 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 3.962 0.681 Surface Runoff ........... 17.177 2.953 Final Storage ............ 0.380 0.065 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.813 Page 1 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 17.177 5.597 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 17.174 5.596 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.016 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 30.00 sec Average Time Step : 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 30.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 1.01 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Page 2 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB1 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.77 2.87 3.64 363.23 0.782 SUB2B 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.56 3.06 0.96 99.57 0.835 SUB3 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.19 3.42 0.31 32.55 0.932 SUB4 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.19 3.42 0.29 30.66 0.932 SUB2A 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.75 2.89 0.40 39.81 0.787 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 0.40 1.06 52.26 0 02:09 1.06 O1 OUTFALL 0.40 1.06 51.56 0 02:09 1.06 O2 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND1 STORAGE 2.68 4.29 58.29 0 02:20 4.29 POND2B STORAGE 0.22 3.47 55.47 0 02:08 3.45 POND3 STORAGE 0.30 4.28 57.28 0 02:08 4.25 POND4 STORAGE 0.62 4.42 61.42 0 02:10 4.41 POND2A STORAGE 0.45 1.94 54.94 0 02:14 1.94 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 0.00 8.01 0 02:09 0 5.31 0.000 O1 OUTFALL 0.00 8.01 0 02:09 0 5.31 0.000 O2 OUTFALL 0.00 0.60 0 02:10 0 0.288 0.000 POND1 STORAGE 363.23 363.23 0 00:40 3.64 3.64 0.004 POND2B STORAGE 99.57 99.57 0 00:40 0.961 0.961 0.042 Page 3 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt POND3 STORAGE 32.55 32.55 0 00:40 0.306 0.306 0.038 POND4 STORAGE 30.66 30.66 0 00:40 0.288 0.288 0.019 POND2A STORAGE 39.81 39.81 0 00:40 0.4 0.4 0.009 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 126.00 1.062 3.938 POND1 STORAGE 126.00 4.293 0.707 POND2B STORAGE 126.00 3.473 1.527 POND3 STORAGE 126.00 4.276 0.724 POND4 STORAGE 126.00 4.416 0.584 POND2A STORAGE 126.00 1.942 3.058 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND1 182.984 27 0 0 474.881 70 0 02:19 1.72 POND2B 5.370 3 0 0 104.058 66 0 02:07 4.51 POND3 2.001 5 0 0 33.989 84 0 02:08 1.28 POND4 4.131 10 0 0 35.250 87 0 02:10 0.60 Page 4 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt POND2A 8.669 6 0 0 50.485 32 0 02:14 0.51 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- O1 95.21 1.64 8.01 5.308 O2 37.77 0.22 0.60 0.288 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 66.49 1.87 8.61 5.596 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPIPE CONDUIT 8.01 0 02:09 4.73 0.55 0.53 OUT4 DUMMY 0.60 0 02:10 OUT1 DUMMY 1.72 0 02:20 OUT2 DUMMY 4.51 0 02:08 OUT3 DUMMY 1.28 0 02:08 OUT2A DUMMY 0.51 0 02:14 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Tue Aug 29 11:57:44 2017 Page 5 SWMM OUTPUT 100-YR.rpt Analysis ended on: Tue Aug 29 11:57:44 2017 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Page 6 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME SAINT ELIZABETH ANN SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPANSION OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an amendment to the existing Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Overall Development Plan (ODP). The amendment to the ODP will reflect the current proposal for an addition of the existing worship hall on the southwest side of the multi-use building constructed during Phase I of the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church PUD. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis The Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Ave. Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: Archdiocese of Denver C/O St. Elizabeth Seton Parish 5450 S Lemay Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion, ODP170002. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion ODP complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: · The O.D.P. complies with the Overall Development Plan Review Procedures in Section 2.3.2. · The O.D.P. complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7). Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 1. Background: The subject property was annexed into the City as part of the Fox Ridge Annex on September 2, 1980. The City approved an ODP for the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church in 1983. Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton built the original church on the site in 1984 per the approved ODP as part of the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church PUD. In 2004, the church built the Parish Center per the originally approved ODP. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential East Public Open Lands (POL) Southridge Golf Course West Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential A zoning vicinity map is presented on the following page: Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 Site & Zoning Vicinity Map Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 4 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 ODPs, which are summarized as follows: . Section 2.3.2(H)(1) - Permitted Uses and District Standards This standard requires the O.D.P. to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an O.D.P. submittal. · Land Use: The use of the property, place of worship, will not be changing as part of this ODP amendment. Places of worship are permitted subject to administrative review in the RL zone district per Land Use Code section 4.4(B)(2)(b). · Small Neighborhood Parks: The O.D.P. proposes three private neighborhood park areas containing 3.8 acres, which exceeds the standard that a public or private park at least one acre in size be provided for development plans that exceed ten acres. . Section 2.3.2(H)(2) - Density This standard requires any ODP to be consistent with the density range allowed in the underlying zone district for any residential use proposed. Since no residential is proposed and the underlying zone is not subject to this standard, this standard does not apply. . Section 2.3.2(H)(3) and 2.3.2(H)(4) - Master Street Plan, Street Pattern, Connectivity, Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties These standards require the O.D.P. to conform to the Master Street Plan as required by Section 3.6.1 and also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. Additionally, the O.D.P. is required to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the O.D.P. from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). Section 3.6.1 Master Street Plan: The ODP amendment does not propose any new streets and the ODP shows all existing streets in accordance with this standard. The applicant also submitted a traffic memo indicating the expansion would have minimal impact on traffic. City staff reviewed this memo and accepted its conclusions in accordance with this standard. Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: The ODP does not propose any new streets. The ODP relies on existing streets and connections as established per the original Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP, which satisfy the requirements of this code section. Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 5 . Section 2.3.2(H)(5) - Natural Features This standard requires an O.D.P. to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). There are no natural areas, habitats, or features within the boundaries of the ODP, so this standard does not apply. . Section 2.3.2(H)(6) - Drainage Basin Master Plan This standard requires an O.D.P. to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The site is located within the Fossil Creek Drainage Basin. Development is anticipated to comply with the stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards of both this particular basin and city-wide best management practices. . 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 applies over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP. The ODP does not contain any residential so this standard does not apply. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Land Use Code section 2.3.2(B) requires a neighborhood meeting for ODPs. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in accordance with this standard on June 1, 2016. 30 residents attended the meeting. Comments from the neighbors centered on the following issues: • Loss of views of the mountains • Keep expansion same height as existing church • Traffic flow when exiting the church The building height issue was the prevailing theme at the neighborhood meeting. While the ODP does not address the building height issue, the applicant submitted a PDP for the building addition on July 10, 2017. Only a portion of the addition exceeds the height of the existing church. The elevations show a cupola and bell tower that will rise above the height of the existing church. This cupola and bell tower are placed to minimize the visual impact of the addition. It is also important to note that the site has a steep grade with the south end of the site being much lower than the north side of the building. Most of the neighbors that would be impacted by the church addition sit north of the church site, which is higher than the church. This reduces the visual impact of the new addition. The PDP for the building addition will go to a hearing officer for approval. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion Overall Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 6 A. The O.D.P. complies with the Overall Development Plan Review Procedures in Section 2.3.2. B. The O.D.P. complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion, ODP170002. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity & Zoning Map 2. Statement of Planning Objectives 3. Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion Overall Development Plan 4. Original Overall Development Plan 5. Master Utility and Drainage Plan 6. Transportation Memo 7. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes 8. Citizen Email RL POL HC LMN MMN POL LMN LMN LMN UE POL Werner Elementary Colorado Early Colleges Fort Collins Fossil Creek Community Park Southridge Golf Course Southridge Golf Course Miramont Park Portner Reservoir Oak Ridge Federal Bldg Pd Oak Ridge Federal Bldg Pond Rule Dr H unti n gt o n Hills D r R e d O a k Ct Mail Creek Ln R o m a V a l l e y D r R edber r y C t W h e at o Page 1 St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion Statement of Planning Objectives July 7, 2017 The project is located at 5450 South Lemay Avenue. The site contains an existing building containing a worship area, parish offices, parish center and religious education center. The proposed use is for a 15,650 sq. ft. expansion for a new worship addition. The process is a Major Amendment and an amendment to the existing Overall Development Plan approved in 1984. The property is zoned RL- Low Density Residential. The site contains 11.70 acres. The existing parking areas and drives will not be disturbed with the construction of the new addition. A new fire lane will be constructed from the northwest side of the building east in order to provide adequate access for emergency fire apparatus. The area surrounding the church contains predominantly single-family residential properties and the Southridge Greens Golf Course. The worship expansion is a part of the master planning efforts anticipated by the church. When construction of the worship addition is complete, the existing worship will be repurposed as the narthex area. There are currently 650 seats, with the addition providing another 150 new seats for a total of 800 seats. The project is providing access via a driveway from Southridge Green Boulevard and w2 accesses off of Seton Street. All of the interior drives are private. Parking areas are located internally to minimize impacts on the neighborhood. There are multiple pedestrian connections into and through the site. Both building architecture and landscape design for the addition will build upon the momentum of the design language which has been used on the existing building. The site and building architecture function integrally. It is the intent to activate architectural spaces and pedestrian experience through thoughtful indoor and outdoor connections. Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods The proposed expansion has a design that complements the positive qualities of the existing building. Additionally, the building form, patterns, projections and recesses are compatible with the existing context of the neighborhood. Attachment 2 Page 2 Transportation Principle T 9: Enhanced Travel Corridors will contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Policy T 9.1 – Locating Enhanced Travel Corridors Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities The location of this project will promote and support the idea of utilizing alternative modes of transportation (walking/biking) or public transportation. The on-street bike lanes will help to encourage safe cycling. South Lemay Avenue is designated as an enhanced travel corridor. (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. There are no wetlands or significant natural habitats within the boundaries of the site. (iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. The buildings will be owned by the building developer/owner and will be leased to individual tenants. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. 8-10 (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The impetus of this project is to create a worship center addition that is a complimentary use to the church campus. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. Attachment 2 Page 3 The submittal documents address the applicable criteria. No variances are anticipated at this time. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. There are not existing wetlands, natural habitats or features currently located on site. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 1, 2016. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project name is St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion. The project name at the Conceptual Review meeting was “5450 s. Lemay Ave. - Addition”. Attachment 2 PARKING 78 SPACES SOUTHRIDGE GREENS BOULEVARD SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE SETON STREET PARKING 105 SPACES PARKING 74 SPACES MULTI-USE BUILDING PLAZA PLAZA PLAZA WORSHIP OAK LEAF CT. ENTRY ENTRY FIRE ACCESS LANE PLAZA SOUTHRIDGE GREENS GOLF COURSE ZONED POL VILLAGE AT SOUTHRIDGE PUD ZONED RL MIRAMONT VILLAGE PUD ZONED RL OAKRIDGE ESTATES ZONED RL RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT PUD ZONED RL ENTRY ENTRY OPEN OPEN Twinberry Ct Wheaton Dr Coralberry Ct Seton St Oak L Southridge Greens Blvd. Front Dr Nine e a f Ct LEMAY AVENUE Ct Fairway OVERALL GENERAL NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES, AND SHALL CALL 811 TO HAVE UTILITIES MARKED. 2. ALL EXISTING SITE FEATURES AND UTILITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ANY EXISTING SITE FEATURE OR UTILITY DAMAGED BY CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AT CONTRACTORS EXPENSE, AND TO A CONDITION EQUAL-TO OR BETTER THEN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 4. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUT TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL PROPOSED OR RELOCATED DRY UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTION POINTS TO BUILDING. 6. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER (L&P) SHALL INSTALL ANY PRIMARY LINE FROM CONNECTION POINT TO ELECTRIC VAULT, SECONDARY LINES FROM VAULT TO METER, AND BUILDING METER. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH FORT COLLINS METER GROUP FOR METER LOCATION. CONTACT CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER FOR THEIR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. WATERLINE NOTES 1. WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT EXPECTED FOR THE EXPANSION. HOWEVER, IF WATERLINES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED, REPAIRED, OR REPLACED, ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2. WATER MAINS, IF NEEDED, SHALL BE PVC (C-900) AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. WATER SERVICES, IF NEEDED, SHALL BE PVC (C-900), AND BE CONSTRUCTED A MINIMUM OF 5-FEET BELOW FINISHED GRADE AND FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS. SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE, AND SERVICES, SHALL BE PVC (SDR 35) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED BY THE SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE AND SERVICE FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC (SDR 35) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS. 3. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE IS TO BE REPLACED AND RELOCATED BELOW THE CHURCH EXPANSION AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE SANITARY SEWER LINE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A CASING PIPE TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE. SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET. SEWER LINE JOINTS SHALL BE RESTRAINED, OR WATER PRESSURE PIPE SUBSTITUTED WITH RESTRAINED JOINTS THROUGH CASING. 4. CASING PIPE FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE BELOW BUILDING EXPANSION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 22-INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND MAY BE UP TO 24-INCHES IN DIAMETER IF MORE READILY AVAILABLE. STORM SEWER NOTES 1. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE RCP, PVC, OR ADS PIPE AND SHALL HAVE WATER TIGHT JOINTS. 2. ROOF DRAIN COLLECTION PIPES SHALL BE ADS PIPE WITH NYLOPLAST GRATES. 3. ALL STORM SEWER SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ASPHALT EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED CONCRETE EXISTING LANDSCAPING EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING WATER SWMM DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY SWMM BASIN DESIGNATION SWMM DESIGN POINT DRAINAGE ARROW NEW & FUTURE IMPERVIOUS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA (LID TREATED) PROPOSED CONTOURS EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING LANDSCAPING EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING WATER EXISTING SANITARY EXISTING TELEPHONE PROPOSED EXPANSION PROPOSED CONCRETE EXISTING ASPHALT 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 30 70 60 25 20 15 10 35 50 45 THE EXISTING ST. ELIZABETH ANN SETON SITE WAS EVALUATED IN A DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT, PREPARED BY AYRES ASSOCIATES, AND DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1998. ALL VERTICAL DATA FOUND IN THIS REPORT IS BASED ON NGVD 29 DATUM. 2. THE ST. ELIZABETH ANN SETON SITE WAS EVALUATED FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN A DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT, PREPARED BY AYRES ASSOCIATES, AND DATED JUNE 30, 2003. ALL VERTICAL DATA FOUND IN THIS REPORT IS BASED ON NGVD 29 DATUM. 3. THE TOPOGRAPHY AND ALL ELEVATION INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS BASED ON THE NAVD 88 DATUM. 4. THE DRAINAGE BASINS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE THE SAME SWMM BASINS IDENTIFIED IN THE TWO FINAL DRAINAGE REPORTS LISTED ABOVE. DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS FILENAME: 0031.0012.00_DRAINAGE 0031.0012.00 1" = 40' JULY 7, 2017 OF DESIGNED: CHECKED: JOB NO.: SCALE: DATE: SHEET NO.: 1" = 40' 0 40 80 scale feet CALL THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 3 DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 7 Attachment 7 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 From: Sally Gumerman [mailto:sgumerman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:43 PM To: Clay Frickey Cc: Ray Gumerman Subject: Development Project Sign 380 Mr. Frickey, My husband and I live at the west end of Fairway Five Drive. Because we moved here six years ago from a neighborhood near a Catholic church in Ohio, we are very aware of how church bells can affect the lives of the surrounding community. Consequently, we are very concerned about the expansion plans of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Parish, which include the erection of a bell tower. Bells of a Catholic church may ring when members of the surrounding community sleep: babies and little children, shift workers including nurses and other medical professionals, the ill and those recovering from illness or surgery and family members who take care of them through the night. Bells also affect the elderly, who may sleep late in the morning or periodically through the day to make up for difficult nights. Across Southridge Greens Blvd. from the church property is a neighborhood of patio homes with a high number of elderly residents. Patio homes directly across LeMay from the church also shelter a substantial number of older adults. The quality of life of these and other elderly residents in the surrounding area can be negatively affected by the introduction of bell ringing over which they have no control. My husband and I believe that church bells should have minimal impact on the surrounding community that existed before the church installed the bells. Minimal impact would include constraints on volume, carrying distance, and hours and days when they may be rung. In addition, the height of the proposed building would have a tremendous negative impact on the sweeping view of mountains from the second fairway of Southridge Greens golf course. The impact would affect the many people who golf and stroll through this public park owned by the City of Fort Collins as well as our neighbors who live along that fairway. We find the proposed parish expansion to be contrary to the best interest of the surrounding community. Sally Gumerman 1212 Fairway Five Drive Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FORT COLLINS JEEP #PDP170013 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to re-develop an abandoned building supply store and lumber yard as a full-service vehicle dealership located at 224 West Harmony Road. The existing building is 25,430 square feet and would be expanded to 34,752 square feet. Additions are proposed on both the north and south. One existing metal shed will remain for vehicle storage. The site is divided by the 100-foot wide B.N.S.F Railroad right-of-way which includes the MAX bus rapid transit system. The area west of the railroad right-of-way is approximately .87 acre and would remain as is for inventory storage. This area is also the subject of a good-faith negotiation with Transfort for potential acquisition as a park- and-ride for the MAX. A plan amendment will be required should this acquisition not occur and redevelopment is pursued. A Modification of Standard is requested to allow less than the required parking lot setbacks along portions of the two public streets [Section 3.2.2(J)]. The parcel is 4.48 acres, located at the northwest corner of W. Harmony Road and S. Mason Street and zoned C-G, General Commercial. APPLICANT: Fort Collins Dodge Chrysler Jeep c/o Mr. Steve More Commercial Building Services 7561 S. Grant Street, A-4 Littleton, CO 80122 OWNER: Moreland Properties, LLC c/o Mike Downey 1653 Layton Drive Englewood, CO 80113 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Modification to Section 3.2.2(J). Approval of the P.D.P. Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The P.D.P. complies with the overall intent and purpose of the Midtown Plan; • The P.D.P. is a permitted use and complies with the applicable development standards of the C- G, General Commercial, zone district. • The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development standards with one exception. • A Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(J) – Parking Lot Setbacks – has been evaluated and found to be justified by the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(3). COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: C-G Full-Service Automobile Dealership S: C-G Regional Shopping Center E: C-G Drive-Through Restaurant, Vehicle Minor Repair, Fuel Facility W: R-L Mason Trail, New Mercer Canal and Single Family Attached The parcel was annexed in two phases: • The area west of the tracks was included in the larger Horsetooth – Harmony Annexation of 1978; • The area east of the tracks was annexed as the Wickes Annexation of 1986. The site was originally developed in Larimer County for a building supply store and lumber yard. The railroad spur west of the tracks allowed for bulk freight deliveries. The first user was Wickes Lumber followed by UBC. The site has been vacant for approximately 10 years. 1. Midtown Plan: The parcel is located within the boundary of the Midtown Plan, adopted in October of 2013. Two key Visions for Midtown are as follows: “The vision for Midtown is that it will be a vital district, with a mix of uses and activities that serve a broad spectrum of the community. It will have a distinct identity that distinguishes it from other parts of the city, and will serve as a destination in its own right.” “The MAX line will become a central spine in Midtown, just as College Avenue is. New development will be of high quality, sustainable urban form that supports a pedestrian environment and fronts onto MAX through four-sided block development.” In fulfillment of these vision statements, Fort Collins Jeep contributes to the mix of uses by providing a place of employment for approximately 35 employees within an area described by the Plan as being characterized by an over-abundance of commercial uses at relatively low floor-to-area and employees- per-acre ratios. The proposed dealership would adjoin the MAX which supports a sustainable urban Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 form and promotes a strong pedestrian and transit-oriented environment. Pedestrian access to the MAX Harmony station is being enhanced with a walkway along the north property line that ties the station to Mason Street. The Plan goes on to describe the following Objectives for Achieving the Vision, A Sustainable District and A Vibrant Mix of Uses: “A Sustainable District: Overall, Midtown should develop as a sustainable district culturally, economically and environmentally. This means providing a framework for livability that supports living, working, and recreation in a way that contributes to a strong economy and that makes the best use of natural resources.” “Currently, the surrounding land use densities are below nationally accepted thresholds for adequate support of high frequency transit. Within walking distance of MAX stations, there is an overall density of about 3.00 dwelling units per acre and there are approximately 8 employees per acre Studies conducted by organization such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) estimate that 15 dwelling unit per acre, or 25 employees per acre, or a combination of dwelling units and employees is the minimum density needed to support high frequency transit such as MAX.” “Within the range of commercial uses, a rich diversity of retail, entertainment, dining, and service should be considered. Professional offices, research and development, and incubator spaces should also be in the mix. Automobile dealerships also make up an important part of the Midtown economy. When considered all together, the mix of uses in Midtown should serve the region as well as the nearby neighborhoods.” In fulfillment of these objectives, Fort Collins Jeep provides employment opportunities along transit that is able to offer an alternative commuting mode for employees or customers dropping off their vehicle for service. By being located next to MAX, employees and customers are easily linked to areas such as Downtown, C.S.U. and the Foothills Mall. The Plan is divided among three Distinctive Character Areas with the subject site located in the Lower Midtown Area which is designated having a theme related to innovation:. “The lower or southern portion of Midtown, between Bockman Drive and Fairway Lane is already an energetic place with a variety of big box retail, professional office clusters and smaller commercial buildings which serve regional customers. Some of these buildings area well-suited for research and development, or as incubator spaces for emerging new businesses, as there are several technology businesses and research and development firms nearby. For this reason, an emphasis on technology could give an identity to this portion of the corridor. Designs that convey innovation in building systems and materials should be encouraged. A new public amenity should be considered for this area to provide a focal point. One opportunity to consider is the land adjacent to the MAX station at the South College Transit Center.” (Emphases are in the original text.) In response to the Lower Midtown Innovation theme, an automobile dealership is clearly not an innovative or technology-oriented firm. The proposed new dealership, however, cleans up and reactivates a blighted 4.48 acre parcel and a dilapidated building that are highly visible from both Harmony Road and the MAX. Having been vacant for approximately ten years, it is evident that innovative and technology-oriented firms have bypassed this site while properties further east on Harmony Road have been considered more advantageous with recent site selections by AMD, Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 4 Broadcom, Intel, Microsoft, Comcast, Numerica, Rodale Custom Blending and the like. The new economic activity associated with the proposed vehicle dealership, while not considered to be technology-oriented, will contribute to the broader economic vibrancy of Midtown. The Midtown Plan also envisions a Grand Promenade: “Finally, a key circulation concept is to develop a “grand promenade” along the western edge of the Midtown area, abutting the MAX line. This would be constructed to accommodate bikes and pedestrians, with the anticipation that in the future many properties would orient to the transit line. Some courtyards and gardens would open onto the promenade, often in association with multi-family apartments and townhomes. South of Horsetooth Station, the promenade concept would transition over to Mason Street, using the existing sidewalks, but with consideration of enhancing the streetscape to make it more inviting for pedestrians.” The P.D.P. adjoins Harmony Road Station and is located at the southern-most point of the promenade. There is 397 feet of frontage along Mason Street. This frontage will include an eight-foot wide detached sidewalk with a 6.5 foot parkway and a double row of street trees for 300 feet of this frontage. The balance will be dedicated for a new southbound right-turn lane which is warranted to relieve congestion and improve the transportation level of service. The sidewalk and landscaping are provided to the maximum extent feasible given the fact that the PDP represents a redevelopment of an existing site that was originally approved in the County. In summary, with regard to the vision, objectives and design as called for in the Midtown Plan; Fort Collins Jeep demonstrates a degree of compliance that commensurate with the existing conditions and the dedications for additional public right-of-way. The proposed level of new commercial activity, combined with public and private improvements, will support the significant public investment in providing transit along the City’s spine. 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards – C-G, General Commercial Zone District: A. Section 4.21(D) – Maximum Height – Four Stories The maximum allowable height is four stories. Both the existing and proposed building addition is one story. B. Section 4.21(E)(a) – Development Standards – Site Design This standard requires that pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity areas that generate the users (such as street corners, shops, stores, offices, day care and dwellings). In response, pedestrian outdoor spaces are not typically associated with vehicle dealerships. The P.D.P., however, provides for an extra wide sidewalk along Mason Street, a new Transfort bus stop pad and a connecting walkway from Mason Street to the MAX station. 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(D) – Landscaping Existing street trees that have been evaluated as being healthy along both public streets will remain and gaps will be filled with new trees. Along Mason Street, as noted, a second row of street trees will be planted behind the sidewalk north of the proposed southbound right turn lane. There are very few Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 5 existing healthy trees within the interior of the site as landscaping requirements under County standards, at the time of initial development, were minimal and the property was neglected during its time of vacancy. Other areas of landscaping are concentrated along the north and west perimeters. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The Landscape Plan places an emphasis on perimeter landscaping since a vehicle dealership has unique challenges with interior landscaping. With regard to perimeter landscaping, there are challenges as well due to security concerns. Along the north and west property lines, there will be a six-foot high, vinyl-clad chain link fence. These fences are mitigated by a mix of trees, shrubs and vines. Particular attention is paid to the northwest corner where a dense planting of Evergreen Trees are provided in order to establish screening for the MAX. Both the north and west property lines are landscaped in such a way that there is an emphasis on spruce trees and upright junipers and in a quantity that exceeds 70% of the lineal distance. There are 14 trees placed along Mason Street which equates to 30-foot intervals versus 25-foot intervals. The reason for the shortfall is the additional land area needed for the new southbound right- turn lane. A low screen wall will be provided adjacent to this right-turn lane. There are 12 trees placed along Harmony Road which equates to 26-foot intervals versus 25-foot intervals. The reason for this shortfall is the land area set aside for sight distance on both sides of the driveway. Alternative Compliance – 3.2.1(N): Both of these shortfalls are minimal and qualify as complying with the standard in an alternative manner per Section 3.2.1(N). Staff finds that the overall perimeter landscaping saves existing healthy mature trees and sufficiently mitigates for those that will be removed. A solid screen wall effectively contributes to mitigating the impact of the parking lot. This combination accomplishes the purpose of the standard equally well than would a plan which relied on new trees at 25-foot intervals which equates to a difference of three trees. The area along Mason Street where street trees cannot be placed is instead devoted to the oversized sidewalk per the Midtown Plan and the new southbound right turn lane – two important public improvements. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The interior of the site is not necessarily a parking lot per se but more of an inventory storage and product display area. Nonetheless, the inventory/parking lot area is landscaped in a manner that complies with the standard from the front building line out to Harmony Road and from the side building line out to Mason Street. Behind these lines, which are less visible from the public streets, there are fewer islands but in no case are there any parking bays that exceed 15 spaces without a landscape island. Further, all islands feature either landscaping or stormwater treatment rain gardens. Alternative Compliance 3.2.1(N): The overall shortfall is minimal and qualifies as complying with the standard in alternative manner per section 3.2.1(N). This is because concentrating the interior parking lot landscaping in areas where it is most effective accomplishes the purpose of the standard equally well than would a plan which distributes landscaping into remote areas that are not visible from the public streets. Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 6 D. Section 3.2.1(E)(7) – Landscaping of Vehicle Display Lots Within the Landscaping and Tree Protection section of the Code, this is the only provision that directly addresses dealerships. This standard requires that for vehicle display lots abutting arterial and collector streets, there must be landscape islands at intervals not to exceed 15 vehicles or 135 feet whichever is less. Compliance is achieved with landscape islands provided in the following manner: • Along Harmony Road: o 10 spaces – 88 feet o 11 spaces – 100 feet o 8 spaces – 68 feet • Along Mason Street: o 10 spaces – 90 feet o 15 spaces – 120 feet o 14 spaces – 120 feet E. Section 3.2.1(F) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The site has been inspected by the City Forester. There are 23 existing trees onsite and in the public right-of-way along both streets. Twelve of these will be preserved, two will be relocated and nine will be removed. Of the nine to be removed, eight have mitigation value and new trees will be planted at caliper sizes and in quantities in accordance with the Tree Mitigation Schedule per the recommendation of the City Forester. F. Sections 3.2.2(B)(C) – Access, Circulation and Parking General and Development Standards A vehicle dealership, by necessity, involves a high degree of circulation that must be distributed among the sales, service, customer and employee parking areas. The P.D.P. separates these functions in a safe manner. The covered service intake bays are on the west side of the building and are set back from the front of the building to allow for vehicles to queue as service writers perform their check in procedures. The sales function is center and to the east with its own parking field. Employee parking is to the side and rear. Two pedestrian walkways link the Harmony Road and Mason Street sidewalks to the main entry. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Four bike parking spaces are required and four are provided along the front of the building near the service bays. H. Sections 3.2.2(C)(5)(6) and (7) – Walkways, Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations and Off-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations The vehicle dealership provides for a connection from Mason Street to the MAX station along the north property line. Also, as noted, there are connecting walkways from the Harmony Road and Mason Street sidewalks to the main entry. The two public sidewalks link the site to the larger surrounding public sidewalk network including the MAX station. I. Section 3.2.2(J) – Parking Lot Setbacks Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 7 Since both Harmony Road and Mason Street are classified as arterial streets, the vehicular use area is required to be setback from the street right-of-way by 15 feet. In this case, the property line is defined as being the back of the public sidewalks. The setback along Harmony Road, east of the driveway is 11 feet. The setback along Mason Street varies due to the dedication for a new right-turn lane and varies between 4 and 9 feet. A Modification of Standard has been requested and is summarized and evaluated as follows: A. Summary of the Request. The extent of the Modification is four feet along Harmony Road and a range of six to 12 feet along Mason Street. B. Applicant Justification. The applicant states that the fundamental aspect of the Modification is two-fold. First, the site was originally developed in the County with existing public improvements, and second, additional right-of-way is being dedicated by the P.D.P. as a result of the City of Fort Collins’ street classifications. Harmony Road is classified as a standard arterial and is fully dedicated but additional right-of-way is being dedicated for a bus pull-out lane. With Mason Street being dedicated as a two-lane arterial, and with a new southbound right-turn lane, as well as center left-turn lane, an additional 12 feet are being dedicated. As mitigation, a landscape screen wall is provided along Mason Street beginning at the sight distance triangle at the intersection and extending north for a length of 275 feet. C. Staff Evaluation. Infill redevelopment is challenging due to new standards being applied to existing conditions established while under the County jurisdiction. The screen wall along Mason Street provides screening of the display vehicles that is equivalent to landscaping. Existing trees are mature and contribute to screening. The new dedications are required for public purposes include a new bus stop along Harmony, a new southbound right turn lane and lengthening the center left turn lane along Mason are all at the request of the City of Fort Collins and not the fault of the applicant. Deconstruction and installation of new improvements where not necessary is not a sustainable use of existing resources. D. Staff Findings. Staff finds the request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(J) is justified based on the criteria in Section 2.8.2(H)(3): (1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and (2.) The Modification is justified by reason of exceptional physical or other extraordinary and exceptional situation that is unique to this property. This is because the screen wall along Mason is effective in mitigating the impacts of the parking lot and mature trees along Harmony contribute to screening. Further, the original public improvements were constructed under County standards approximately 30 years ago. Under today’s conditions, with the growth in the surrounding background traffic, additional public improvements are required. In addition, strict application of the standard would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner and that these hardships were not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. J. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a)(b) – Non-residential Parking Requirements Under the Existing Buildings Exemption, the change in use of the existing building (25,430 square feet) is exempt from the minimum parking requirement. The new addition is 9,322 square feet. Vehicle dealerships are not specifically listed as a category under this standard. The most equivalent category Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 8 would be for Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance which establishes a minimum of two spaces and a maximum of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. With 9,322 square feet, the required minimum is 19 spaces and the allowable maximum is 46 spaces. Since no parking is allowed on the two public streets, the maximum allowable parking may be increased by 20% or 9 spaces for a total of 55 spaces. The P.D.P. allocates 18 parking spaces for customers and 35 spaces for employees for a total of 53 spaces which is within the allowable range of parking. The balance of the parking lot is devoted to inventory. K. Section 3.2.4 – Lighting The Lighting Plan indicates that the front row of display vehicles will be illuminated ranging from 9.4 to 27.0 foot-candles. Lighting is then reduced for the second and third rows ranging from 8.9 to 17.6 foot- candles. All fixtures are fully-shielded and down-directional. There are no foot-candles that exceed 0.1 as measured 20 feet from property line. Light fixtures will be dimmed after store closing by a 10-volt wireless dimming system that will connect to modules on the fixtures. L. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosure A trash and recycling enclosure is provided with sufficient space for the necessary containers for both solid waste and recyclable materials. A non-gated person access is designed for easy entry. Materials will be concrete masonry units to match the building and the gates are metal. M. Section 3.5.1(B-F) – Building and Project Compatibility There is no existing architectural character in the area. Consequently, the P.D.P. is required to set an enhanced level of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. The existing building and the new additions that house the service bays will be upgraded with new concrete masonry units (split-face and ground-face), in two colors and a new standing seam metal roof. The flat walls will be upgraded with pilasters for horizontal relief. The new showroom, service writer bays and sales offices will be highly visible and feature a combination of face stone as the base, architectural composite panels as the field, faux wood as an accent, and a narrow strip of aluminum composite (silver) as a trim. N. Section 3.5.1(I)(J) – Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment and Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards There are no outside storage areas as all materials associated with the dealership are either display vehicles or parts and equipment that are housed in the building. All operational characteristics are similar as found on comparable dealerships within the City. O. Section 3.5.3(C) –Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking This standard calls for commercial buildings to be brought up to a build-to line in order to establish a relationship to the public sidewalks and adjoining streets. The existing building and the proposed additions do not comply as they are setback from the two streets. The standard, however, offers exceptions in cases where: Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 9 • If the building abuts a four lane arterial (Harmony Road); • If there is an existing building; and • If there is not established pattern of existing buildings that makes a pedestrian-oriented street front feasible. The site and immediate surrounding area is characterized by all three conditions thus allowing for the exception. P. Section 3.5.3(D)(1)(2) – Variation in Massing The massing of the existing building and new addition will be differentiated primarily by use of exterior materials and colors. For the existing building and the proposed addition to the north, horizontal mass is mitigated by pilasters placed approximately every 24 feet. Vertical relief is provided by the addition of a new base consisting of four feet of dark gray, split-face block. For the new addition to the south, this is the new showroom and is significantly differentiated by use of contemporary materials such as stone panels, composite plastic panels in a dark tone and faux wood as well a storefront glazing. Q. Section 3.5.3(E)(1) – Character and Image This standard is as follows: “Section 3.5.3(E): Character and Image. Site Specific Design: Building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of a zone district, and/or the Fort Collins community with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. In the case of a multiple building development, each individual building shall include predominant characteristics shared by all building in the development so that the development forms a cohesive place within the zone district or community. A standardized prototype design shall be modified as necessary to comply with the requirements of this subsection.” The proposed addition to the south of the existing building is the new main entrance, showroom and four service bays. This addition follows the national brand imaging required for new dealerships by use of a combination of exterior materials and colors. This image requirement calls for a dark gray composite plastic panels from grade to top, accented by faux wood composite plastic panels with a narrow band of matte silver, also a composite plastic. The showroom features large glass panels on three sides. A display Jeep, mounted on an angled rack, is placed in front of the showroom. In compliance with the standard, the national image has been slightly modified by the addition of distinctive base, four feet in height, consisting of a dark gray stone panel. The display Jeep will be placed on a level surface. Further, along the south elevation, the canopy over the service write-up / express lane will be extended the full length of the wall over the exterior pedestrian door. Finally, the existing building is being upgraded with a dark c.m.u. wainscot and pilasters all of which help to minimize the overall impact of the national brand and image. R. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements: The project will be constructing the following transportation improvements in the area: • Installation of a southbound right-turn lane from Mason to Harmony; • Signal modifications at Mason and Harmony including the relocation of a signal pole; Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 10 • New pedestrian connectivity from Mason Street to the MAX BRT station along the north and west sides of the property per the Midtown in Motion Plan; • A new bus pullout and bus stop along Harmony Road; • Street frontage improvements including sidewalks and on-street bike lanes; and • Striping changes on Mason Street that will allow for a longer continuous left turn lane for increased queueing. S. Section 3.6.5 – Bus Stop Design Standards: West Harmony Road is served by Transfort Routes # 12 and 19. The existing bus stop is east of the driveway along Harmony Road which does not allow for a bus pull-out lane. This bus stop will be relocated west of the driveway and right-of-way is being dedicated for a new bus pull-out lane. 4. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on April 4, 2017. Concerns and their resolution are described below: A. Traffic Impacts: Mason Street will be widened to include a new separate southbound center left-turn lane and a new separate right turn lane. The raised median in Harmony Road will continue to restrict turn movements at the Harmony Road driveway to right-in/right-out only. The intersection of Harmony Road and Larkbunting will not be signalized. The applicant has indicated that they will provide a test drive route for customers. B. Noise: There will be no exterior loudspeakers so there is no paging or music. Car alarms are not used instead security is provided by closed-circuit television monitored by the security firm. C. Lighting: Lighting will added to the main site only, not the parcel west of the tracks. Illumination of the display vehicles will be graduated with the front row being the most illuminated with lighting levels reduced for the second and third rows. Lighting is not allowed to exceed one-tenth foot-candle as measured 20 feet from the property line. The Mason Trail and the irrigation ditch provide for approximately 80 feet of separation between the most westerly property line and Rangeview Townhomes. A dimming system will be in effect after hours. D. Old Lumber Storage Sheds West of the Tracks: This area will not be improved with this phase. At most, this area may be used for overstock just as it was for the lumber yard. Any subsequent re-development of this area will be subject to a Plan Amendment per Planning Department procedures. The applicant has entered into a good-faith negotiation with the City of Fort Collins for sale of this area as a potential Park ‘N Ride for the MAX. Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 11 E. Vagrants: The applicant has indicated that they are aware of vagrants in the area. As the site becomes fully activated, the site will likely become less attractive to vagrants. New fencing is specifically designed to be chain link with landscaping, not solid wood, so the perimeter can be more easily monitored. 5. Conclusion and Findings of Fact: In evaluating the Fort Collins Jeep P.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with overall intent and purpose of the Midtown Plan. B. The P.D.P. is a permitted use and complies with the applicable development standards of the C- G, General Commercial zone district per Article Four. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards per Article Three with one exception. D. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(J), Parking Lot Setbacks, as applied to both Harmony Road and Mason Street, has been evaluated and recommended for approval per the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(3). This is because: (1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and (2.) The Modification is justified by reason of exceptional physical or other extraordinary and exceptional situation that is unique to this property. The proposed screen wall is effective in mitigating the impacts of the parking lot. Further, the original public improvements were constructed under County standards approximately 30 years ago. Under today’s conditions, with the growth in the surrounding background traffic, additional public improvements are required. Also, strict application of the standard would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner and that these hardships were not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification and Fort Collins Jeep #PDP170013. Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 12 ATTACHMENTS 1. Jeep Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Aerial Map (PDF) 3. Planning Objectives (DOC) 4. Site Plan (PDF) 5. Landscape Plan (PDF) 6. Tree Inventory (PDF) 7. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 8. Architectural Image (PDF) 9. Architectural Image (PDF) 10. Material Sample Board (JPG) 11. Lighting Plan (PDF) 12. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 13. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 14. Phone Call Log (PDF) Mcgraw Elementary Ridgeview Park Troutman Park «¬287 Crest Rd Warbler Dr Larkbunting Dr Frontage Rd Palmer Dr Prairie St Towhee St Fairway Ln Goldeneye Dr Pavilion Ln Hummingbird Dr Widgeon St Goshawk Dr Bentley Pl W Fairway Ln M a rigold L n Thrasher St Guillemont St Kensington Dr T a b le Mountain Pl Tanager St Pipit Ct Chukar Ct Fo s sil Blvd Owl Ct W Troutman Pkwy H i n s d a l e D r W Troutman Pkwy S College Ave S Mason St W Harmony Rd E Harmony Rd E Tr o u t m a Mcgraw Elementary Ridgeview Park Troutman Park «¬287 Crest Rd Warbler Dr Larkbunting Dr Frontage Rd Palmer Dr Prairie St Towhee St Fairway Ln Goldeneye Dr Pavilion Ln Hummingbird Dr Widgeon St Goshawk Dr Bentley Pl W Fairway Ln M a rigold L n Thrasher St Guillemont St Kensington Dr T a b le Mountain Pl Tanager St Pipit Ct Chukar Ct Fo s sil Blvd Owl Ct W Troutman Pkwy H i n s d a l e D r W Troutman Pkwy S College Ave S Mason St W Harmony Rd E Harmony Rd E Tr o u t m a Mcgraw Elementary Ridgeview Park Troutman Park «¬287 Crest Rd Warbler Dr Larkbunting Dr Frontage Rd Palmer Dr Prairie St Towhee St Fairway Ln Goldeneye Dr Pavilion Ln Hummingbird Dr Widgeon St Goshawk Dr Bentley Pl W Fairway Ln M a rigold L n Thrasher St Guillemont St Kensington Dr T a b le Mountain Pl Tanager St Pipit Ct Chukar Ct Fo s sil Blvd Owl Ct W Troutman Pkwy H i n s d a l e D r W Troutman Pkwy S College Ave S Mason St W Harmony Rd E Harmony Rd E Tr o u t m a Attachment 3 March 13, 2017 Fort Collins Jeep 224 West Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado Statement of Planning Objectives The new owners of this property are looking to redevelop the site per the City of Fort Collins Plan Principles and Policies and build a new stand-alone Jeep dealership to serve the community with new and previously owned vehicle sales and service. Site improvements will include the widening of Mason Street to City standards, adding a right hand turn lane from southbound Mason Street to westbound W. Harmony Road. This improvement will enhance traffic flows and safety in the area. Along Mason Street the new frontage will include a new parkway and widened pedestrian sidewalk. We will also be installing a new 5’-0” wide path along our north property edge to provide access for pedestrians from Mason Street to our west property line linking Mason to the edge of the MAX transportation system. The project proposes a pedestrian access walk from West Harmony Road to the main building entrance for the new Jeep store. We do not show a similar access along Mason Street due to the grade differences. Another public improvement associated with this development is the relocation of the bus stop and shelter to the west side of the site’s main access drive on Harmony. This relocation will provide for a safer bus pull-out capability, allowing additional distance from the intersection at Harmony and Mason streets. The proposed development does not have an impact on wetlands, natural habitats and features or wildlife. A neighborhood meeting is being scheduled and will be completed prior to the end of the initial review timeframe. The proposed building and site improvements will include a remodel of the existing structure to be used for the sales and service of new Jeeps as part of the new Ft. Collins Jeep auto dealership. The site has an existing building of approximately 24,000 square feet which will be modified to meet new Jeep corporate image standards. Building additions along the north and west sides of the existing building to facilitate an enclosed environment for service vehicle drop-off and write-up and additional service bays. The new and pre-owned sales function will include showroom space for display of vehicles along with sales and administrative offices. Vehicle service consists of engine work, steering, alignment, brakes and tires. Parts and other materials and products used in support of the service function will be stored within the facility in designated areas. Cleaning will be fully enclosed and will have space for vehicle washing, drying and detailing. The building will also house employee support areas to include restrooms, locker rooms and an employee break room. The owner is anticipating approximately 35 employees working in the facility. Attachment 3 The site has adequate parking for customers, employees, service vehicles and new/pre- owned inventory while providing all required fire access lanes and interior landscape islands. CG UE RL UE HC VICINITY MAP NO SCALE TITLE CERTIFICATION I, ____________________ AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF _______________________ A TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, HAVE MADE AN EXAMINATION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND STATE THAT ALL OWNERS, MORTGAGEES AND LIEN HOLDERS OF THE PROPERTY ARE LISTED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND LIENHOLDER SUBORDINATION CERTIFICATE. ______________________________________ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND TITLE ______________________________________ TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SIGNED THIS _______ DAY OF ______________, 20___ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, JOHN E. KRATZ, A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION REPRESENTED BY THE THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACCURATELY REPRESENTS THAT SURVEY. . . JOHN E. KRATZ P.L.S. 20142 DATE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF RED ROCK LAND SURVEYS LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY AT ________, ON THE ________ DAY OF _________________, AD 20___. AT RECEPTION NO. ____________________ LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER BY: ____________________________ DEPUTY THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _____ DAY OF____________ AD, 20___ BY: _____________________________. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ___________________ OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE ALL OF THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED HEREON. BY:_____________________________________________________________________ NAME: TITLE: MORELAND PROPERTIES, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY SIGNED THIS ______ DAY OF ________________ AD, 20___ THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _____ DAY OF____________ AD, 20___ BY: ___________________________, AS _________________ OF MORELAND PROPERTIES, LLC. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ___________________ OWNER/DEVELOPER: COMMERCIAL BUILDING SERVICES 7561 S. GRANT STREET, SUITE A-4 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80122 PHONE: (303) 730-3001 CONTACT: STEVE MORE ENGINEER / PLAN PREPARER: PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FORT COLLINS JEEP PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN GENERAL NOTES TWD 03/15/2017 N/A JLC 16-018 2 A SUBMITTED TO FTC 03/15/2017 B SUBMITTED TO FTC 07/19/2017 C SUBMITTED TO FTC 09/08/2017 D SUBMITTED TO FTC 10/05/2017 REVISIONS DESIGN: SCALE: DRAWN: PROJECT NO: DATE: SHEET PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. LITTLETON, CO 80120 303-794-8604 7852 SOUTH ELATI STREET, SUITE 106 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R INFORMATION SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS. 2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 6. N/A. 7. N/A. 8. N/A. 9. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 10. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 11. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 12. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 13. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED SS SS S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S89°53'00"E 2649.99' (BASIS OF BEARINGS) POINT OF COMMENCEMENT SE COR. SEC. 35 T.7N, R.69W, 6TH P.M. FOUND 2-1/2" ALUM. CAP IN RANGE BOX PLS 17497 S. 1/4 COR. SEC. 35 T.7N, R.69W, 6TH P.M. FOUND 3-1/4" ALUM. CAP IN RANGE BOX, PLS 5028 MEDIAN CURB (ASPHALT) WEST HARMONY ROAD SOUTH MASON STREET (60' R.O.W.) (R.O.W. WIDTH VARIES) CONC. BIKE PARK GAS LINE MARKER "BIKE LANE" MEDIAN CURB (ASPHALT) SOUTH MASON STREET (ASPHALT) TRANSFORT BUS STOP (967.13') 23' 16' 7' 16' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ONLY ONLY 20.3' 20.1' 67.7' 23' 8.5' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5046 5046 5044 5044 5044 5042 5044 5046 5042 5040 5044 5048 5046 5046 5046 5042 S89°53'00"E 2649.99' (BASIS OF BEARINGS) (GRASS & TREES) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X L-1 FORT COLLINS JEEP NEW DEALERSHIP FACILITY 120 120 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X '_zoom X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W X X L-2 FORT COLLINS JEEP NEW DEALERSHIP FACILITY X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X '_zoom ♦ ♦ The R T O Group, Ltd. A r c h i t e c t s SM reproduced, in whole or in part, This drawing and details on it are or for any other purpose or 24 MAR. 17 RT DATE : DRN. BY: CHKD. BY: REVISIONS: 7561 S. GRANT STREET, SUITE A-4 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80122 (303) 730- 3001 WWW.CBSCONSTRUCTION.COM FT. COLLINS, COLORADO 224 WEST HARMONY ROAD FORT COLLINS JEEP Building Services, Inc. and may be the sole property of Commercial used for this specific project only. It shall not be loaned, copied or project without the written consent of Commercial Building Services, Inc. Instruments of Service: NEW ADDITION/REMODEL 1 SOUTH SCALE: 3/32'' = 1' ELEVATION - 0'' 1 SOUTH SCALE: 3/32'' = 1' ELEVATION - 0'' 2 EAST SCALE: 3/32'' = ELEVATION 1' - 0'' 3 WEST SCALE: 3/32'' = ELEVATION 1' - 0'' 4 NORTH SCALE: 3/32'' = 1' - ELEVATION 0'' A B C D E F G H J K L 1 1.5 2 3 4 4.9 5 5.2 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.5 1 L K J H G F E D C B A PROPOSED ADDITION 54'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 8'-2" 12'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION 54'-0" ED-7 ED-7 ED-7 EXP-2 EXP-2 ED-8 EXP-2 ED-4 CMU-1 ED-4 ED-4 ED-4 CMU-2 EXP-2 CMU-2 CMU-1 ED-7 EXP-2 EXP-2 ACM-1 ACM-2 ACM-3 CW-1 NSP-1 ACM-3 ACM-2 CW-1 ED-3 ACM-2 ACM-3 ACM-1 ACM-2 ACM-3 ACM-3 ACM-2 CW-1 LT-1 FORT COLLINS JEEP NEW FACILITY Lot LPD Area = 259248 Sq.ft Total Watts = 16005 LPD = 0.062 Watts/Sq.ft Lot LPD Area = 259248 Sq.ft Total Watts = 16005 LPD = 0.062 Watts/Sq.ft Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.8 1.7 0.5 1.0 2.1 0.6 1.2 2.2 0.8 1.3 2.0 0.9 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.4 3.4 6.3 4.7 6.3 14.4 8.9 4.4 9.2 6.3 2.3 3.5 3.0 3.6 6.2 4.4 6.2 14.1 8.5 4.3 9.1 6.1 2.2 3.5 2.9 3.3 5.9 4.2 6.1 13.8 8.3 4.3 8.9 5.8 2.2 3.4 2.8 3.3 6.1 4.2 6.1 14.0 8.3 4.2 8.8 5.8 2.1 3.2 2.6 3.4 6.0 4.0 6.1 14.0 8.2 Attachment 12 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Fort Collins Jeep LOCATION: 224 West Harmony Road DATE: April 4, 2017 APPLICANT: Moreland Properties LLC CONSULTANTS: Steve More, Commercial Building Services CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer Sylvia Tatman-Buruss, Neighborhood Liaison Project Description As proposed, this is a request to redevelop the former building supply building and site and add a new stand-alone Jeep dealership for vehicle sales and service. The existing 24,000 square foot building would be totally renovated and expanded to the north for service bays, parts storage and the like. The addition to the south would include showrooms for vehicle display along with sales and administrative offices. The additions would add about 10,000 square feet of new floor area. Approximately 35 employees are expected. Site improvements will include the widening of Mason Street and adding a southbound right turn lane on Mason Street to westbound Harmony Road. Mason Street improvements also include a new center left turn lane, parkway, street trees and widened sidewalk. A new five-foot wide path along the north property line will provide access for pedestrians between Mason Street and the MAX system. The existing bus stop and shelter on Harmony Road would be relocated further to the west to accommodate a new bus pull-out lane. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant’s consultant. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS: 1. Both the applicant and the City should be aware that there are currently vagrants that hang out on that corner. It appears that they take the MAX from Downtown and set up their panhandling and hang around the old sheds on both sides of the railroad tracks. Attachment 12 2 A. I anticipate that once the site is redeveloped and fully operating, the vagrants will not find the location to be very welcoming. Maybe if we illuminate the interior of the sheds on the west side of the tracks that will further discourage unwanted loitering and mischievous behavior. 2. I live in the townhomes west of the tracks and we can hear the music and paging system from Pedersen Toyota. This is a nuisance. How do you plan on operating the Jeep Dealership? A. We don’t use loudspeakers for either a paging system or music. 3. The traffic at the intersection of Harmony and Mason is a mess. The congestion is terrible. Traffic gets backed up in all directions. It’s hard to make a left out from Larkbunting onto Harmony. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: The City will be requiring the construction of a new, separate southbound Mason left-turn lane to go west on Harmony. This will help with congestion. We will also be closing the driveway on Mason that is closest to Harmony. And, we are working on doing a better job of synchronizing the traffic signals at Harmony and Mason to move out the westbound traffic. 4. I’m concerned about all the additional traffic generated by the proposed dealership, especially test drive traffic. A. We will provide a test drive plan that will try to minimize traffic congestion. 5. What about the driveway on Harmony? A. Presently, this is already restricted to right-in/right-out turns only due to the raised median in Harmony. The City will evaluate the Transportation Impact Study to see whether or not any further turning restrictions may be necessary. 6. You mentioned that Mason Street will be widened. How far north will the widening go? A. We will go as far as our north property line. 7. Besides a new right-turn lane, what else triggers the widening of Mason? A. We will also be adding a center left turn lane and bike lanes. 8. I own a business on Mason Street and concerned about road construction requiring street closures. Closing the street will impact my business and should be avoided or kept to an absolute minimum. Attachment 12 3 A. We will coordinate with the City on how best to handle road construction and traffic control. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Prior to any road work, the applicant’s contractor will be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan that will determine whether or not there is partial or full road closure during construction. 9. Will the dealership include a body shop? A. No. 10. What about the old sheds on the west side of the railroad tracks? A. At this time, we have no plans for that area. Maybe the sheds could be used in the event of a hailstorm. 11. We are concerned about lighting and the amount of illumination generally associated with a car dealership. A. The City requires our light fixtures to be down-directional. Flood lights are not allowed. There is also a requirement that the foot-candles do not exceed one- tenth (0.1) as measured 20 feet beyond our property line. We may also consider dimming controls so that some of the fixtures could be dimmed after hours. 12. Living west of Pedersen, I’m concerned about noise. A. Response from City Planner: The City’s Noise Ordinance requires that decibels cannot exceed certain levels during the day and then during the night as measured from the receiving property line. For the hours of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, the maximum decibel level is 60 dBA. For the hours of 8:00 pm to 7:00 am, the maximum decibel level is 55 dBA. For your reference, this regulation is in Chapter 20 of the City Code. 13. I would like to go back to the earlier comment about our difficulty when heading south on Larkbunting and then trying to make a left turn to go east on Harmony. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: During peak hours, it is difficult to make a left turn onto an arterial street from an unsignalized intersection. This is the case city-wide. We will likely not signalize Larkbunting because it’s too close to the existing signal at Mason Street. We recommend taking a different route during peak times to avoid delays. Attachment 12 4 14. Will the building include two stories? A. No, the building will feature high interior volume but not two stories, except in the back there will be a mezzanine for the parts department. 15. Living west of Pedersen Toyota means having to listen to car alarms going off during off hours. Since then, they have taken corrective measures. How do you plan on handling security during off hours? A. We do not use car alarms. Instead, we will have a system of close circuit t.v.’s that are wired directly to our security firm. 16. You may not be aware but there is a large dead tree on the property that is very unsightly. Although it’s near the ditch, it appears to be the owner’s responsibility. A. We will look into this. 17. What about fencing? A. We will use chain link fencing along the west side up to a point but where the fence gets close to Harmony, we will use bollards that are about 2 – 3 foot high as these are more attractive and control access to the site so vehicles are not driven across the landscaping. 18. I just want to reiterate that vagrants and panhandlers hang out in this area and down around the Walmart as well. The vacant sheds are an attractive nuisance. I’ve even seem some sleeping under the large Spruce tree. Both the owner and the City need to be aware of this take action to solve the problem. A. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are as interested as you are in not having undesirable behavior on or around our property. P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FTHTRANSGROUP.COM March 9, 2017 Steve More Commercial Building Services 7561 S. Grant Street, A‐4 Littleton, CO 80122 RE: Jeep Dealership Traffic Analysis – Fort Collins, Colorado The Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group has completed a traffic impact study for the proposed Jeep Dealership in the City of Fort Collins. The project plans to renovate the existing dealership building located at the northwest corner of Harmony Road at Mason Street. Currently the 4.5‐acre site has a building that has been vacant since 2008 and was previously used as a lumber yard by United Building Centers. The current Fort Collins Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram dealership on College Avenue plans to remodel the existing building to provide a separate Jeep dealership. The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a result of this project. The traffic study addresses existing and short‐term peak hour intersection conditions in the study area. The information contained within this study is anticipated to be used by the City in identifying any intersection or roadway deficiencies and potential improvements that may be required of the project. This memorandum summarizes the analyses, findings, and recommendations. It is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) (April 2007). Project Description The project proposes to renovate the existing building on the project site to house the Jeep dealership. It is anticipated to be opened in 2018. The building is approximately 30,800 square feet (sq. ft.) and is planned to be remodeled and expanded. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site and access plan is provided on Figure 2. Surrounding the site is retail/service centers, as well as single and multi‐family residential neighborhoods to the west. Adjacent to the site there is the Volvo dealership and a storage unit to the north and McDonalds, auto mechanic shop, small retail, and a gas station to the east. Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Page 2 The site currently has two accesses, one on Harmony Road west of Mason Street and one on Mason Street north of Harmony Road. With the renovation, it is proposed that the access on Harmony Road will remain the same, while the access on Mason Street will move to the north by approximately 300 feet. Access #1 will be full‐movement and side‐street stop‐control; it will be an off‐set T‐intersection with Kensington Drive. Access #2 is about 250 feet west of Mason Street with restricted movement of right‐in, right‐out and side‐street stop‐control. Both accesses will have one lane in and one lane out. Study Area Roadways The study area was developed with consideration of the amount of site traffic to be added to the surrounding street network and planned accesses. The existing study area street network consists of two arterials and one local road. The primary public roadways that serve the project site are discussed in the following text. Harmony Road is an east‐west arterial roadway that connects the southern Fort Collins community to residential neighborhoods, large retail centers, office complexes, and I‐25. It travels east from Taft Hill Road to the county line providing local and regional connectivity. West of Taft Hill Road this street turns into County Road 38E that leads into the foothills and east of the county line it changes into County Road 74 that leads to rural communities of Weld County. Harmony Road within the study area has been identified as an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) that is “planned to incorporate high frequency transit, bicycling, and walking as part of the corridor.” For more information on the recommendations for this corridor refer to the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan, July 2013. Adjacent to the project location the roadway is 74‐foot to 88‐foot wide and includes 11‐foot through lanes, two per direction; 7‐foot bike lanes; 8‐foot center median; and auxiliary lanes at Mason Street. Harmony Road currently serves approximately 32,300 vehicles per day (vpd) just east of Mason Street (Year 2013). The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph) within the study area. This roadway is the southern boundary of the proposed site. Mason Street is a north‐south, two‐lane arterial roadway that extends from just south of Harmony Road to Monroe Drive. This roadway is part of the Mason Corridor that also includes a bicycle/pedestrian trail and the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The Mason Corridor connects major destinations and activity centers between downtown, business centers, Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and retail areas. Mason Street is a byway through commercial and office centers. This street is 38 feet in width and includes 13‐foot through lanes, one per Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Page 3 direction; and 6‐foot bike lanes. Mason Street currently serves approximately 8,500 vpd just north of Harmony Road. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. This roadway is the eastern boundary of the proposed site. Kensington Drive is an east‐west, two‐lane local roadway that travels from Mason Street east 0.25 mile into the Harmony Marketplace. It provides direct access to College Avenue. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Intersections There are two existing intersections included in the study area. They are listed below with the current traffic control: 1. Harmony Road at Mason Street (signalized) 2. Mason Street at Kensington Drive (side‐street stop‐controlled) The lane configuration at the study intersection is illustrated on Figure 3. Pedestrian and Bicycle There are sidewalks on both sides of Harmony Road and Mason Street. Those on Harmony Road are a mix of attached and detached ranging between 6 and 8 feet. The sidewalks on Mason Street at attached and 5 feet in width. There is a regional trail west of the site, Mason Trail, that connects to other trails and recreational areas. Currently bike lanes are present on both Harmony Road and Mason Street in both directions. There is a bike shop across Harmony Road from the project site. Transit Currently, the project area is served by Transfort and there are three bus routes that have stops near the project site. These routes stop at the South Transit Center:  Route 12 – Connects the South Transit Center to Harmony Road west, Taft Hill Road, Front Ranch Community College, Horsetooth Road and Fort Collins High School. Monday through Saturday this bus route has 60 minute headways (6:35 AM to 10:35 PM).  Route 16 – Connects the South Transit Center to Harmony Road east, Fossil Ridge High School, Poudre Valley Hospital Harmony Campus, and the Harmony Transfer Center. Monday through Saturday this bus route has 30 minute headways in peak times and 60 minute headways in the off‐peak times (5:55 AM to 10:45 PM).  Route 19 – Connects the South Transit Center to Harmony Road east, Shields Street, Front Ranch Community College, Spring Creek Medical Park, Rocky Mountain High School, and the Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Page 4 CSU Transfer Center. During the weekdays Route 19 provides 60 minute headways with additional 30 minute headways during peak periods when the Poudre School District and CSU are in session (6:50 AM to 7:45 PM). The South Transit Center is directly south of the dealership site by 1/3 mile and it connects many bus routes to the MAX BRT. This fast transit option travels north‐south within the Mason Corridor and connects south Fort Collins to Midtown to CSU to Downtown. From Monday to Saturday the headways are every 10 minutes. Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes were collected on August 17, 2016. The City of Fort Collins also provided a turning movement count for Harmony Road at Mason Street from 2015. The most recent counts were collected did not capture the same peak hours as the City’s data; therefore, the City’s intersection count was utilized for Harmony Road at Mason Street and the volumes are Mason Street and Kensington Drive were adjusted accordingly. The count data indicated that the AM peak hour occurs from 7:30 to 8:30 AM and the PM peak hour occurs from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. These existing traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 3. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis In determining the operational characteristics of an intersection, “Levels‐of‐Service” (LOS) A through F are applied, with LOS A indicating very good operations and LOS F indicating congested operations. The intersection LOS is represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each movement. A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained within the Appendix for reference. Criteria contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was applied for these analyses in order to determine existing levels‐of‐service during peak hour periods. The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level‐of‐service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The following bullets summarize the existing conditions and capacity deficiencies:  Harmony Road at Mason Street: This intersection is currently operating at LOS A overall in the AM peak hour and LOS C overall in the PM peak hour. The only movement that falls below the LCUASS Standards is the northbound left‐turn, which will operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. It is typical for left‐turns to operate at LOS E/F during peak periods, especially intersections along major arterials. The average queue remains within the provided storage length and the 95th percentile queue extends beyond the storage for an estimated length of 176 feet (about seven vehicles). It should be noted that the southbound through+right will Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Page 5 operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour due to the high right‐turning volume and sharing of the lane. The queue for this movement will block the left‐turn lane. o Recommendations: Construct a southbound right‐turn lane to reduce the delay on the southbound approach and accommodate the over 200 turning vehicles. This mitigation will improve the southbound through and right‐turn to LOS D and the northbound left‐turn will improve as well to LOS C in the PM peak hour. Table 2 includes level of service with the mitigation measures.  Mason Street at Kensington Drive: This intersection is currently operating at LOS A overall in both peak hours. The westbound approach operates at LOS B in both peak hours. Short‐Term Traffic Projections For the purpose of this study, the short‐term horizon year was assumed to be five‐years from the existing condition (Year 2021) as directed in the LCUASS. In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions were estimated based on historic count volumes and regional traffic modeling. The City’s data indicates that the volumes on Harmony Road have decreased over the last 15 years. In Year 2012 there was nearly 37,900 vehicles per day (vpd) and in Year 2016 there was 32,400 vpd. Conservatively, the existing volumes were grown by an annual growth rate of 1.0%. The 2021 background volumes are summarized on Figure 4. 2021 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis The level‐of‐service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area intersections to determine the impacts with the short‐term background volumes. The results of the LOS calculations for the study intersection is summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The projected Year 2021 background conditions and capacity deficiencies are summarized as follows:  Harmony Road at Mason Street: This intersection is estimated to continue to operate at LOS A overall in the AM peak hour and LOS C overall in the PM peak hour. With the existing lane configuration, the northbound left‐turn and southbound through+right will operate at LOS F. o Recommendations: Construct a southbound right‐turn lane as suggested in existing conditions. This mitigation will improve the southbound through and right‐turn to LOS D and the northbound left‐turn will improve as well to LOS C in the PM peak hour. Table 2 includes level of service with the mitigation measures. Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Page 6  Mason Street at Kensington Drive: This intersection will continue to operate at LOS A overall in both peak hours. The westbound approach will operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. Trip Generation To establish the volume of new trips that will be added to the area roadway network with the renovation of the lumber yard into a Jeep dealership, trip generation estimates were developed based on data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual1 for the most applicable land use category. The project proposes to utilize the existing 25,430 sq. ft. building and add approximately 5,336 sq. ft. for a total of 30,766 sq. ft. The trips for the Jeep dealership was estimated with land use “#841 Automobile Sales”. The most applicable ITE land use was utilized and the square footage was multiplied by the ITE trip rates to estimate the new site traffic as shown in Table 3. The proposed project is expected to experience mostly new trips, known as ‘primary trips’, which is discussed below: Primary Trips. These trips are made specifically to visit the site and are considered “new” trips. Primary trips would not have been made if the Jeep dealership did not exist at this location. Therefore, this is the only trip type that increases the number of trips made on a regional basis. Using the ITE methodology and the assumptions discussed in this section, the project is anticipated to generate primary trips as summarized in Table 3. It was assumed that there will be a non‐auto trip reduction of 5% to account for bike, pedestrian, and transit trips given the proximity to residential neighborhoods, trails, and transit (MAX BRT and bus routes). Trip Distribution and Assignment The estimated trips presented in Table 2 were distributed onto the adjacent street network based on existing traffic characteristics of the area and the proposed land use. The scale of the project indicates that it will serve the local and regional community, which is reflected in the trip distribution. The overall assumed distribution is as follows, as well as presented on Figure 5:  40% to/from Harmony Road east  40% to/from Harmony Road west  10% to/from Mason Street north 1 Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, DC. 2012.  5% to/from Mason Street south  5% to/from Kensington Drive east Attachment 13 Terumo BCT Expansion Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FTHTRANSGROUP.COM This is consistent with existing traffic patterns. Using these distribution assumptions, the projected site traffic was assigned to the study area roadway network for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The site‐generated volumes are shown on Figure 6. 2021 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis The site‐generated traffic volumes were added to the 2021 background volumes to analyze potential site impacts in the short‐term build out scenario. The 2021 background + site‐generated traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 7. The LOS criteria discussed in prior sections was applied to the study area intersections to determine impacts with the addition of site‐build out traffic volumes in the short‐term. The results of the LOS calculations for the study intersection and accesses are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level‐of‐service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The project trips have little to no effect on the study intersections. The following bullets summarize the short‐term build‐out conditions:  Harmony Road at Mason Street: This intersection will begin to operate at LOS B overall in the AM peak hour and LOS D overall in the PM peak hour. With the existing lane configuration, the northbound left‐turn and southbound through+right will operate at LOS F. o Recommendations: With the construction of a southbound right‐turn lane this intersection will return to operating at LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. This mitigation will improve the southbound through and right‐turn to LOS D and the northbound left‐turn will improve as well to LOS C in the PM peak hour. Table 2 includes level of service with the mitigation measures.  Mason Street at Kensington Drive: This intersection will continue to operate at LOS A overall in both peak hours. The westbound approach will continue to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour.  Access #1 and Mason Street: This intersection will operate at LOS A in both peak periods with all movements operating at LOS B or better.  Access #2 and Harmony Road: This intersection will operate at LOS A in both peak periods with all movements operating at LOS B or better. Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Transit The project proposes to construct a five‐foot gravel trail on the north edge of the property to provide direct access between Mason Street and the Mason Trail and MAX station. The westbound bus stop currently on Harmony Road, west of Mason Street, is proposed to be relocated to the far side of the property driveway (Access #2). The new bus stop will include an enclosed shelter, bench, trash receptacle, and bike rack as existing today. Conclusions The project is proposing to develop a 4.5± acre site located at the northwest corner of Harmony Road at Mason Street. The project proposes to remodel and expand the existing dealership building to become a Jeep dealership. The project site currently has two accesses, one on Harmony Road and one on Mason Street. Access #2 will be about 330 feet south of Kensington Drive and will provide full‐movement and side‐street stop‐ control. This access will be an offset T‐intersection with Kensington Drive and the configuration will eliminate left‐turns from conflicting with one another between the intersections. Access #2 will be about 270 feet west of Mason Street with right‐in, right‐out and side‐street stop‐control. This study addresses short‐term (2021) site traffic impacts. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 944 weekday daily trips, with 56 AM peak hour and 77 PM peak hour trips. Recommended mitigation measures to service the background and site‐added traffic volumes include the following:  Construct a southbound right‐turn lane on Mason Street at Harmony Road.  Construct both accesses as side‐street stop‐controlled and with one lane per direction. Access #1 should be full movement and Access #2 should remain right‐in, right‐out. Hopefully the contents of this memorandum are helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, FOX TUTTLE HERNANDEZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC Cassie Slade, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Attachment 13 Fort Collins Jeep Dealership Traffic Impact Study March 9, 2017 Tables and Figures: Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary Table 2 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary with Recommended Mitigation Table 3 – Trip Generation Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan Figure 3 – Year 2016 Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 – Year 2021 Background Traffic Volumes Figure 5 – Site Trip Distribution Figure 6 – Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 7 – Year 2021 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes Attachment 13 FTH# 16051 Jeep Dealership - Fort Collins, CO Traffic Impact Study 3/9/2017 2016 Existing 2021 Background 2021 Background + Project Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Lanes Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS STOP SIGN CONTROL Mason St. & Kensington Dr. 1A3A0A3A1A3A Westbound Left+Right 10 B 15 B 10 B 16 C 11 B 16 C Northbound Through+Right 0A0A0A0A0A0A Southbound Left+Through 2A2A2A2A2A2A Mason St. & Access #1 1A1A Eastbound Left+Right 9A13B Northbound Left+Through 1A1A Southbound Through+Right 0A0A Harmony Rd. & Access #2 0A0A Eastbound Through+Right 0A0A Westbound Through 0A0A Southbound Right 10 A 11 B SIGNAL CONTROL Harmony Rd. & Mason St. 10 A 31 C 10 A 34 C 10 B 36 D Eastbound Left 2A22C2A24C2A29C Eastbound Through 6A20B6A20C6A20C Eastbound Right 3A14B2A13B3A13B Westbound Left 1A10B2A12B2A12B Westbound Through 1A25C2A29C2A30C Westbound Right 1A5A1A5A1A5A Northbound Left 44 D 103 F 45 D 120 F 44 D 120 F Northbound Through 42 D 29 C 41 D 29 C 41 D 29 C Northbound Right 41 D 28 C 40 D 28 C 40 D 28 C Southbound Left 47 D 39 D 48 D 39 D 48 D 40 D Southbound Through+Right 45 D 71 E 46 D 83 F 45 D 89 F Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. Table 1 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary 16051_LOS Attachment 13 FTH# 16051 Jeep Dealership - Fort Collins, CO Traffic Impact Study 3/9/2017 2016 Existing 2021 Background 2021 Background + Project Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Lanes Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS SIGNAL CONTROL Harmony Rd. & Mason St. 9 A 24 C 10 A 26 C 10 A 27 C Eastbound Left 2A22C2A24C2A29C Eastbound Through 6A20B6A20C6A20C Eastbound Right 3A14B2A13B3A13B Westbound Left 1A10B2A12B2A12B Westbound Through 1A25C2A29C2A30C Westbound Right 1A5A1A5A1A5A Northbound Left 43 D 31 C 42 D 32 C 42 D 32 C Northbound Through 42 D 29 C 41 D 29 C 41 D 29 C Northbound Right 41 D 28 C 40 D 28 C 40 D 28 C Southbound Left 47 D 39 D 48 D 39 D 48 D 40 D Southbound Through 43 D 38 D 43 D 38 D 42 D 38 D Southbound Right 41 D 41 D 41 D 42 D 40 D 43 D Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. Table 2 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary with Recommended Mitigation 16051_LOS Attachment 13 FTH#16051 Jeep Dealership ‐ Fort Collins, CO Traffic Impact Study 3/9/2017 Land Use Size Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out ITE 841 ‐ Automobile Sales 30.766 Square Feet 0.95 32.3 944 472 472 1.9 56 42 14 2.6 77 31 46 Source : ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition, 2012. Table 3 ‐ Trip Generation Average Daily New Trips AM Peak Hour New Trips PM Peak Hour Non‐Auto New Trips Factor 16051_Volumes - Trip Gen Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p VICINITY MAP FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 3/9/17 CRS 1 Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 NTS 3/9/17 CRS 2 Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p YEAR 2016 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 NTS 3/9/17 CRS 3 Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p YEAR 2021 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 NTS 3/9/17 CRS 4 Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 NTS 3/9/17 CRS 5 Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 NTS 3/9/17 CRS 6 Attachment 13 Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p YEAR 2021 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS JEEP DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 16051 NTS 3/9/17 CRS 7 Attachment 13 Attachment 14 Attachment 15 -----Original Message----- From: t & g wojo [mailto:gregandtashaswedding2006@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:30 PM To: Ted Shepard; steve@cbsconstruction.com Subject: Sign 348 Harmony and mason Hello just writing in regards to the neighborhood sign 348 at Harmony and Mason that the city and Jeep project include a much needed right turn lane there on the northwest corner. Traffic is already a problem there and a right turn lane needs to be added so more than 3 cars can get through the light. Thank you for reading our feedback and hopefully getting that right turn lane included in the project. The Wojciechowski family Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME SMALL CELL REGULATIONS LAND USE CODE CHANGES STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding updates to the Land Use Code related to small cell wireless technology in public right-of-way. These proposed revisions add language to Section 3.8.13 addressing small cells and revises the definition of development in Article 5 that addresses small cells. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State statute allows small cell facilities in public right-of-way as a use by right. This means the State law pre-empts local law and municipalities must allow small cell facilities in the right-of-way. The City of Fort Collins has a moratorium on small cell facilities in the right-of-way that will last until the end of 2017 or until the City develops a code pertaining to these facilities, whichever comes first. Most of these changes affect the City Code. These proposed changes to the Land Use Code ensure consistency between the Land Use Code and City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 - Problem Statement and Proposed Solution (PDF) 2. Attachment 2 - Proposed Land Use Code Changes (PDF) Problem Statement: In April 2017, the State of Colorado passed a bill that allows small cell wireless facilities in the right‐of‐ way as a use by right. This means municipalities must allow small cell facilities in the right‐of‐way. Currently, the City does not have a process for small cell applications nor does it have design standards for these facilities. Without a process or design standards, small cell facilities could lack the quality the community desires. Proposed Solution: As a response, the City of Fort Collins passed a moratorium on small cell facilities in the right‐of‐way. This moratorium allows the City time to develop a process and design standards for applications to build small cell facilities in the right‐of‐way. The moratorium will last until the end of 2017 or whenever the City passes legislation for small cell facilities in the right‐of‐way, whichever comes first. Most of the code changes for small cells will affect the Municipal Code. The Land Use Code changes required for small cells in the right‐of‐way are to ensure the Municipal Code and Land Use Code are coordinated. Both changes to the Land Use Code clarify that wireless equipment or facilities in the right‐of‐way are subject to standards and procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code. All cell facilities proposed outside of the right‐of‐way fall under the current definitions for wireless telecommunications equipment or facility. Attachment 2 shows the proposed Land Use Code changes for Section 3.8.13 and the definition of development in Article 5. Attachment 1 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION ORDINANCE NO. , 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 3.8.13 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.13 - Wireless Telecommunication (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owners or lessees or employees thereof, and applicants for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant's good faith efforts toward such cooperation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography, and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building or structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extend feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. Roof- and ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building's design, color and material. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to the unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. (11) Access Roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city's foothills and hogbacks. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city's Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ "stealth technology" so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use of grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar "mimic" structures. Such "mimic" structures shall have a contextual relationship to the adjacent area. (D) The regulations contained in this Section shall not apply to the installation, operation, maintenance, or upgrade of wireless telecommunication equipment or a wireless telecommunication facility by a telecommunications provider within a public highway as the terms telecommunications provider and public highway are defined in Section 38-5.5- 102, C.R.S. The regulation of such activities is addressed in Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3. That the definition of “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Development shall mean the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or, except as is authorized in Section 1.4.7, the dividing of land into two (2) or more parcels. (1) Development shall also include: (a) any construction, placement, reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material change in the external appearance of a structure on land; (b) any change in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of dwelling units in a structure or on a tract of land or a material increase in the intensity and impacts of the development; (c) any change in use of land or a structure; (d) any alteration of a shore or bank of a river, stream, lake, pond, reservoir or wetland; (e) the commencement of drilling (except to obtain soil samples), mining, stockpiling of fill materials, filling or excavation on a parcel of land; (f) the demolition of a structure; (g) the clearing of land as an adjunct of construction; (h) the deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land. (i) the installation of landscaping within the public right-of-way, when installed in connection with the development of adjacent property. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (j) the construction of a roadway through or adjoining an area that qualifies for protection by the establishment of limits of development. (2) Development shall not include: (a) work by the City, or by the Downtown Development Authority (if within the jurisdictional boundary of the Downtown Development Authority and if such work has been agreed upon in writing by the City and the Authority), or work by a highway or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance or improvement of a road or railroad track, if the work is carried out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way, or on land adjacent to the right-of-way if such work is incidental to a project within the right-of-way; (b) work by the City or any public utility for the purpose of restoring or stabilizing the ecology of a site, or for the purpose of inspecting, repairing, renewing or constructing, on public easements or rights-of-way, any mains, pipes, cables, utility tunnels, power lines, towers, poles, tracks or the like; provided, however, that this exemption shall not include work by the City or a public utility in constructing or enlarging mass transit or railroad depots or terminals or any similar traffic-generating activity; (c) the maintenance, renewal, improvement, or alteration of any structure, if the work affects only the interior or the color of the structure or the decoration of the exterior of the structure; (d) the use of any land for the purpose of growing plants, crops, trees and other agricultural or forestry products; for raising or feeding livestock (other than in feedlots); for other agricultural uses or purposes; or for the delivery of water by ditch or canal to agricultural uses or purposes, provided none of the above creates a nuisance, and except that an urban agriculture license is required in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this Code; (e) a change in the ownership or form of ownership of any parcel or structure; (f) the creation or termination of rights of access, easements, covenants concerning development of land, or other rights in land.; (g) the installation, operation, maintenance, or upgrade of wireless telecommunication equipment or a wireless telecommunication facility by a telecommunications provider within a public highway as the terms telecommunications provider and public highway are defined in Section 38-5.5-102, C.R.S. The regulation of such activities is addressed in Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (3) When appropriate in context, development shall also mean the act of developing or the result of development. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of _________, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the _____ day of ______, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this _____ day of ________, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 4.1 8.9 5.8 2.1 3.3 2.6 3.3 5.8 3.9 6.1 13.7 8.1 4.3 8.8 5.6 2.1 3.3 2.7 3.2 6.0 4.1 6.1 13.9 8.2 4.2 8.8 5.9 2.1 3.3 2.7 3.3 6.1 4.2 6.1 14.1 8.4 3.9 8.6 5.7 1.3 2.2 1.9 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 2.0 3.2 2.3 5.6 11.3 6.2 6.0 12.6 6.9 3.7 6.1 4.1 5.6 10.8 5.9 6.0 12.7 6.7 2.4 4.1 2.6 2.1 3.3 2.7 17' PARKING STALLS 17.0' 19.0' 17.0' 17' PARKING STALLS 19' PARKING STALLS ONLY ONLY Lot LPD Area = 259248 Sq.ft Total Watts = 16005 LPD = 0.062 Watts/Sq.ft Lot LPD Area = 259248 Sq.ft Total Watts = 16005 LPD = 0.062 Watts/Sq.ft Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Total Lamp Lumens Lum. Lumens LLF Description Lum. Watts BUG Rating 4 Type GG GE SINGLE N.A. 28100 1.000 EALS02_K2AN730________WITH ELS-E 281 B3-U0-G3 1 Type AA GE SINGLE N.A. 26600 1.000 EALS02_K4AF730________WITH ELS-E 281 B3-U0-G4 17 Type BB GE SINGLE N.A. 28100 1.000 EALS02_K5SM730________ 281 B5-U0-G3 16 Type Canopy GE SINGLE N.A. 7740 1.000 ECBB_B5F530______ 64 B3-U0-G1 9 Type CC GE SINGLE N.A. 4900 1.000 EWS3_C7E130_____-120-277V 41 B1-U0-G1 15 Type AAD Dual GE TWIN N.A. 26600 1.000 EALS02_K4AF730________WITH ELS-E 281 B3-U0-G4 Type GG GE MH: 22 Type GG GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE Type BB GE MH: 22 MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 12 Type Canopy GE MH: 12 Type Canopy GE MH: 12 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type Canopy GE MH: 14 Type GG GE MH: 22 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type CC GE MH: 14 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type GG GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AA GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type AAD Dual GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 Type BB GE MH: 22 4.4 6.1 5.0 4.1 3.7 4.6 5.6 4.8 4.3 4.6 5.4 4.1 8.9 18.6 6.7 3.1 3.5 10.3 18.2 6.2 3.2 5.1 16.1 12.0 7.5 15.4 5.5 2.2 2.7 8.7 15.4 5.1 2.4 4.1 13.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.7 3.6 4.6 3.8 3.8 5.8 6.2 5.4 5.0 5.1 5.8 5.9 5.0 4.6 4.8 5.4 5.9 5.2 4.6 5.0 5.9 6.6 6.0 5.8 6.4 7.1 7.2 5.6 4.3 4.2 2.6 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.3 2.2 3.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 6.0 7.0 7.3 7.0 8.1 9.7 11.3 11.4 11.6 11.5 11.5 13.2 12.0 12.5 10.3 9.5 12.1 11.4 11.9 10.6 9.4 12.2 11.6 12.3 11.3 10.3 13.4 13.1 14.2 13.3 11.8 13.5 10.6 8.4 4.5 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.8 3.4 4.9 5.2 7.8 9.7 10.6 11.3 9.4 13.8 14.4 15.6 16.0 14.9 20.5 21.1 20.5 19.6 20.3 20.4 19.3 17.5 16.4 18.8 19.5 18.9 17.6 15.5 19.0 19.9 19.7 18.6 16.7 20.4 21.9 22.4 21.9 20.8 22.9 18.1 12.1 5.8 2.4 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.0 2.1 4.1 5.9 7.6 8.7 11.9 15.6 17.5 18.0 17.3 20.2 22.5 23.2 22.3 22.8 26.8 28.1 24.1 21.6 22.7 23.1 21.7 18.9 18.4 20.9 22.4 21.8 19.2 18.8 21.2 23.5 23.2 20.4 20.1 22.9 26.0 27.1 26.2 28.2 28.8 22.6 13.1 5.7 2.6 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.3 4.2 6.9 8.8 9.8 12.4 16.7 19.7 18.6 18.1 20.4 22.6 23.4 21.8 21.1 24.6 26.7 23.0 20.8 20.3 18.4 18.8 18.3 17.8 18.9 17.9 18.6 18.6 17.8 19.5 19.2 19.9 19.9 19.3 21.6 22.3 24.9 28.2 29.0 29.2 22.4 13.1 6.1 2.7 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.1 3.4 5.7 8.3 9.3 11.3 13.8 16.2 17.7 17.4 18.1 17.4 18.1 20.0 19.9 20.6 19.7 18.3 17.1 15.3 13.5 13.7 14.5 14.9 14.3 13.2 13.7 14.6 14.9 14.9 14.2 14.9 16.4 16.9 17.3 17.8 20.7 25.7 26.5 26.3 17.6 11.8 6.7 2.8 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.9 4.2 6.1 7.9 9.8 11.1 12.2 13.9 14.3 13.7 13.1 14.4 15.9 16.2 16.7 16.4 14.9 14.1 13.2 11.5 10.9 11.3 12.1 11.8 11.5 11.7 11.5 11.5 12.3 12.4 12.8 13.9 14.2 15.2 16.5 19.0 23.3 26.4 25.9 20.9 13.0 5.8 2.6 1.4 0.8 0.5 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.5 4.8 6.6 8.3 9.1 9.7 10.7 11.5 11.3 11.4 12.3 12.9 13.4 14.3 14.4 13.1 12.0 11.6 10.5 9.7 10.0 10.2 9.6 9.5 10.1 10.1 10.3 10.6 10.5 10.9 12.2 13.6 14.5 15.2 17.1 20.7 26.0 27.8 20.4 12.1 5.0 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.4 3.5 6.3 4.8 2.9 3.0 4.2 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.2 9.2 9.4 10.0 10.3 10.4 11.3 12.0 12.8 12.5 12.2 11.2 10.3 9.6 9.4 8.9 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.7 9.1 9.6 9.2 9.5 9.9 11.4 12.8 14.0 15.1 16.9 20.4 25.3 27.2 20.2 12.0 4.7 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 6.4 14.5 8.9 3.4 2.7 3.7 5.0 5.7 6.6 6.2 7.6 7.9 8.6 9.0 8.9 9.7 9.9 11.0 11.1 10.5 9.9 9.7 8.8 8.8 7.7 7.6 6.6 6.6 7.5 7.8 8.3 8.0 8.1 8.2 10.6 11.5 13.4 14.7 16.4 21.3 23.5 23.8 19.0 11.7 5.0 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 4.4 9.2 6.3 2.9 2.4 3.3 4.7 5.6 6.6 6.8 7.4 7.5 8.0 8.5 8.6 9.5 10.2 11.2 11.3 11.7 10.9 10.1 9.3 8.5 7.5 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.9 8.5 10.4 12.4 14.3 15.8 18.2 22.4 22.5 23.0 15.3 10.4 5.3 1.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 2.3 3.5 3.1 2.2 2.1 2.7 4.0 5.5 6.3 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.0 7.3 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.8 11.9 11.2 9.8 9.6 9.1 7.7 7.0 6.6 5.8 5.6 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.7 6.8 7.8 9.8 12.5 13.9 14.8 17.6 22.2 25.3 24.2 19.0 11.5 4.4 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 3.6 6.3 4.4 2.3 1.9 2.4 3.3 5.1 6.9 7.4 7.8 7.3 6.2 6.5 8.1 9.2 9.5 10.6 11.2 10.4 9.6 9.0 7.9 6.9 6.2 5.8 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.1 4.1 5.3 6.3 7.4 9.3 10.4 12.5 14.3 16.9 20.1 25.1 26.2 18.8 10.6 3.8 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 6.2 14.1 8.5 2.8 1.9 2.4 3.4 5.1 6.4 6.7 7.2 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.9 8.0 8.6 9.8 9.4 8.8 7.8 6.8 6.8 5.7 5.3 4.3 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.8 5.2 6.7 7.9 8.5 10.3 11.8 15.2 18.8 23.7 25.5 18.6 10.7 3.7 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 4.3 9.1 6.1 2.5 2.0 2.6 4.0 5.3 6.1 6.7 7.2 7.6 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.7 8.0 8.7 9.0 8.1 7.2 6.1 6.2 5.2 4.5 3.3 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 3.4 6.2 9.3 8.9 8.3 9.8 11.6 15.0 19.3 22.2 22.2 17.3 10.7 4.3 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 2.2 3.5 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.7 4.1 4.8 5.9 5.9 7.1 7.6 8.1 7.7 7.3 6.4 6.8 7.3 8.0 7.7 6.4 5.7 5.5 4.9 3.2 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.8 7.1 14.4 9.6 7.9 8.9 10.8 14.1 19.0 20.0 20.6 13.6 9.4 4.6 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 3.3 5.9 4.2 2.1 1.8 2.7 4.1 4.9 6.4 7.0 8.2 8.5 8.8 7.8 7.2 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.6 6.7 5.6 4.8 4.7 3.6 1.0 2.2 5.4 7.7 9.7 13.0 17.3 20.9 21.3 17.4 10.5 3.8 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 6.1 13.8 8.3 2.6 1.8 2.4 3.8 5.6 7.2 8.2 8.4 8.9 9.3 8.3 7.2 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.0 5.2 4.9 4.5 3.7 2.4 0.7 1.9 4.0 6.0 8.3 11.1 14.6 20.5 23.5 17.1 9.6 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 4.3 8.9 5.8 2.3 1.6 2.1 3.3 5.6 7.5 8.0 8.4 8.6 7.9 7.5 7.1 6.0 6.3 7.9 7.5 5.2 5.3 6.5 4.5 2.2 0.5 1.6 3.5 5.1 7.4 10.3 14.3 20.3 22.9 17.1 9.8 3.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.2 3.4 2.8 1.7 1.5 1.9 3.0 4.7 6.0 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.3 6.0 11.9 13.6 6.4 7.8 13.9 7.7 2.2 0.5 1.2 3.2 4.9 7.4 10.8 15.7 19.0 20.1 16.0 9.9 3.8 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 3.3 6.1 4.2 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.8 4.3 5.1 6.1 5.8 6.1 5.8 5.3 4.7 3.6 1.1 2.9 4.9 7.9 11.6 16.6 18.1 19.5 12.7 8.9 4.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 6.1 14.0 8.3 2.5 1.4 1.7 2.4 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.2 3.9 2.8 1.0 2.8 4.8 8.4 12.7 17.7 21.1 21.3 17.1 10.1 3.5 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 4.2 8.8 5.8 2.1 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.9 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0 5.8 4.4 3.2 2.5 1.0 2.7 4.7 8.8 13.7 18.1 22.7 24.4 17.2 9.5 3.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.1 3.2 2.6 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.5 3.8 5.6 6.4 6.5 5.7 4.1 3.1 2.6 1.0 2.7 4.9 11.2 17.2 21.0 23.8 24.3 17.4 9.8 3.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 3.4 6.0 4.0 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.8 4.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.0 4.2 4.0 3.4 5.4 7.0 2.2 1.2 2.8 5.1 13.0 23.9 26.1 23.4 21.7 16.3 10.0 3.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 6.1 14.0 8.2 2.3 1.2 1.4 2.1 3.3 4.4 5.2 5.6 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.9 7.9 8.5 3.6 1.4 3.0 5.1 12.4 25.1 27.5 22.3 20.8 12.8 8.9 4.1 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 4.1 8.9 5.8 2.0 1.1 1.4 2.1 3.5 4.1 4.9 4.7 5.0 5.8 5.6 6.3 6.1 5.3 5.5 5.8 4.4 4.2 6.9 4.1 1.5 3.3 5.1 12.9 21.2 24.2 23.9 22.2 17.2 9.9 3.4 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.1 3.3 2.6 1.5 1.1 1.4 2.1 3.4 4.4 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.7 7.0 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.4 6.3 8.2 6.0 1.6 3.7 5.0 9.6 14.9 19.1 23.3 24.5 17.0 9.3 3.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 3.3 5.8 3.9 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.9 2.9 4.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 7.0 7.3 6.4 6.2 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.7 1.9 4.7 5.2 8.5 13.0 17.5 22.2 23.6 17.0 9.5 3.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 6.1 13.7 8.1 2.3 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.5 3.9 6.0 6.6 7.1 7.4 6.9 6.2 6.3 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.0 3.5 5.9 6.2 4.0 7.6 5.7 7.9 11.9 16.9 19.6 20.3 15.6 9.7 3.5 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 4.3 8.8 5.6 2.0 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.6 4.1 5.8 6.3 6.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.1 5.6 4.5 3.3 6.5 8.2 5.1 9.0 5.7 7.2 10.7 15.7 17.2 18.7 11.6 8.4 3.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.1 3.3 2.7 1.5 1.1 1.4 2.1 3.1 4.6 5.6 5.9 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.3 8.0 7.4 7.0 6.2 4.1 2.9 4.9 4.8 2.9 6.6 5.3 6.6 9.8 14.6 18.8 19.7 15.7 9.2 3.1 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 3.2 6.0 4.1 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.3 3.5 4.2 5.1 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.6 7.6 7.8 7.1 6.7 6.1 4.2 2.9 4.0 3.7 2.3 5.2 4.8 6.1 8.9 12.8 18.9 21.8 15.9 8.9 2.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 6.1 13.9 8.2 2.6 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.8 4.3 5.1 5.1 5.5 6.6 7.1 7.7 7.3 6.8 6.3 5.6 4.7 3.5 5.1 4.7 2.8 6.3 5.0 6.2 9.0 13.0 18.9 21.8 16.0 8.9 2.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 4.2 8.8 5.9 2.5 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.1 5.0 5.5 5.8 6.2 7.0 7.6 7.0 6.8 5.6 5.5 5.1 4.2 3.8 6.9 8.3 5.0 8.9 5.4 6.4 9.8 14.8 18.7 19.9 15.7 9.5 3.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.1 3.2 2.7 2.1 3.0 4.2 4.8 4.5 5.0 5.8 5.6 5.9 6.8 7.1 6.4 6.6 5.9 5.9 5.2 4.4 3.8 6.7 7.4 4.3 8.6 5.4 6.5 10.0 15.3 17.4 19.6 12.4 9.0 3.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 3.3 6.1 4.2 2.3 3.6 5.7 6.6 5.5 4.8 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.6 6.9 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.6 3.4 4.7 4.2 2.4 5.7 4.9 6.3 9.8 15.3 20.2 21.9 17.0 9.9 3.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 6.1 14.1 8.4 3.1 5.5 8.8 9.3 6.7 5.5 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.6 6.3 7.7 7.4 7.2 6.6 4.4 3.0 4.1 3.8 2.3 5.2 4.6 6.0 9.4 14.7 22.4 24.8 16.6 8.1 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.9 8.6 5.7 2.8 6.8 15.1 13.5 8.2 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.7 6.3 6.3 6.5 7.3 6.9 6.5 6.0 4.5 3.4 5.9 5.8 3.5 7.0 4.9 5.8 9.3 14.8 20.8 23.0 17.0 9.4 2.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 5.9 16.4 15.1 9.2 6.6 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.7 6.5 6.1 5.4 4.5 3.8 7.0 8.5 5.0 8.7 5.0 5.7 9.0 14.3 16.6 18.8 11.9 8.4 3.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.6 6.7 13.4 12.6 8.6 6.1 5.5 4.7 4.9 5.9 6.3 6.5 6.0 5.1 4.5 4.8 3.9 3.8 6.3 5.3 6.3 4.7 5.3 8.4 13.3 15.4 16.5 11.4 7.0 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.2 4.2 7.3 8.4 7.1 5.9 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.3 5.7 5.4 4.9 4.7 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.6 2.4 2.6 4.0 6.4 6.0 3.4 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.4 2.8 4.3 4.3 5.2 7.5 11.0 15.0 15.2 10.6 5.4 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.0 5.0 6.0 5.4 5.3 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.4 4.7 4.5 4.5 3.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.4 2.8 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.7 3.2 4.6 5.0 5.9 7.2 8.9 11.3 12.3 8.5 4.7 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.0 3.2 2.3 1.6 2.4 3.3 3.7 3.5 4.2 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.8 5.1 4.5 4.4 4.8 3.8 2.5 2.3 2.7 3.3 4.5 5.8 7.4 7.6 6.4 4.8 3.6 2.3 1.8 2.3 4.0 5.9 7.5 9.2 9.9 9.5 9.3 8.9 6.7 4.2 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.6 11.3 6.2 2.1 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 3.6 2.2 2.7 4.1 5.8 9.0 13.8 14.7 11.0 6.7 4.7 2.9 2.2 2.9 4.8 7.1 11.0 15.8 16.1 12.2 8.9 7.0 4.6 2.8 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 6.0 12.6 6.9 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 2.0 4.9 2.0 2.3 3.4 4.6 8.3 13.7 14.5 11.0 5.5 3.8 2.7 2.2 2.7 4.1 5.8 10.7 15.7 16.0 11.3 6.6 4.9 3.2 1.9 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.7 6.2 4.1 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.2 2.9 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.2 3.7 3.9 3.5 4.3 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.1 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.7 3.5 2.8 2.0 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.6 10.8 5.9 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 6.0 12.7 6.7 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.1 2.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ACM-3 ACM-1 ACM-1 SF-1 ED-9 ED-9 ACM-3 ACM-2 ACM-1 ACM-1 ACM-2 ACM-3 SF-1 ED-7 ED-4 ED-4 ED-5 EXP-2 CMU-1 EXP-2 EXP-2 CMU-2 ACM-3 ACM-1 ACM-2 ACM-3 ACM-3 NSP-1 ACM-2 CW-1 CW-1 ED-1 ACM-3 ACM-1 ACM-2 ACM-3 ACM-2 SF-1 ACM-3 ACM-2 ACM-1 ACM-1 ED-4 NSP-1 ED-4 ACM-3 ACM-1 ACM-3 ACM-2 ED-4 ED-4 ED-6 ED-6 ED-7 ED-4 CMU-1 CMU-2 CMU-1 EXP-2 CMU-2 CMU-1 EXP-2 CMU-2 CMU-1 EXP-2 CMU-1 ACM-1 ACM-1 ACM-1 ACM-1 ACM-1 ACM-1 NSP-1 ACM-1 ACM-1 NSP-1 ED-2 NSP-1 NSP-1 NSP-1 NSP-1 ACM-1 NSP-1 NSP-1 CMU-2 CMU-1 CMU-1 CMU-2 CMU-1 EXP-2 EXP-2 CMU-2 CMU-1 CMU-2 4"Ø X 4'-0" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD (PAINT SAFETY YELLOW) TYP 124'-0" T.O. WALL 122'-0" T.O. WALL 100'-0" FIN FLOOR LINE OF EXISTING ROOF (BEYOND) 4"Ø X 4'-0" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD (PAINT SAFETY YELLOW) TYP 100'-0" FIN FLOOR 120'-0" T.O. WALL 123'-10" RIDGE 120'-8" EAVE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 100'-0" FIN FLOOR GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS - MATCH EXISTING EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN SHEEPS TONGUE OUTLET - TYP 124'-6" T.O. WALL 100'-0" FIN FLOOR 114'-0" CANOPY 120'-8" EAVE 114'-0" CANOPY 124'-6" T.O. WALL LINE OF EXISTING EAVE (BEYOND) 4"Ø X 4'-0" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD (PAINT SAFETY YELLOW) TYP EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL WALL PANELS EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS - MATCH EXISTING GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 120'-0" T.O. WALL 120'-8" EAVE 123'-11" RIDGE 100'-0" FIN FLOOR 4"Ø X 4'-0" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD (PAINT SAFETY YELLOW) TYP 100'-0" FIN FLOOR Fort Collins Jeep Express Lane Service 100'-0" FIN FLOOR 114'-0" TRIM BAND 120'-6" T.O. WALL 124'-6" T.O. WALL 100'-0" FIN FLOOR 114'-0" CANOPY 120'-8" EAVE SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT 4"Ø X 4'-0" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD (PAINT SAFETY YELLOW) TYP 4"Ø X 4'-0" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD (PAINT SAFETY YELLOW) TYP CAP FLASHING GUTTER & CAP FLASHING DOWNSPOUT CAP FLASHING CAP FLASHING LINE OF EXISTING ROOF (BEYOND) SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT CODE MATERIAL EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL SCHEDULE MANUFACTURER PATTERN/PRODUCT LINE COLOR/FINISH TYPE/SIZE REMARKS ACM-1 EXTERIOR WALL PANELS/MATERIALS ALUMINUM COMPOSITE ALPOLIC ANTHRACITE GREY (MICA MRO GREY) 2' X 6' PANELS FIELD FACADE ACM-2 ALUMINUM COMPOSITE ALPOLIC HARVEST TRAIL BAMBOO (4MM4QCP3.5) 8" X 4' PANELS ACCENT FACADE ACM-3 ALUMINUM COMPOSITE ALPOLIC SILVER 4-4BS MTLC BSX 4 MM THICK TRIM EXP-1 NOT USED SEE NOTES SEE NOTES EXP-2 SW6991 BLACK MAGIC SATIN EXTERIOR ACCENT PAINT CW-1 CURTAIN WALL FRAMING BY G.C. CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM BUTT JOINTED EXTERIOR PAINT EXTERIOR PAINT SHERWIN WILLIAMS MISCELLANEOUS SF-1 STOREFRONT FRAMING BY G.C. CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM GL-1 INSULATED GLASS PPG OR EQUAL CLEAR INSIDE/OUTSIDE LITES 1" INSULATED UNITS LOW E CLEAR GLASS NATURAL METALS NSP-1 NATURAL STONE STONE PANELS INT'L, LLC STONELITE EXTERIOR PANELS IMPALA BLACK GRANITE 2' X 6' PANELS FIELD FACADE BASE CMU-1 CONCRETE BLOCK BEST BLOCK SPLIT FACE MODULAR UNIT #858 CMU-2 CONCRETE BLOCK BEST BLOCK #100 8" X 8" X 16" GROUND FACE MODULAR UNIT FIELD FACADE BASE 8" X 8" X 16" FIELD FACADE CODE MATERIAL EXTERIOR DOOR SCHEDULE MANUFACTURER PATTERN/PRODUCT LINE COLOR/FINISH TYPE/SIZE REMARKS ED-1 CURTAIN WALL/STOREFRONT DOORS ALUMINUM KAWNEER OR EQUAL MATCH CW-1 PR 3'-0" X 8'-0" ED-2 ALUMINUM 3'-0" X 8'-0" ED-3 ALUMINUM 8'-0" X 8'-0" 3'-0" X 8'-0" PEDESTRIAN DOOR W/ 5'-0" X 8'-0" SWINGING SIDELITE ED-4 FULL GLASS SECTIONAL DOOR HORMANN-FLEXON 10'-0" X 10'-0" VISION SLATS, MOTORIZED OPERATION EXTERIOR PEDESTRIAN DOOR ED-7 HOLLOW METAL CURRIES OR EQUAL EXP-2 3'-0" X 7'-0" SECTIONAL DOORS MISCELLANEOUS ED-8 KAWNEER OR EQUAL EXTERIOR PEDESTRIAN DOOR MATCH SF-1 KAWNEER OR EQUAL SWING TYPE AUTO SHOWROOM DOOR MATCH CW-1 MATCH CW-1 ED-5 FULL GLASS SECTIONAL DOOR HORMANN-FLEXON MATCH CW-1 18'-0" X 10'-0" VISION SLATS, MOTORIZED OPERATION ED-6 FULL GLASS SECTIONAL DOOR HORMANN-FLEXON MATCH CW-1 12'-0" X 10'-0" VISION SLATS, MOTORIZED OPERATION INSULATED 4" HEAD MASONRY FRAME HOLLOW METAL CURRIES OR EQUAL INSULATED EXP-2 PR 3'-0" X 7'-0" 4" HEAD MASONRY FRAME ED-9 ALUMINUM NANAWALL OR EQUAL SL70 FOLDING WALL SYSTEM MATCH CW-1 10'-0" X 10'-0" 3 EQUAL FOLDING SECTIONS A200 8 OF 8 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 6/14/17 CITY COMMENTS 9/7/17 CITY COMMENTS 10/5/17 CITY COMMENTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X METAL VEHICLE SHED W/ OVERHANG 126' X 31' (TO REMAIN) LOT 1 PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING (CONC. INTERSECTION) (R.O.W. WIDTH VARIES) SE COR. SEC. 35 T.7N, R.69W, 6TH P.M. FOUND 2-1/2" ALUM. CAP IN RANGE BOX PLS 17497 S. 1/4 COR. SEC. 35 T.7N, R.69W, 6TH P.M. FOUND 3-1/4" ALUM. CAP IN RANGE BOX PLS 5028 EX. "BIKE LANE" SIGN TO BE RELOCATE RELOCATE TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE AND CONTROLLERS BACK OF CURB BUS ROAD STORAGE SHED 8'X10' (TO REMAIN) EXIST. WATER METER EXISTING TREES EXISTING SHRUBS EXISTING SHRUBS EX. LIGHT POLE TO BE RELOCATED EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING BUS STOP TO BE RELOCATE" RELOCATE CLOSER TO BUILDING IF NEW A TRANSFORMER IS REQUIRED EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 27.0' 2-STORY METAL BUILDING W/ ADD-ONS APPROX. 30,766 S.F. FINISHED FLOOR = 5045.9 ZONED - CG 7 7 4 5 5 WEST HARMONY ROAD VEHICLE DISPLAY CUSTOMER CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 3 EMPLOYEE EX. 1-STORY METAL BUILDING TO REMAIN EX. 1-STORY OPEN METAL GARAGE TO REMAIN AREA OF CONC. ENCROACHMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS REC. NO. 20120033213 INLET GRATE EXISTING TREES 17' 36' 23' 36' 23' 23' 16' 28' 18' 36' 23' 16' 18' 25' 16' 16' 16' 23' 36' 16' 36' 22.1' 24' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 18' 18' 18' 9' 8.5' 9' 9' 9' 9' 8' 9' 9' 9' 12.8' 9' 9' 9' 9' 8' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9.5' 10.2' 23.7' 20.4' 10.8' 2.9' 11.4' 8.7' 23' 29.5' 149.9' 83.2' 82.8' 88.1' 12' 12' 9' EX. 5' U.E. 2' 2' 15' U.E. 15' U.E. 8.5' BIKE LANE 12' TURN LANE 6.5' TREELAWN 8' SIDEWALK 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT. 12' DRIVE LANE 16' 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT. 25.3' 15' DRAINAGE ESMT. EXIST. 60' R.O.W. PROPOSED 72' R.O.W. 15' DRAINAGE ESMT. 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT. 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT. 15' DRAINAGE ESMT. 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT. 9' 100' PROPOSED 5' CONC. WALK 19' 17' BIKE RACK (4) 12 12 11 11 15 13 10 10 13 11 11 10 15 7 6 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 7 13 PROPOSED BUS STOP 5707 S.F. R.O.W. DEDICATED TO CITY PROPOSED COVERED CANOPY PROPOSED 6' VINYL-CLAD CHAIN-LINKED FENCE CONC. DRAINAGE CHANNEL CONC. DRAINAGE CHANNEL PROPOSED 6' VINYL-CLAD CHAIN-LINKED FENCE END PROPOSED 6' CHAIN-LINK FENCE ALONG WEST PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED ROLLING GATE 4"Ø X 30" H, PIPE BOLLARDS, FILL WITH CONC. CAP AND PAINT, TYP. INSTALL @ 6' 0.C. 4"Ø X 30" H, PIPE BOLLARDS, FILL WITH CONC. CAP AND PAINT, TYP. INSTALL @ 6' 0.C. EXIST. 6' CHAIN-LINKED FENCE ALONG PARKWAY PROPOSED ROLLING GATE VEHICLE DISPLAY PAD RAISED 4" ABOVE SIDEWALK 8' WIDE CONC. PATH FROM SIDEWALK TO BLDG., LIGHT BOLLARDS ON BOTH SIDES OF AREAS WHERE PARKING IS ADJACENT VEHICLE STORAGE EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE 15 TRASH & RECYCLING ENCLOSURE METAL PANEL W/ GATES COLOR TO MATCH BLDG. 214 S.F. R.O.W. DEDICATED TO CITY PROPOSED TRANSIT ESMT. EXIST. FENCE W/ GATE PROPERTY LINE EXIST. CURB CUT EXIST. SIDEWALK CONC. DRAINAGE CHANNEL DRIVE AISLE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE BNSF RAIL-ROAD R.O.W. 5' ACCESS ESMT. 5' 5' ACCESS ESMT. 5' EX. 5' U.E. RELOCATED "BIKE LANE" SIGN 20' W.L. ESMT. KENSINGTON DRIVE (54' R.O.W.) GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD 2ND FILING GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD 3ND FILING GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD 3ND FILING 6.9' 54' 54' 15' LANDSCAPE WALL LANDSCAPE WALL 8 2 3 8' WALK STAIRS PROPOSED 5' CONC. WALK 16' X EX. 1-STORY OPEN METAL GARAGE PROPERTY LINE 100' BNSF RAIL-ROAD R.O.W. Feet 0 30 60 REVISIONS DESIGN: SCALE: DRAWN: PROJECT NO: DATE: SHEET PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. LITTLETON, CO 80120 303-794-8604 7852 SOUTH ELATI STREET, SUITE 106 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R INFORMATION SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY LINE LOT / TRACT LINE LEGEND: S S W W EXISTING SANITARY LINE W/ MH EXISTING STORM LINE W/ MH EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING STORM AREA INLET EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE D Y H EXISTING STORM TYPE 'R' INLET RIGHT-OF-WAY E E EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE G G EXISTING GAS LINE X X EXISTING FENCE LINE 5530 PROPOSED CONTOUR 5530 EXISTING CONTOUR S S PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER W/ MH PROPOSED STREET SIGN PROPOSED STORM SEWER W/ MH W W PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT CTV EXISTING CATV LINE CENTERLINE R.O.W. EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED WATER FITTINGS 4 5 PROPOSED TYPE 'R' INLET PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED STREET LIGHT D S COM COM EXISTING COMMUNICATION LINE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PROPOSED ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE FORT COLLINS JEEP PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN TWD 03/15/2017 1" = 30' JLC 16-018 4 A SUBMITTED TO FTC 03/15/2017 B SUBMITTED TO FTC 09/07/2017 C SUBMITTED TO FTC 09/08/2017 D SUBMITTED TO FTC 10/05/2017 SIDEWALK REPAIR NOTE: ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. MATCHLINE - LOWER RIGHT MATCHLINE - UPPER LEFT STREET CUT NOTE: LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS. NOTE: THE AREA WEST OF THE B.N.S.F. RIGHT_OF_WAY IS FOR OVERSTOCK, INVENTORY STORAGE, NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE IMPROVED WITH THIS PHASE AND THAT ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OR ADDITIONAL USE OF THIS AREA WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PLAN AMENDMENT. "PUSH TO WALK" (TO BE RELOCATED) BACKFLOW PREVENTER AND VALVE CONTROL BOX COBBLESTONE LANDSCAPE (TYPICAL, TO BE REMOVED AND STOCK PILED FOR LATER USE) COVERED BUS STOP (TO BE STORED AND RELOCATED) COMMS TEL. EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE MAILBOX INLET GRATE (REMOVE) (ASPHALT PARKING LOT) GATE (REMOVE) (GATE) 2-STORY METAL BUILDING W/ ADD-ONS APPROX. 25,430 S.F. FINISHED FLOOR = 5045.9 TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN (PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION) 100.3 27.0 20.4 116.7 19.8 44.0 36.0 26.0 65.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 20.5 20.5 39.1 40.5 27.0 15.0 12.5 8.7 (GATE) (GRASS & TREES) (RAISED CONC. DOCK) (DIRT) METAL VEHICLE SHED 126' X 31' W/ OVERHANG TO REMAIN (ASPHALT PARKING LOT) (ASPHALT PARKING LOT) LOT 1 PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING (CONC. INTERSECTION) (ASPHALT) TRANSFORT BUS STOP BACK OF CURB BUS ROAD (967.13') EX. CHAIN-LINK FENCE TO REMAIN ALONG PROPERTY LINE 8'X10' STORAGE SHED TO REMAIN 20.3' 20.1' 67.7' 80.9' 78.3' 108.7' EXCEPTED PARCEL 20100010805 EXCEPTED PARCEL 20100015829 5040 5042 5044 5042 5042 5042 5046 5044 5044 5050 5046 5048 5046 5042 5044 5040 5044 5042 5044 5046 5046 5046 5046 5048 5046 5046 10" AC EX. SEWER SERVICE EX. FIRE HYDRANT (TO BE RELOCATED) 8" WATER 8" SANITARY "PED X-ING" (GRASS & TREES) (GRASS & TREES) "BUS STOP" RELOCATE EX. CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED EX. CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED EX. CONCRETE PAD TO BE REMOVED EX. SEWER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AND DISCONECTED AT MANHOLE EX. TREES TO BE REMOVED EX. TREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT EX. CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED EX. CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED EX. TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED EX. TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EX. TREE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED EX. TREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED EX. CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED EX. FENCE TO BE REMOVED EX. SIGN (REMOVE) EX. STREET LIGHT TO BE RELOCATED EX. FENCE TO BE REMOVED EX. FENCE AND GATE TO BE REMOVED EX. WATER METER (TO BE REMOVED) STORM INLET (TO BE REPLACED) DEMO EX. CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK DEMO EX. DRIVECUT AND SIDEWALK DEMO EX. CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK DEMO EX. CONCRETE PAD AT BUS STOP EX. FENCE TO BE REMOVED EX. FENCE TO BE REMOVED REMOVE EX. CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND TREES AT NEW BUS STOP TURN OUT 5' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REC. NO. 20120033213 EXIST. BLDG TO REMAIN EX. CURB CUT ±33' PROPERTY LINE 100' BNSF RAIL-ROAD R.O.W. GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD 2ND FILING GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD 3ND FILING GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD 3ND FILING X EXIST. BLDG TO REMAIN PROPERTY LINE 100' BNSF RAIL-ROAD R.O.W. Feet 0 30 60 REVISIONS DESIGN: SCALE: DRAWN: PROJECT NO: DATE: SHEET PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. LITTLETON, CO 80120 303-794-8604 7852 SOUTH ELATI STREET, SUITE 106 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R INFORMATION SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY LINE LOT / TRACT LINE LEGEND: S S W W EXISTING SANITARY LINE W/ MH EXISTING STORM LINE W/ MH EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING STORM AREA INLET EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE D Y H EXISTING STORM TYPE 'R' INLET RIGHT-OF-WAY E E EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE G G EXISTING GAS LINE X X EXISTING FENCE LINE 5530 EXISTING CONTOUR CTV EXISTING CATV LINE CENTERLINE R.O.W. EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY D COM COM EXISTING COMMUNICATION LINE EXISTING TREE/SHRUB EXISTING LIGHT SS EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ELEC. BOX EXISTING IRRIGATION FORT COLLINS JEEP PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN TWD 03/15/2017 1" = 30' JLC 16-018 3 A SUBMITTED TO FTC 03/15/2017 B SUBMITTED TO FTC 07/19/2017 C SUBMITTED TO FTC 09/08/2017 D SUBMITTED TO FTC 10/05/2017 MATCHLINE - LOWER RIGHT MATCHLINE - UPPER LEFT STREET CUT NOTE: LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY ENGINEER INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 14. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. 15. N/A. 16. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODOR-CONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 17. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 18. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 19. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY_FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX_INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. 7852 S. ELATI STREET, SUITE 106 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80120 PHONE: (303) 794-8604 FAX: (303) 795-3072 CONTACT: TROY DENNING, P.E. CONTACTS: CIVIL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT I, TROY W. DENNING, BEING A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, HEREBY ATTEST THAT ALL GRADING, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED ON THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AND ENGINEERED IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL CITY OF FORT COLLINS PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. . . TROY W. DENNING P.E. 34200 DATE PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEPICTED HEREON WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THE _____ DAY OF __________. 20_____. __________ _________________ ______________________________________ CHAIR DATE ATTEST: __________ ____________________________ _______________________________________ DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. LITTLETON, CO 80120 303-794-8604 7852 SOUTH ELATI STREET, SUITE 106 FORT COLLINS JEEP - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Reviewed by:____________________________________________________________ LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING DATE LANDSCAPE PLANNER: CENTENNIAL, CO. 80120 PHONE: (303) 741-3467 CONTACT: PEGGY GOLDEN, RLA,ASLA #261 TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ON THE ______ DAY OF _______________________, 20______. __________ __________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR DATE ATTEST: __________ __________________________ _____________________________ TOWN CLERK DATE LAND SURVEYOR: RED ROCK LAND SURVEYS 7865 W. ONTARIO PLACE LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128 PHONE: (303) 994-6300 CONTACT: JOHN E. KRATZ, PLS GOLDEN ENTERPRISES CONSULTING 7442 S. BIRCH ST. SITE I _______________________________ CERTIFY ALL PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY NOTED CHANGES OR REVISIONS, ARE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO THIS RECORD DRAWING COPY OF THE FINAL PICPS. 2.3.4 SUBMITTAL SUMMARY TABLE: QUANTITIES USE AREAS S.F. ACREAGE PERCENTAGE BUILDING AREA 34,752 0.8 18.3 LANDSCAPE AREA 30,390 0.70 16.0 NEW PAVEMENT AREA 111,854 2.57 59.2 CONCRETE 12,389 0.28 6.5 TOTAL 189,385 4.35 100.00 VEHICLE STORAGE PARKING 272 STALLS EMPLOYEE PARKING 35 STALLS CUSTOMER PARKING 18 STALLS HANDICAP PARKING 3 STALLS BIKE 4 STALLS FORT COLLINS JEEP PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN COVER SHEET TWD 03/15/2017 N/A JLC 16-018 1 A SUBMITTED TO FTC 03/15/2017 B SUBMITTED TO FTC 07/19/2017 C SUBMITTED TO FTC 09/08/2017 D SUBMITTED TO FTC 10/05/2017 REVISIONS DESIGN: SCALE: DRAWN: PROJECT NO: DATE: SHEET PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. LITTLETON, CO 80120 303-794-8604 7852 SOUTH ELATI STREET, SUITE 106 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R INFORMATION SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN 6 7 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN BUILDING ELEVATIONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING OWNERS OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER TO BEAR N89°53'00”W; THENCE N89°53'00”W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 967.13 FEET; THENCE N1°05'37”E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST HARMONY ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 20120033213 OF THE RECORDS OF SAID LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1. N1°05'37”E A DISTANCE OF 224.10 FEET; 2. N89°58'15”W A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; 3. N1°05'37”E A DISTANCE OF 81.29 FEET; 4. N88°54'23”W A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; 5. NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°33'29”, A RADIUS OF 150.50 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 75.01 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N12°44'40”W, 74.24 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 6. NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°00'08”, A RADIUS OF 99.50 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 34.74 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N17°01'11”W, 34.56 FEET; 7. N1°05'37”E A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1, PEDERSON AUTO PLAZA SUBDIVISION; THENCE S89°48'40”E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 435.54 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET; THENCE S1°03'05”W, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 462.10 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 20100010805 OF THE RECORDS OF SAID LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE S43°16'52”W, ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 20.21 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 20100015829 OF THE RECORDS OF SAID LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST HARMONY ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. N89°53'01”W A DISTANCE OF 280.33 FEET; 2. S73°53'58”W A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET; 3. N89°53'00”W A DISTANCE OF 91.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHICH ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 195,092 SQUARE FEET OR 4.479 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 35, T.7N, R.69W, 6TH P.M., CONSIDERED TO HAVE A BEARING OF N89°53'00”W BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST SECTION CORNER (A 2-1/2” ALUMINUM CAP FOUND IN RANGE BOX, PLS 17497) AND THE SOUTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER (A 3-1/4” ALUMINUM CAP FOUND IN RANGE BOX, PLS 5028). FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (COLLECTIVELY, "OWNER") HAVE CAUSED THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED IN TO A LOT AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS FORT COLLINS JEEP FINAL PLAT (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 THE PLAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND. SHEET INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Title 1 COVER SHEET 2 GENERAL NOTES 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 4 SITE PLAN 8 TREE INVENTORY PLAN n P k w y © Fort Collins 224 W Jeep Harmony - Redevelopment Rd These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 500 feet SITE Attachment 2 n P k w y © Fort Collins 224 W Jeep Harmony - Redevelopment Rd These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 500 feet Attachment 2 n P k w y © Fort Collins 224 W Jeep Harmony - Redevelopment Rd These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 500 feet SITE Attachment 1 811 OR 1-800-922-1987 www.UNCC.org DAH DAH 5110 GRANITE STREET, UNIT D LOVELAND, COLORADO 80538 (970) 278-0029 CCGCOLORADO CIVIL GROUP, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 0" 1" BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING EXISTING SANITARY EXISTING TELEPHONE DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS FILENAME: 0031.0012.00_UTILITY 0031.0012.00 1" = 40' JULY 7, 2017 OF DESIGNED: CHECKED: JOB NO.: SCALE: DATE: SHEET NO.: 1" = 40' 0 40 80 scale feet CALL THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 3 DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 811 OR 1-800-922-1987 www.UNCC.org DAH DAH 5110 GRANITE STREET, UNIT D LOVELAND, COLORADO 80538 (970) 278-0029 CCGCOLORADO CIVIL GROUP, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 0" 1" BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING MANUFACTURERS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPERTY BOUNDARY ROAD VEHICLE ENTRY POINT PEDESTRIAN PATH LAND USE AREA Owner's Certification of Approval: THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _________ DAY OF ____________________________________, 2017 _____________________________________________________________ NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF XXXXXXX) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY ___________________________________THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 2013. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ __________________ NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) Planning Approval: BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D., 20_______. _____________________________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES Vicinity Map : NORTH Of: Sheet Number: Fort Collins, Colorado ST. ELIZABETH ANN SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPANSION ODP FIRST AMENDMENT GROUP landscape architecture|planning|illustration 444 Mountain Ave. Behtroud,CO 80513 TEL WEB 970.532.5891 TBGroup.us PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL JULY 7, 2017 5450 South Lemay Ave. Fprt Collins, CO 80525 970.226.1303 DATE PREPARED FOR ST. ELIZABETH ANN SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH 1 1 Legal Description: SAINT ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO SCALE 1" = 50'-0" 0 50' 75' 100' NORTH Legend: Land-Use Statistics: EXISTING ZONING: RL-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GROSS LAND AREA: 11.70 ACRES 509,733 SQ. FT. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: 1 LAND USE: PLACE OF WORSHIP TOTAL BUILDING GROSS S.F.: 49,926 S.F. EXISTING + 15,650 S.F. NEW = 64,926 S.F. MAX. STORIES: 2 PROJECT LOCATION GROSS AREA COVERAGE: SQUARE FEET ACRES % OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS 48,127 1.10 9.4% LANDSCAPE AREA 302,747 6.95 59.4% PAVED DRIVES AND PARKING 119,767 2.75 23.5% SIDEWALKS / PATIOS 39,091 0.90 7.7% TOTAL AREA: 509,733 11.70 100% OFF-STREET PARKING: PER LUC SECTION 3.2.2(K)(2)(h): PLACES OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY 1 PARKING SPACE PER 3 SEATS MAX. REQUIRED: 800 SEATS / 3 = 267 SPACES PROVIDED: STANDARD (9 X 17) 245 ACCESSIBLE(8 X 17) 12 TOTAL SPACES 257 Attachment 3 n D r M i la n Terrac e D r H u m m e l L n S i l k O a k D r Wingfoot Dr P a r a g on P l Golde n W i l l o w D r B l u e s t e m C t P i n nac l e Pl P a r l ia m e n t Ct I n n o v a t i o n D r S a ffro n C t B e l v e d ere C t Li v e Oa k Ct Fro n t Nine D r F air w a y S ix Dr Ri v e r O a k D r Barb e r r y D r Ph e a san t D r Seton St Meadow Run Dr H i w a n C t F a i r w ay F i v e D r Feltleaf Ct S a w g r a s s C t Fantail Ct White O a k Ct Doral Pl Pleasa n t O ak Dr G l e n E a gle Ct Napa V a l ley Dr Twin Oak Ct Oak L e a f Ct Hi g h c a s t l e Ct Sil k O a k Ct Greenridge Cir Bulrush Ct Cactus Ct Sawtooth Oak Ct Alder Ct Ashton Ct S o u thridge G reens Blvd Keenland Dr Boar d w a lk D r F o s s il Cr e e k P k w y O a k r i d g e D r M c m u r r y A v e E S k y w a y Dr S Lemay Ave © St. Elizabeth Ann Vicinity Seton & Catholic Zoning Map Church Expansion 1 inch = 833 feet Site Attachment 1 S SS SS SS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONED PUD LEHMAN PROPERTY LARIMER COUNTY TIMBERLINE ROAD (4-LANE ARTERIAL) PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO 4-LANEARTERIAL STANDARDS CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATERLINE CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATERLINE CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" WATERLINE STUB CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE MMN PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY USES ±16.69 ACRES NC PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY USES ±6.33 ACRES EXISTING 16" FCLWD WATERLINE PROPOSED WATERLINE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERLINE PROPOSED WATERLINE STUB TO ADJACENT PROPERTY NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE FUTURE GRADE SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING BY OTHERS INTERIM TRAIL ACCESS 50' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER 50' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER A B C 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 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 www.northernengineering.com CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what's R MUP 2 LEGEND: ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 1500Feet 150 150 300 450 W W SS SS NOTES: 1. ALL WATER LINES TIE INTO FORT COLLINS LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER LINES TIE INTO SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT. 3. ALL STREET ALIGNMENTS AND PROPOSED UTILITIES SHOWN WITH THE MASTER UTILITY PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH SUBSEQUENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS. 4. REFER TO HANSEN ODP BY THE BIRDSALL GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 5. THE HANSEN FARM PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 440 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY AGREEMENT WITH SFCSD AND SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY. 6. THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS ODP MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 7. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALL ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES. 8. THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM HANSEN FARM TO THE RENNAT PROPERTY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP). SECONDARY USES ±6.33 ACRES POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONED PUD LEHMAN PROPERTY LARIMER COUNTY TIMBERLINE ROAD (4-LANE ARTERIAL) PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO 4-LANE ARTERIAL STANDARDS EXISTING 18" STUB FOR STORM SEWER TIE-IN. MAX RELEASE 8 CFS PER TIMBERS DRAINAGE REPORT STORMLINE FOR POND RELEASE FUTURE GRADE SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING BY OTHERS INTERIM TRAIL ACCESS STORMLINE FOR POND RELEASE 50' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER A B C 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 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 www.northernengineering.com CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what's R MDP 1 NOTES: 1. ALL STREET ALIGNMENTS AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN WITH THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH SUBSEQUENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS. 2. REFER TO HANSEN ODP BY THE BIRDSALL GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 3. REFER TO HANSEN ODP DRAINAGE LETTER DATED 08/29/2017 FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. 4. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 5. DETENTION VOLUMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILL BE VERIFIED WITH INDIVIDUAL PDP APPLICATIONS. THE TOTAL VOLUMES FOR DETENTION PONDS 2A AND 2B CAN BE COMBINED OR FURTHER DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE PONDS AS NECESSARY. 6. THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS ODP MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 7. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALL ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES. 8. THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM HANSEN FARM TO THE RENNAT PROPERTY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP). LEGEND: 1 1.45 ac ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 1500Feet 150 150 300 450 ZONED PUD LEHMAN PROPERTY LARIMER COUNTY RENNAT PROPERTY ZONED LMN LAFFEY/KELLY PROPERTY ZONED MMN POTENTIAL PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LOCATION/ MMN +/- 3 ACRES NC PRIMARY &/OR SECONDARY USES +/- 6.33 ACRES ZEPHYR ROAD (COLLECTOR) 50' DITCH BUFFER FROM TOP OF BANK B C FULL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION WILLOW SPRINGS ZONED RL/LMN MAIL CREEK DITCH POTENTIAL FUTURE GRADE SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING BY OTHERS INTERIM TRAIL ACCESS REF GENERAL NOTE #9 S. TIMBERLINE ROAD (ARTERIAL) POTENTIAL WETLAND IRRIGATION DITCH LATERAL 50' DITCH BUFFER FROM TOP OF BANK 6029 S. Timberline Road Ft Collins, Colorado GROUP landscape architecture|planning|illustration 444 Mountain Ave. Behtroud,CO 80513 TEL WEB 970.532.5891 TBGroup.us PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL JULY18, 2017 DATE PREPARED FOR HANSEN FARM Overall Development Plan 212 N. WAHSATCH AVE. SUITE 301 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 CONTACT: JEFF MARK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REVIEW ONLY CALL 3 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'sbelow. Call before you dig. R LORSON NORTH DEVELOPMENT CORP, LLC. Staff Comments 8.29.17 Revisions 10.3.17 Overall Development Plan 2 OF 2 SCALE 1" = 100'-0" 0 100' 150' 200' NORTH MATCHLINE SHEET 1 MATCHLINE SHEET 1 Behtroud,CO 80513 TEL WEB 970.532.5891 TBGroup.us PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL JULY18, 2017 DATE PREPARED FOR HANSEN FARM Overall Development Plan 212 N. WAHSATCH AVE. SUITE 301 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 CONTACT: JEFF MARK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REVIEW ONLY CALL 3 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'sbelow. Call before you dig. R LORSON NORTH DEVELOPMENT CORP, LLC. Staff Comments 8.29.17 Revisions 10.3.17 Owner's Certification of Approval: THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _________ DAY OF ____________________________________, 2017 LORSON NORTH DEVELOPMENT CORP., LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY _____________________________________________________________ JEFF MARK, IT'S MANAGER NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF LARIMER) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY ___________________________________THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 2017. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ __________________ NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) Planning Approval: BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D., 20_______. _____________________________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES Overall Development Plan 1 OF 2 NORTH Vicinity Map : General Notes: 1. HANSEN FARM OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING THREE ZONING DISTRICTS: LMN - LOW DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD, MMN - MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NC - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES AS REQUIRED/ALLOWED PER THE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT. 2. TWO POINTS OF FIRE ACCESS HAVE BEEN PLANNED TO SERVE ALL AREAS OF THE PROJECT. FIRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY. 3. ALL EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE WILL BE PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. 4. ALL PUBLIC STREETS WILL BE DESIGNED TO THE FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY URBAN STREET STANDARDS'. THE INTERNAL ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. PRECISE LOCATIONS OF ACCESS POINTS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP). 5. THE PROPOSED LAND USES AND DENSITIES SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE. ANY ADDITIONAL LAND USES NOT ALLOWED IN THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICTS MUST BE APPROVED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS 6. CITY OF FORT COLLINS PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE ODP. SEPARATE, SECONDARY INTERNAL TRAIL SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN INDICATED ON THE ODP BUT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH MORE DETAILED DESIGN. 7. MASTER UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THIS ODP. 8. A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THREE-QUARTER OF ONE MILE OF 90% OF THE HOMES IN THE LMN ZONE DISTRICT PER THE LAND USE CODE. 9. THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM HANSEN FARM TO THE RENNAT PROPERTY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP). 10. THE HANSEN FARM PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 440 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY AGREEMENT WITH SFCSD/FCLWD AND SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY. 11. 12. THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS ODP MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 13. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES. 14. THE CAPACITY FOR THE SITE IS DETERMINED BY THE CURRENT CAPACITY OF THE SANITARY SEWER LINE, DETERMINED BY SFCDS AND FCLWD. THIS CAPACITY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. POTENTIAL FUTURE CAPACITY CHANGES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH SFCDS/FCLWD. 15. ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED DURING THE PDP PROCESS. 16. A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) HOUSING TYPES WILL BE APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE ODP, AND Land-Use Statistics FINALIZED AT THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE. ZONE DISTRICT TYPE GROSS ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL CODE DENSITY ESTIMATED UNITS MAX. BLDG HT HOUSING TYPE BUSINESS TYPE LMN (PARCEL A) +/-46.40 AC 4-9 DU/AC 157 - 417 * 40' SF/MF ----------------------- MMN (PARCEL B) +/- 16.69 AC 12 DU/AC MIN 170- 255 * MF ALLOWED USES NC (PARCEL C) +/-6.33 AC PER NC ZONING ----------- 50' PER NC ZONING ALLOWED USES . TOTAL +/-69.42 AC. *MAX. OF 440 LMN MMN NC WILLOW SPRINGS WILLOW SPRINGS SECOND FILING POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENNAT THE TIMBERS WESTCHASE LEHMAN SITE LEGEND Legal Description: THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, TO WIT: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., THENCE NORTH 00°00’00” WEST 1474.84 FEET TO THE CENTER OF MAIL CREEK DITCH; THENCE NORTH 53°22’52” WEST 347.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67°30’07” WEST 160.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69°07’30” WEST 293.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76°31’56” WEST 87.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57°33’14” WEST 91.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°46’18” WEST 103.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83°01’54” WEST 236.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68°18’49” WEST 278.28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76°25’10” WEST 68.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62°52’25” WEST 52.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°27’46” WEST 53.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°28’49” WEST 92.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°06’09” WEST 71.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°24’28” WEST 170.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54°50’14” WEST 93.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°46’10” WEST 284.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°16’44” WEST 49.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°20’30” WEST 249.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 09°30’36” EAST 65.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02°50’53” EAST 122.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11°31’17” EAST 221.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05°58’23” EAST 117.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 03°01’25” EAST 367.61 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74°09’06” EAST 184.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55°06’07” EAST 318.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°11’22” EAST 783.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49°44’35” EAST 330.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63°33’59” EAST 198.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48°05’35” EAST 109.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57°51’56” EAST 191.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°20’01” EAST 193.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43°25’25” WEST 68.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80°51’54” WEST 140.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18°54’22” WEST 280.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°58’05” EAST 736.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO A PART OF THE NE ¼ OF THE SE ¼ OF SAID SECTION 7 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE SOUTH 00°00’00” WEST 152.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86°53’00” WEST 112 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°18’00” WEST 286.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39°27’26” WEST 64.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°58’05” 422.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SCALE 1" = 100'-0" 0 100' 150' 200' NORTH Parcel Index PARCEL ZONING ACREAGE ANTICIPATED USES PARCEL A LMN +/- 46.40 AC PRIMARY USES PARCEL B MMN +/- 16.69 AC PRIMARY USES, POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PARCEL C NC +/- 6.33 AC PRIMARY USES, RETAIL MATCHLINE SHEET 2 MATCHLINE SHEET 2 * LOW END ESTIMATED UNITS BASED ON NET ACREAGE (15% OF GROSS ACREAGE). HIGH END ESTIMATED UNITS BASED ON GROSS ACREAGE. . n g e l o D r R e d be r r y C t W il m i n g t o n D r W ill o w S p r i n g s W a y W h ea t o n Dr Do l a n S t Chandler St Harv e s t S t H u m m e l L n G l ob e C t Pacifi c Ct Rule Dr Si l k O a k D r Wingfoot Dr G olde n W i l l o w D r Prairie Hill Dr Feltleaf Ct C l y m e r C ir Sweetwate r C ree k D r Liv e O a k C t Falcon Ridge Dr F r ont Ni n e D r Bal d w in St T r e e s t e a d R d F a i rw a y S i x Dr R i v e r O a k Dr Barb e r r y Dr Coppervein St Dela n y D r Fossil Creek Pkwy H i w a n C t Fair w a y F i v e Dr Fantail Ct Copp e r Crest Ln Stillw a t e r Cree k D r Cross v i ew Dr Red Willow Dr Sm a l l w ood D r Merlot Ct White Oak Ct Madi s on Cr e e k Dr Buchstane Pl Pheasant Ct G l e n E a gle Ct Twin Oak Ct Garrison Ct Greenridge Cir H a w k eye St Unity Ct Cattail Ct Cactus Ct Mackenzie Ct Topanga Ct Catkins Ct Canopy Ct Antero Ct Terrace Ct Falc o n Ridge D r Prairie Hill Dr Fossil Creek Pkwy Tilden St E Trilby R d Zephyr Rd K e e nlan d D r Southridge G r e ens B l v d Ti m b e r Cree k D r St e t s on C r e e k Dr B attl e c r e e k Dr M c m u r r y A v e F o s s i l C r e e k P k w y Keenland Dr S Timberline Rd E Trilby Rd Kechter36 Rd E County Road © Hansen Vicinity Farm Map 1 inch = 1,000 feet Site Attachment 1 e R i v e r R i g d e n R e s e r v o i r E Harmony Rd Kechter E County Rd Road 36 E County Road 38 Main St E Horsetooth Rd Strauss Cabin Rd State Hig h way 392 S County Road 5 KINDERCARE LCEEANRTNEIRNSG P(ROPOSEDTIMNATH SITE) ELEMENTARY TIMNATH ZACH ELEMENTARY E Harmon y Rd Strauss Cabin Rd E County Road 38 Main St S County Road 5 !"`$ ôZYXW ARCHERY RCRANGE UE UE T LMN POL POL RUL T POL HC CG POL Highway I-25 Third Annexation Scale901 1:25, Highway I-25 Third Annexation Growth Management Area Boundary - Outline Railroad Lines City Zoning ZONE General Commercial (CG) Harmony Corridor (HC) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) Rural Lands District (RUL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles ° ! Public Open (POL) Lands Zoning Map - Area No. 2 Commercial Community (CC) District Rural Lands (RUL) Commercial Community (CC) Attachment 6 e s e r v o i r B o x el d e r D i t c h E Harmony Rd Kechter Rd E County Road 38 S County Road 7 E Horsetooth Rd Main St Strauss Cabin Rd State Hig h way 392 S County Road 5 E Harmon y Rd Strauss Cabin Rd E County Road 38 Main St E County Road 36 S County Road 5 !"`$ ôZYXW ARCHERY RANGE Highway I-25 Third Annexation Scale901 1:25, Highway_I25_Annexation Growth Management Area Boundary - Outline Railroad Lines Structure Plan Land Use Commercial Corridor District Employment District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Rural Lands Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles ° ! Public Open (POL) Lands Structure Plan Map - Area No. 2 Commercial Community (CC) District Rural Lands (RUL) Commercial Community (CC) Attachment 4 P o u d r e R i v e r R i g d e n R e s e r v o i r F o s s i l C r e e k R e s e r v o i r B o x el d e r D i t c h T i m n a t h R e se rv o i r O utl et D u ck L a k e D i x o n C a n y o n Lateral Main St Kechter Rd S County Road 3 Ziegler Rd E Harmony Rd S County Road 7 E County Road 36 E County Road 38 Strauss Cabin Rd S County Road 5 State Highway 392 E Horsetooth Rd Strauss Cabin Rd Kechter Rd E C ounty Road 38 E Horsetooth Rd Main St S County Road 3 E County Road 36 E Harmony Rd S County Road 9 Ziegler Rd S County Road 5 ôZYXW !"`$ ôZYXW CSATSEEWART PARK RADIANT PARK HARMONY PARK ARCHERY RANGE RAENNCGHLISH PARK COMMUNITY TWIN SILO PARK COMMUNITEYAST FUTURE PARK Highway I-25 Third Annexation Printed: September 05, 2017 Scale000 1:40, Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Staff Folders\KKleer\Development_Review\Highway I-25 Third Annexation\HighwayI25No2.mxd Highway_I25_Annexation City Limits - Area Railroad Lines Growth Management Area Boundary - Outline 0 0.175 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4 Miles ° ! Highway Area I-No. 25 2 Third Area No. 2 Attachment 2 Nevada V i s t a D r Michigan Imperial Dr Wyoming Dalton Dr L u t h e r Ln H o r s e t o o t h Dr Churchill Ct O v e r l oo k D r Hidden Springs Rd Stallion Cir Powell Pl Mesaview Ln G ros v en o r Ct W ild Ro s e W a y T r o w b r idg e D r Look o ut L n Hig h l ands W est Dr Baxter Pl Colt C ir Pint o Ln High P lain s Ct Gray Fox Rd Valley Ridg e C t Br o n c o Ln M ust a n g Ln Bedfor d Ct Picadilly Ct Oak Hill Ct Nottingham Ct S Taft Hill Rd W County Road 38e W Horsetooth Rd Zoning Map Taft Canyon - 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet Annexation Boundary Fox Hills Wild- flower Annexation Boundary Fox Hills Pineridge Nat. Area Cathy Fromme Prairie Nat. Area Legend Natarea City Limits GMA City Zoning ZONE Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Residential Foothills (RF) Low Density Residential (RL) Red Fox Road Attachment 2 y W h ippe n y Dr T r o w b ridg e D r High l a nds W e stD r Baxter Pl Co l t C i r Pinto L n High P lain s Ct Cheney Dr Gray Fox Rd Valley Ridge Ct K it Fox R d B r o n c o L n M ust a n g L n Bedf o r d Ct Im p e ria lDr Picadilly Ct Vajobi Ct Nottingham Ct Lathrop Ct Red Fox Ct S Taft Hill Rd W County Road 38e W Horsetooth Rd Fox Hills Second Annexation Vicinity Map Taft Canyon 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet - Annexation Boundary Fox Hills Wild- flower Legend Trails Natarea City Limits GMA Annexation Boundary Fox Hills Pineridge Nat. Area Cathy Fromme Prairie Nat. Area Attachment 1