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 About09/14/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 September 14, 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 September 14, 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. • 2018 Annual Work Plan • 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 September 14, 2017 1. Draft August 17, 2017, P&Z Board Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the August 17, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. 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 3. 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. 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 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 September 14, 2017 OWNER: Lorson North Development Corp. c/o Jeff Mark 212 N. Wahsatch Ave, Ste. 301 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 4. Ziggi’s Coffee PDP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a 500 square-foot drive-through restaurant on Lot Two of the C.O.L. College and Trilby Subdivision located at the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Trilby Road. The plan includes one drive-through lane, a walk-up service option, patio seating and 22 parking spaces. The parcel is partially developed as a parking lot for the adjoining place of worship and is 1.63 acres in size and zoned, C-G General Commercial. A Modification of Standard to allow 12 extra parking spaces has been requested as part of the P.D.P. APPLICANT: OWNER: Ziggi’s Coffee c/o Mr. Michael Hunsinger MAH Architectural Group 1385 S. Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO 80222 C.O.L. College and Trilby, LLC c/o Brad Douglas 3708 W. Swann Avenue, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33609 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. 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. APPLICANT: OWNER: Greg & Justyuna Baustert 38844 CR 31 Eaton, CO 80615 4406 Seneca Street Trust 3654 Shampo Dr. Warren, MI 48092 Planning and Zoning Board Page 4 September 14, 2017 6. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use 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 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. APPLICANT: OWNER: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Forbes, Kenneth E and Jeanette L 2008 Turnberry Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME DRAFT AUGUST 17, 2017, P&Z HEARING MINUTES STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the August 17, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing minutes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft August 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 August 17, 2017 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider, and Whitley Absent: none Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Sawyer, Beals, Tatman-Burruss, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Schneider 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 August 17, 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. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Blvd, stated that he intended to continue his previous remarks from the July P&Z hearing. He expressed his ongoing disappointment with the development review process, saying that there are systemic issues related to due process and connectivity issues with the process at Type I Administrative Hearings. He thanked the P&Z Board members for their service to the community, adding that he feels the Board is the last to know when things go wrong. Chair Schneider suggested that Mr. Sutherland email his concerns to the Board for further consideration. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from July 20, 2017, P&Z Hearing 2. Off-Site Construction Staging Land Use Code Revision – Recommendation to City Council Mr. Sutherland requested that the July P&Z Draft minutes be pulled from the Consent agenda. Vice Chair Hansen made a work-related disclosure regarding the Construction Staging agenda item, adding that he doesn’t feel this represents a significant conflict of interest. Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Rollins made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the August 17, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing, including the Off-Site Construction Staging Land Use Code Revision – Recommendation to City Council. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Short-Term Rentals: Land Use Code Revision – Recommendation to City Council Project: Short-Term Rentals: Land Use Code Revision – Recommendation to City Council Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding various revisions, and one new provision, to the Land Use Code regarding Short-Term Rentals (STRs). The affected sections are Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(k) – Parking; Section 3.8.34 – Supplemental Regulations for Short-Term Rentals; and to Section 5.1.2 - Definitions. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board August 17, 2017 Page 3 Secretary Cosmas reported that 4 citizen emails had been received since the work session with concerns about potential consequences if the current ordinance is further expanded before it is fully enforced. Staff and Applicant Presentations Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager and the lead for the short-term rental project, gave a presentation on this item, including a discussion of current concerns, the time line for implementation after revisions are addressed, and several alterations that include operation options. She discussed the public outreach and how the “hosts” had been contacted. She also discussed the grandfathering provision and the collection of sales taxes. At their July 11, 2017, work session, City Council directed Ms. Sawyer to review an option to extend the June 30th licensing date to October 31st. Revisions being considered tonight include: • Extension of grandfathering allowance to October 31st (only for those who were operational prior to March 31st); • Allowing a homeowner living in a property abutting an STR to operate with a primary short-term license; and • Grandfathering the extension to tenants with permission from the landlord (only for those who were operational prior to March 31st). Member Carpenter asked whether the expansion of the regulations were part of the original process or a result of later discussion; Ms. Sawyer responded that each situation type is being considered individually, adding that each grandfathering issue could have a specific framework. Restrictions will limit the number of short-term rentals operating in Fort Collins. Ms. Sawyer stated that there are less than 5 STRs currently being operated by tenants. She added that not all properties have been identified, and there could be as many as 100 unidentified operators. Member Hobbs asked for clarification on who could be grandfathered into this provision; Ms. Sawyer responded that there were some non-compliant operators that would benefit from this extension, adding that the provision of collecting sales tax has been in the tax code from the beginning. Member Heinz asked whether operators would be responsible for paying back- taxes; Ms. Sawyer confirmed that they would. Vice Chair Hansen asked how new STRs could be created, but only in properly zoned areas; Ms. Sawyer responded that 273 applications have been received, the majority of which are non-primary and are being grandfathered. Member Rollins asked whether a significant number of operators have become compliant since March 30th; Ms. Sawyer confirmed this to be the case. Member Heinz asked how many operators requested an extension; Ms. Sawyer could not give a specific number. Member Hobbs asked for clarification on whether the March ordinance deadline allowed non-compliant people to be grandfathered in; Ms. Sawyer confirmed this. Member Whitley asked how many operators who have primary abutting properties applied for the extension; Ms. Sawyer responded that only a few operators live directly next door to the primary STR. Chair Schneider asked whether an operator that sold their primary residence could still operate the abutting property as an STR; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that the abutting property would have to remain abutting to the eligible operator. Member Heinz asked for clarification on the rules in the event an operator sold their STR and the purchaser wanted to continue the STR; Ms. Sawyer confirmed that the purchaser has a 30-day period to apply for an STR transfer. Member Hobbs asked for clarification on the definition of abutting; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that the term “abutting” under the LUC is that the other lot is touching the dwelling unit lot. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Blvd, posed the question, “what is our use by right”? He has a concern with the ambiguity of the STR policies, adding that the “use by right” was ignored during the Planning & Zoning Board August 17, 2017 Page 4 development of these policies, citing the Colorado Revised statutes as proof. He pointed out that the City did not adhere to the established legal principles, concluding that he would support a revision to this ordinance. Michelle Haefele, 2703 Stanford Road, also has a concern that lodging taxes were collected in zones where lodging was not allowed, asking the Board to reject most of this ordinance and accept the grandfathering provision if the operator can prove operations prior to March 31s. She asked that the Board recommend that City Council strike the clause allowing tenants to operate a primary STR, saying she feels that would allow future occupancy violations. She also asked that the Board strike the clause allowing an adjacent property to be operated as a primary, which would extend the number of primary STRs to open new, primary STRs. She feels that this ordinance should only grant a small extension to those operators who were previously operating prior to March 31st. Finally, she feels that if an operator cannot be identified, they should be disqualified. Margaret Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth, has a concern with the City providing sales tax numbers to illegal operators, saying that the zoning wasn’t always properly verified, so she is not in favor of allowing an extension to non-compliant operators. Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, has concerns with this ordinance, saying that the City seems to manage by exception, adding that it was the City’s error and processing inefficiency that led to the issuance of lodging and sales/use tax licenses, which continued until enactment of the STR ordinance in March 2017. She believes that the City has now created an exception process, continuing to inaccurately administer the STR licensing process. She cited several examples of STRs that are currently operating in prohibited zones. She requested that the P&Z Board deny alterations to the ordinance until processes can be audited to determine compliance with the current ordinance. She also questioned some remarks made by Chief Planner Shepard at the P&Z work session that directly conflict with the ordinance. Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, has a concern about allowing renters to become primary STRs; he also discussed his concern with the ordinance allowing renters to operate a primary STR, asking the Board to disallow this. Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Drive, has a concern with properties within HOAs, which could be a resource to finding some of the operators that are still unidentified. She believes that HOA covenants may not allow STRs to operate within the same limits granted by the City. She feels that not granting leasehold interests the same rights as owners could be difficult in the future. She also asked whether an abutting property could lead to future issues. Finally, she stated that the “grandfathering” right should be terminated once an operator sells their property. Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, is representing the Neighborhood Action Coalition, and he feels that the regulations passed in the spring were reasonable, but he thinks that the “grandfathering” issue is really just “management by exception”. He questions the reason for enacting this exception, saying that this further removes the accountability of the owner so they can realize more profit of their rental property, thereby compromising neighborhood stability. Liz Derbyshire, 709 Garfield, asked the Board to reject this proposal, saying that she has researched the Board’s involvement in STRs and feels that simply paying sales and lodging tax does not legitimize the STR operator. At the stakeholder’s meeting, the operators stated that they had been given permission, but they couldn’t remember how it had transpired. She also recounted that Chief Planner Shepard stated at that meeting that, “if it’s not prohibited in the LUC, we allow it”. Planning & Zoning Board August 17, 2017 Page 5 Martha Denny, 1756 Concord Drive, stated her surprise that this topic has been resurrected, saying the first process was thorough and well-vetted. She has a concern with “grandfathering” (which assumes pre-existing circumstance), saying that non-compliant operators should not be eligible. She does not support the notion of allowing renters to operate as landlords, which would increase the lack of accountability and places an unfair burden of responsibility on neighbors. She asked the Board to reject this proposal. Board Questions and Deliberation Ms. Sawyer confirmed that the allowable tenants must already be existing, rather than any tenant in a primary zone being allowed to operate an STR. There was more clarifying discussion on the applicability of tenants becoming operators. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified that the license to operate an STR is maintained with the property, so the use is with the property, not the person who lives there. Member Heinz inquired as to the number of “grandfathered” operators that currently exist; Ms. Sawyer is only aware of 2 at present. She stated that the owner must apply for an operator license, but the tenant could be the operator, with owner permission. Vice Chair Hansen asked about City code provisions; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed that it is principally in the City Code regarding licensing. Member Rollins asked whether there is a way to address the HOA concern; Ms. Sawyer responded that the City does not enforce HOA covenants, so this would not be pertinent. Vice Chair Hansen explained that the City is only responsible for enforcing its own regulations, not HOA regulations. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe offered City Code provision 3.8.34(F)(2) to support the process for a renter who has obtained a “grandfathered” license to be able to pass on that license to the next renter. Member Hobbs asked about subletting individual units within a multi-family dwelling and whether that designates the entire building or just that particular unit as an STR; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that the STR status is designated only for that unit. The Board members discussed several different scenarios in order to get a better understanding of the “abutting” clause; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe provided clarification for each scenario. Member Heinz asked whether the intent of the primary STR is to have the owner in close proximity; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed this is the case for both primary and non-primary. There was more discussion regarding the sales tax licensing; Noah Beals, Senior Planner, clarified the difference between short-term and long-term rentals, with the earlier distinction of STRs related to residential use. As a result of the ambiguity, on March 31, 2017, STRs were defined and zoned, and the “grandfathering” clause was put in place. Vice Chair Hansen acknowledged the overlap between the City code and the Land Use Code (LUC). Chair Schneider reviewed the main issues to address at this hearing: • Grandfathering clause allowing the tenant to be the operator; • Abutting property rights; and • Extension of the October 31st deadline; Vice Chair Hansen asked if the City Council has already taken action on the extension of the “grandfathering” allowance; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that City Council will hear this topic on first reading on September 5, 2017. Member Carpenter commented that she doesn’t feel the “grandfathering” clause is ready for adoption, so she does not support this component at this time. Chair Schneider asked Ms. Sawyer if this was discussed and vetted. Ms. Sawyer confirmed that, while these items were previously discussed and public information was distributed, public outreach and collaboration was not performed. Member Heinz stated that the Board members do not appear to be supportive of the tenant proposal. Member Rollins asked why there is a lack of input from people who want this extension; Ms. Sawyer responded that Planning & Zoning Board August 17, 2017 Page 6 people may be unfamiliar or unengaged with the City process. Member Hobbs is confused about how some people are ignorant of deadlines and why the City is proposing an extension. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified that the City Code language allows for renters to obtain an operator’s license under the “grandfathering” allowance; otherwise the general requirement for a STR must be from the owner. There was more discussion on the details of when the City Code versus the LUC was in effect and how the proposed “grandfathering” clause would be involved. Member Heinz asked for more clarification of how licenses are granted and how personal rights are involved; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified that, under the LUC, a “right” is attached to a property, not to a person. More discussion followed to clarify the landowner vs tenant responsibilities (i.e. a license is given to the operator, not the property). Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council deny extending the “grandfathering” rights to tenants who were operating an STR prior to March 31, 2017. Member Carpenter seconded. Vice Chair Hansen has an issue with this motion, saying that this would apply to only a few tenant operators, and this could affect those landlords who have been operating legally. Ms. Sawyer clarified that there are 3 licenses required to operate to STRs: lodging license, sales tax license, and an STR operator license. Member Whitley doesn’t feel that this proposal was properly vetted, so he will not support it. Vice Chair Hansen reiterated his desire not to take away a right that was previously legal. Member Hobbs will not support the motion. Member Heinz clarified the consequences of the motion. Member Rollins and Chair Schneider will support the motion. Vote: 5:2, with Members Hansen and Hobbs dissenting. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve the homeowner, in a zone that allows primary STRs, to obtain a license for a primary STR on an abutting property. Vice Chair Hansen seconded. Member Hobbs and Member Whitley do not support this proposal. Ms. Sawyer stated that this topic was previously discussed but was not included in the first ordinance. Member Heinz supports this proposal, as she feels that this proposal agrees with the intent to have engaged homeowners. Member Rollins will be supporting this proposal. Member Carpenter will not support this proposal. Member Whitley asked more about how abutting properties be touching. Vice Chair Hansen asked about the plans for providing parking to renters; Ms. Sawyer stated that a certain number of off-street parking spaces would be required. Vice Chair Hansen will support this proposal. Chair Schneider will also support this proposal. Vote: 4:3, with Members Hobbs, Whitley, and Carpenter dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council deny extension of the “grandfathering” allowance to October 31st, 2017, for those operational STRs prior to March 31st, 2017. Member Whitley seconded. Members Hobbs, Rollins, and Carpenter will support the motion. Member Heinz will not support the motion because she feels that this shouldn’t be so restrictive. Member Whitley is in favor of this motion, saying it is hard to understand ignorance. Vice Chair Hansen will not support this motion, saying he feels this extension is not under the purview of the LUC. Chair Schneider will support. Vote: 5:2, with Members Hansen and Heinz dissenting. Planning & Zoning Board August 17, 2017 Page 7 Project: Draft Minutes from July 20, 2017, P&Z Hearing Recommendation: Approval Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland doesn’t feel that the July minutes properly reflected his comments. In addition, regarding the Lakeview on the Rise project, he takes exception to the Board making a motion to deny a modification, saying that the Board should have handled this situation differently. He challenged the logic used in this motion, adding that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process and why the Assistant City Attorney requested the Board to provide a reason for this denial. He is in favor of process improvement overall. Board Questions and Deliberation Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested that the Board can make amendments to the wording of the minutes, adding that the minutes are not designed to reflect verbatim statements and are also available online through the video. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe also stated his belief that the motion to deny a modification is sufficient, and providing a reason for denial is applicable. Member Rollins is in favor of making Mr. Sutherland’s comments more specific in the July minutes. Vice Chair Hansen also stated his belief that the minutes are not intended to be a verbatim record. Secretary Cosmas stated her intent to remove inflammatory comments from the record minutes in an effort to maintain a neutral record for the public. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Draft Minutes from the July 20, 2017, P&Z Hearing, with the changes that have been discussed to reflect Mr. Sutherland’s comments in a more complete, but civil manner. Member Rollins seconded. More discussion continued regarding how to alter the minutes. Secretary Cosmas stated that she needed specific wording changes, since she has already tried to accomplish these goals. Chair Schneider added a friendly amendment that Mr. Sutherland described his disapproval of the current planning process and hearing videos are available online for further review. Member Hobbs accepted this amendment, and Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 7:0. Other Business Secretary Cosmas reminded the Board that the 2018 Annual Work Plan is due on September 30th, so the Board will need to address it at the September work session. Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 14, 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 2 Item # 2 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 2 Item # 2 Page 3 Site & Zoning Vicinity Map Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 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 2 Item # 2 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 2 Item # 2 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 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 14, 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 3 Item # 3 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. 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. 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 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 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) - 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. 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 200 to 255 dwelling units is included, thus complying with the standard. 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 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. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 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 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. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 5 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. 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, Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 6 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. • 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./gross acre but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 12.00 d.u./gross 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. 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 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 7 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. continues to comply with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H). B. The O.D.P. continues to comply with applicable zoning standards in Article Four. C. 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. ODP SHEETS-1 (PDF) 2. ODP SHEETS-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 185 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 200 - 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 Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME ZIGGI’S COFFEE, #PDP170021 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a 500 square-foot drive-through restaurant on Lot Two of the C.O.L. College and Trilby Subdivision located at the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Trilby Road. The plan includes one drive-through lane, a walk-up service option, patio seating and 22 parking spaces. The parcel is partially developed as a parking lot for the adjoining place of worship and is 1.63 acres in size and zoned, C-G General Commercial. A Modification of Standard to allow 12 extra parking spaces has been requested as part of the P.D.P. APPLICANT: Ziggi’s Coffee c/o Mr. Michael Hunsinger MAH Architectural Group 1385 S. Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO 80222 OWNER: C.O.L. College and Trilby, LLC c/o Brad Douglas 3708 W. Swann Avenue, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33609 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Request for Modification of Standard Approval of the P.D.P. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The P.D.P. represents a redevelopment of a pad site that was originally approved in the County as Eckerd Pharmacy. After this initial development, the parcel was annexed and subdivided into two lots in the City. • The P.D.P. complies with the South College Corridor Plan, an element of City Plan. Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 2 • 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. • The P.D.P. includes a Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(2) – Non- residential Parking Requirements – to allow an extra 12 spaces in the existing parking lot. 1. Background: A. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: C-G Vacant E: C-G Kel-Mar Strip W: C-G Vacant S. C-G Southgate Church B. Annexation and Zoning • In 2003, pre-annexation, Larimer County approved the original development which consisted of the existing building, designed as an Eckerd Pharmacy with a drive-through lane, on 3.69 acres. • Between 2003 and 2005, the building sat vacant as Eckerd Corporation was acquired by CVS Pharmacies which decided not to open the store. (Two other Eckerd Pharmacies were closed by CVS and sold and converted to Lazy Boy Furniture at 4621 Timberline Road and Walgreens at 2612 South College Avenue. All three buildings feature similar design.) • In 2004, the parcel was annexed into the City. • In 2005, the C.O.L. College and Trilby Subdivision was approved that divided the parcel into two lots. • In 2005, a Minor Amendment was approved and the Certificate of Occupancy was changed from a retail store (Mercantile) to a place of worship (Assembly) on Lot One for Southgate Church. The subject site, Lot Two, was partially developed as part of Eckerd Pharmacy and presently consists of a parking lot, driveway, curb cut, landscaping and the stormwater detention pond. Lot Two is 1.63 acres. The existing driveway onto State Highway 287 has been approved by CDOT. 2. South College Corridor Plan: The site is included within the study area of the South College Corridor Plan, adopted in March of 2009. This area is 608 acres and is bounded on the north by Harmony Road, on the south by Carpenter Road with roughly one-half mile on either side of South College Avenue as the east-west boundary. For historical context, the Plan followed the Southwest Annexations, initiated in 2006, which resulted in over one thousand acres being annexed into the City over four phases. The corridor is considered the southern gateway to the City. The following excerpts from the Plan describe the purpose, vision and applicable land use policies: The purpose is to articulate a common vision that reflects the objectives of the many diverse stakeholders involved, including businesses and property owners, residents, the City of Fort Collins, CDOT and the broader community. The Plan provides direction on land use, Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 3 transportation, appearance and design, community partnerships, financing, and infrastructure. (Page 1.) “From Trilby Road to Fossil Creek, we envision neighborhood compatibility. Here the Corridor will continue to support community and neighborhood commercial uses with landscaping and building forms that lessen the negative impacts of the highway. Retail development activity will front South College and major street intersections, and new service commercial and light industrial uses, will be located behind retail uses in appropriate areas while adequately buffering adjacent residential uses. The highway will continue to influence land use, but the area will transform over time towards a more attractive pedestrian environment.” (Page 29.) “Land Use and Business Activity. Goal LU 1: Retain the eclectic business mix while supporting new uses that strengthen the South College market.” (Page 38.) “Community Appearance and Design. CAD 1.3 – Architectural Character. The overall image will continue to be defined by unique storefronts in individual buildings. While quality materials will continue to be important, creative building forms and a mixture of materials may be introduced to provide an eclectic ambience.” (Page 46.) In general, the Plan does not provide specific guidance for this particular land use on this individual parcel. A broad reading of the Plan, however, indicates that C-G zoning is affirmed which, in turn, allows for drive-through restaurants. The P.D.P. supports the eclectic direction with a unique building and the aesthetic aspirations by providing a generous amount of landscaping. By redeveloping an under-utilized church parking lot, the business activity in the Corridor is enhanced. There has not been any significant development activity in the Corridor since the Plan’s adoption with the lone exception of the recently approved self-storage facility on West Skyway Drive. Redevelopment of a single parcel, while minor over the 608 acre plan area, may prove to be a small but highly visible addition to the business climate in the South College Corridor. 3. Compliance with the General Commercial Zone District Land Use and Standards: A. Section 4.21(B)(3) – General Commercial Zone District Permitted Uses: The C-G zone district allows for Drive-Through Restaurants as a permitted use subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.21(D) – Land Use Standards – Building Height The building does not exceed the maximum allowable height of four stories. 4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C )(D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. represents a re-development of an outer parking lot for a place of worship that was formerly a pharmacy that sat vacant for about two years. As such, much of the existing landscaping was neglected and is now in various stages of decline and will be removed. Landscaping that is thriving will remain and one tree will be transplanted. New street trees will be added to the College Avenue parkway on 40-foot centers including along the frontage of Lot One (Southgate Church) to remedy an existing deficiency. Behind the existing sidewalk, Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 4 there is an emphasis on Evergreen Trees in order to help screen the drive-through lane. The drive- through lane forms an island that is also landscaped and designed to fill in at maturity without the need for irrigated turf. Landscaping is placed around the drive-through lane and at the southwest end of the building which is the back of the store and will house the various utility meters. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping There are 22 existing parking spaces all of which face internally to the parcel and do not represent an exterior condition. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The parking lot exceeds the minimum required 6% interior landscaping in the form of islands which complies with the required minimum for lots with less than 100 spaces. D. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access Circulation and Parking All internal drives are private. Lots One and Two are connected and the existing driveways to both South College Avenue and Trilby Road will be shared. The College Avenue access is in compliance with the South College Avenue Access Control Plan jointly adopted by the City of Fort Collins and CDOT. E. Section 3.2.2 (C)(4) – Bicycle Parking The standard requires 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or a minimum of four, and that they all may be located outside in fixed racks. The plan provides eight spaces in a single rack located at the southwest corner of the building near the patio. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) – Walkways The P.D.P. includes a five-foot wide connecting walkway between the patio and the public sidewalk along South College Avenue. Two crosswalks are provided along both internal drives to connect the Southgate Church to the outdoor patio. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(6) – Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations The parcel is one of two lots at the corner of two arterial streets. Both lots are flanked by large swaths of undeveloped land. As a result, the P.D.P. is isolated until the adjoining land develops. Public sidewalks are existing providing access to the nearest neighborhood, Skyview Acres, approximately one-quarter mile to the west. The nearest bus stop is Transfort Flex Route at the intersection of South College Avenue and Skyway Drive approximately one-half mile to the north. H. Section 3.2.2(H) – Drive-In Facilities This standard requires drive-through restaurants to comply with the following: (1.) Potential pedestrian / vehicle conflicts are avoided by the direct connecting walkway to South College Avenue which does not cross the drive-through lane. Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 5 (2.) The drive-through lane allows for ten cars to queue behind the dispensing window. There is stacking for seven cars behind the menu board. Beyond that, 12 cars can stack in the private drive if needed. This is considered to be more than adequate based on the operational history throughout the restaurant chain. (3.) The site plan indicates that directional signage is logically placed. (4.) As mentioned, while there is no indoor dining, a walk-up service option with a covered patio is provided. I. Section 3.2.2(J) – Setbacks for Vehicular Use Areas This standard is intended to minimize the impact of parked cars facing a public street. As noted, all parking spaces are west of the building, internal to the site, and do not face South College Avenue. J. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) – Parking Lots – Non-residential Parking Requirements – Maximum Number of Spaces A drive-through restaurant is required to have no less than seven spaces per 1,000 square feet and no greater than 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. A 20% bonus is allowed since there is no available on- street parking. For the 500 square foot building, this means there can be no less than four and no more than eight spaces. With no parking on South College Avenue, the 20% bonus allows a maximum of 10 spaces. The P.D.P. provides 22 spaces which exceed the standard by 12 spaces and the applicant has requested a Modification of Standard. (1.) Extent of the Modification. The Modification of Standard would allow the 12 extra spaces. (2.) Applicant’s Justification. The applicant states that all 22 parking spaces exist as they were part of the original development, along with the drive aisles and curb cuts on South College Avenue and Trilby Road, for Eckerd Pharmacy approved in Larimer County. The parking spaces were developed prior to annexation and the subdivision that created two lots. As a redevelopment project, the site is being retrofitted and upgraded per City of Fort Collins standards and meshing existing improvements with standards from the two jurisdictions results in a unique challenge. The existing parking spaces represent an exceptional situation that results in practical difficulties in complying with the standard. (3.) Staff Evaluation. Eckerd Pharmacy was developed under Larimer County standards. The subject site represents the portion of the original development that was not purchased by CVS Pharmacy and then later sold to Southgate Church. Essentially, the parcel is a remnant pad site that was partially developed and sat vacant for over a decade. The existing condition is no fault of the applicant. The fundamental intent of the standard is to minimize large-scale parking lots in retail centers that are not at the pedestrian scale and are aesthetically displeasing. Twelve extra spaces in this location do not rise to this level of impact. (4.) Staff Finding. Staff finds that in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H)(3), the Request for Modification: a. Would not be detrimental to the public good; b. Is justified by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 6 conditions which hinder the owner’s ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or under hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. K. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The parking and drives will feature pole lights that are fully-shielded and down-directional. Wall sconces will be similarly screened. L. Section 3.5.3 –Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (1.) Section 3.5.3(B) – General Development Standard The standard requires that commercial buildings have: o Architectural interest; o Not be dominated by a large single mass; o Be sensitive to the pedestrian scale; and o Establish an attractive street and walkways. In response, at only 500 square feet, the building is architecturally challenged more by its small scale versus having a large mass. The orientation is angled toward College Avenue with the front facing northeast. This orientation is designed to allow for both a direct connecting walkway to the public sidewalk and provide for adequate stacking in the drive- through lane. The brick wainscot is a high quality material. (2.) Section 3.5.3(C)(1) – Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking The front of the building does not contain a building entrance. Instead, the front features windows and a projecting overhang. Along the side facing College Avenue, there is a patio, pergola and walk-up service. As noted, there is a five foot-wide walkway that connects to the public sidewalk which does not cross the drive-through lane or parking lot. (3.) Section 3.5.3(C)(2) – Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings With regard to the build-to line, the building ranges from 15 feet at the northeast to 40 feet at the southwest from the easterly property line. The placement complies with the standard that at least 30% of the building be between10 and 25 feet of the property line by having 45% of the building within these parameters. The key design attribute is that there is no vehicular use area between the building and the street. The building is placed closer to the street than Southgate Church which features large parking lots between both College Avenue and Trilby Road. (As mentioned, Southgate Church was originally approved in the County as a chain-store pharmacy.) (4.) Section 3.5.3(D) – Variation in Massing Even though the scale of the building is small, there is a variation in the mass established by the brick wainscot, synthetic stucco accented by corrugated metal siding. Other features include Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 7 projecting canopies, faux mansards (copper to match Southgate Church) combined with two sloping parapets that are distinctly offset from the mansards. These roof features are also designed to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. (5.) Section 3.5.3(E)(1) – Character and Image – Site Specific Design Because the P.D.P. represents a chain restaurant along a major arterial street, the entire standard is offered verbatim for emphasis: “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 buildings 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.” As noted, the P.D.P. represents a redevelopment of an existing parking lot. The former chain store pharmacy has been converted to a place of worship. Lot Two is not part of a commercial center that evokes a particular design theme. Although there is no commercial context or established design guidelines with which to adhere, the brick wainscot will match the brick of Southgate Church. (6.) Section 3.5.3(E)(2-6,9) – Facades, Entrances, Awnings, Base and Top Treatments and Illumination Prohibition As indicated, the building features a distinct base (brick) and top (faux mansard and sloping parapets). The façade is proportioned. There are no illumination features that violate the standard. M. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study and a Queue Analysis were prepared and are attached. These analyses indicate: • The College/Trilby, College/Site Access and Trilby/Site Access intersections currently meet Level of Service (LOS) standards with one exception. • The College/Trilby intersections experiences failing LOS during the afternoon peak. As a remedy, both eastbound and westbound turn lanes are needed on Trilby. • The City of Fort Collins is aware of these existing deficiencies and has a funded capital improvement project for this intersection. A proportional contribution towards the installation of these turn lanes is required as part of this development. Using the proportional volume of traffic added by this development to the intersection of College and Trilby, results in a developer contribution of $1,300. • Acceptable LOS is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi- modal transportation guidelines. In the short range (2022) future, some pedestrian level of Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 8 service categories cannot be achieved due to a lack of sidewalks and street connections. As this area redevelops and becomes more urban in the future, it is expected that there will be sidewalks along the existing and future streets. • The queueing analysis was performed for the morning peak hour. The drive-through window queue can accommodate 10 vehicles at a spacing of 23 feet (front bumper-to-front bumper). The drive aisle can accommodate six vehicles. The right-in / right-out access drive can accommodate six vehicles. Therefore, 22 vehicles can be accommodated without spilling out to South College Avenue. Based on a similar drive-through facility with one window and a pre- order speaker, it was found that the service time for an order at the window is 55 seconds. This equates to approximately three minutes from order time to service. The results of the queueing analysis indicated that the average queue, during the morning peak hour would be 11 vehicles. 5. Neighborhood Information Meeting: The neighborhood information meeting for this project was waived. At only 500 square feet, and with greater than one-quarter mile to the nearest neighborhood, anticipated impacts were deemed to be minimal. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating Ziggi’s Coffee P.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with the overall guidance and intent of the South College Corridor Plan a sub-area plan of the City’s comprehensive plan, City Plan. B. The P.D.P. complies with the permitted use list and 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 Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(2) to allow an extra 12 spaces beyond the maximum allowed has been submitted and evaluated and found to be in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(3). (1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. (2.) The granting of the Modification Is justified by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner’s ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or under hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. (3.) This is because the 22 space parking lot was developed while the site was under the jurisdiction of Larimer County as parking for a retail pharmacy. Since that time, the pharmacy was sold to a place of worship, the site was annexed and then the site was divided into two lots. This parking lot is now located on Lot Two, the subject site. The construction of this Agenda Item 4 Item #4 Page 9 parking lot with 22 spaces was not caused by the applicant. The context is that these 12 extra parking spaces are located on a 1.63 acre pad site and not part of a larger commercial shopping center. Consequently, the 12 extra spaces do not cause the parking lot to be aesthetically displeasing or impactful to the human scale. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(2), Non- residential Parking Requirements, and approval of Ziggi’s P.D.P. #170021. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Aerial Map (PDF) 3. Zoning Map (PDF) 4. Planning Objectives (PDF) 5. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 6. Queue Analysis (PDF) Coyote Ridge Elementary Discovery Montessori Little Peoples Landing Water's Way Park Homestead Park Fossil Creek Community Park Robert Benson Lake Portner Reservoir «¬287 E Saturn Dr W Skyway Dr A u b u r n D r Constellation Dr Vivian St V enu s A v e F l a gl er R d Kyle Ave Mars Dr Sed g w ick D r Holy o k e C t S t r asbu r g Dr V i c t ori a W Trilby Rd E Trilby Rd S College Ave Avondale Rd Avo n d a le Rd Strasburg Dr Stoney Brook Rd Constellation Dr AWuraoyra Lunar Ct N Yuma Ct OCriotn Vivian St Kevin Dr Egyptian Dr WooDdrrow Fl a gler Rd Lyee n a Ct Leo Ct LCutnar S Solar Ct Debra Dr Co n stel l ation Dr Strader Ln Uranus St Pulsar St Po l ar i s Dr E gyp ti a n C t Rick Dr Hu d son Ct G a Attachment 4 Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets ............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 6 Pederstrian Facilities ....................................................................................................... 6 Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................. 6 Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................. 9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 10 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 10 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 13 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 13 Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................. 13 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 13 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 13 Accident/Safety Analysis of the College/trilby intersection ............................................ 20 Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................................................................... 20 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 22 Transit Level of Service ................................................................................................. 22 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 23 Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 10 3. Short Range (2022) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 19 4. Short Range (2022) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 21 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry ..................................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 5 4. Adjusted/Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 7 5. Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 11 6. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 12 7. Short Range (2022) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 14 8. Assigned Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................ 15 9. Passby Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................... 16 10. Short Range (2022) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 17 11. Short Range (2022) Geometry ................................................................................ 18 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Short Range (2022) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Short Range (2022) Total Peak Hour Operation F. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed development of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site. The proposed Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site is located in the northwest quadrant of the College/Trilby intersection, just north of Southgate Church in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project architects (MAH Architectural Group) and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). A scoping discussion was held with the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. Due to the trip generation, this is an intermediate transportation impact study. It was requested that an accident analysis and the impact on safety at the College/Trilby intersection be evaluated. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily residential and commercial. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. The center of Fort Collins is north of this site. Streets The primary streets near the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk are College Avenue (US287) and Trilby Road. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the College/Trilby, College/Site Access (Right-in/Right-out), and Trilby/Site Access intersections. College Avenue (US287) is east of (adjacent to) the proposed Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site. It is a north-south street classified as a six-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, College Avenue has a four-lane cross section. At the College/Trilby intersection, College Avenue has northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, two through lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound right-turn lanes. The College/Trilby intersection has signal control. At the College/Site Access intersection, College Avenue has two through lanes in each direction, a southbound right-turn lane, and a short southbound right-turn acceleration lane that becomes the right-turn lane approaching Trilby Road. The posted speed in this area of College Avenue is 55 mph. Trilby Road is south of the proposed Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site. It is an east-west street classified as a four-lane arterial east of College Avenue and a two-lane arterial west of College Avenue on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Trilby Road has a two-lane cross section. At the College/Trilby intersection, Trilby Road has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes and a through/right-turn lane in each direction. At the Trilby/Site Access intersection, Trilby Road has an eastbound left-turn lane and a through lane in each direction. The Trilby/Site Access intersection has stop sign control on the Site Access. The posted speed in this area of Trilby Road is 40 mph. Existing Traffic Recent morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The traffic counts at the College/Trilby intersection were obtained in September 2015 by the City of Fort Collins. The traffic counts at the Trilby/Site Access intersection were Attachment 5 SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 3 Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk Trilby Road College Avenue Constellation Drive Debra Drive Lynn Drive Avondale Road Attachment 5 EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 4 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/Right-out) Site Access Trilby Road - Denotes Lane Attachment 5 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 5 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/right-out) Site Access Trilby Road 138/251 1075/991 74/88 73/246 641/1204 89/188 231/142 354/316 175/137 179/112 247/354 81/125 1479/1284 2/12 829/1675 0/3 2/5 4/1 2/1 442/830 4/2 765/615 AM/PM Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 6 obtained in May 2017. The traffic counts at the College/Site Access intersection were obtained in June 2017. Raw traffic count data are provided in Appendix B. Since the traffic counts were done on different days/years the traffic counts were adjusted. Figure 4 shows the adjusted peak hour traffic. Existing Operation Using the peak hour traffic shown in Figure 4, the College/Trilby, College/Site Access, and Trilby/Site Access intersections were evaluated and the morning and afternoon peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010HCM). Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. Acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At arterial/arterial and collector/collector stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service E, overall and level of service F, for any approach leg. At arterial//collector, arterial/local, collector/local, and local/local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service D, overall and level of service F, for any approach leg. The key intersections meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and afternoon peak hours, except for the College/Trilby intersection during the afternoon peak hour. At the College/Trilby intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound through/right-turn, the eastbound approach, the westbound through/right-turn, the westbound approach, and the northbound left-turn was commensurate with level of service F. At the College/Trilby intersection, the calculated delay for the overall intersection was commensurate with level of service E. The calculated delay associated with level of service F operation is provided in Table 1. It is important to note that eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes are warranted with the existing traffic volumes. The right-turn lanes would significantly improve the operation at the College/Trilby intersection. Pedestrian Facilities There are very few sidewalks in this area of Fort Collins. Most of the existing streets were built under Larimer County standards, which do not require sidewalks. Sidewalks exist along the Southgate Church and this site. Bicycle Facilities There are bicycle lanes along Trilby Road. On College Avenue bicycles use the shoulder. Attachment 5 ADJUSTED/BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 7 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/right-out) Site Access Trilby Road 140/255 1091/1006 75/89 74/250 651/1222 90/191 234/144 359/321 178/139 182/112 251/359 82/127 1507/1264 2/12 815/1660 0/3 2/5 4/1 2/1 463/863 4/2 767/603 AM/PM Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 8 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM College/Trilby (signal) EB LT D D EB T/RT E F (112.1 secs) EB APPROACH D F (95.1 secs) WB LT C D WB T/RT D F (135.8 secs) WB APPROACH D F (115.0 secs) NB LT C F (93.5 secs) NB T D C NB RT C C NB APPROACH D D SB LT C C SB T C D SB RT C C SB APPROACH C D OVERALL D E College/Site Access (stop sign) EB RT A C OVERALL A A Trilby/Site Access (stop sign) EB LT A B SB LT/RT C C OVERALL A A Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 9 Transit Facilities This area of Fort Collins will be served by the Flex bus service. There are northbound and southbound bus stops at the College/Trilby intersection. Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 10 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk is a coffee kiosk with one drive-up window and one walk up window (with outdoor seating), located on the northwest quadrant of the College/Trilby intersection. Figure 5 shows a site plan of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk. The short range analysis (Year 2022) includes development of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The site plan shows that the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk will use the right-in/right-out access to College Avenue and the full movement access to Trilby Road. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at this site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk development resulted in 900 daily trip ends, 152 morning peak hour trip ends, and 38 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Passby trip factors were used for the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk using Table F.35 in the Trip Generation Manual, 3rd Edition, ITE. The Average Passby Trip Percentage of 89 percent was used. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 938 Drive-Thru Coffee 0.50 KSF 1800 900 152 76 152 76 37.5 19 37.5 19 89% Passby 802 68 68 17 17 Assigned 98 8 8 2 2 Trip Distribution The Assigned trip distribution for the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. The passby trip distribution for the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk was based on existing traffic movements at the College/Trilby intersection. Figure 6 shows the assigned and passby trip distribution for the short range (2022) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Attachment 5 SITE PLAN Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 11 Attachment 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 12 College Avenue Site Access Site Access Trilby Road - Passby Trip Distribution 4%/6% 32%/24% 2%/2% 2%/6% 20%/29% 3%/5% 7%/3% 11%/8% 5%/3% 5%/3% 7%/8% 2%/3% Assigned Trip Distribution (am/pm) 20% 30% 30% 20% Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 13 Background Traffic Projections Figure 7 shows the short range (2022) background peak hour traffic at the College/Trilby, College/Site Access, and Trilby/Site Access intersections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins and the CDOT 20-year growth factor. Traffic volumes on the area streets were increased at a rate of 1.0 percent per year. Traffic from Pedcor Apartments was added to the background traffic. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned and passby trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. The site generated assigned trip assignment for the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk development is shown in Figure 8. The site generated passby trip assignment for the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk development is shown in Figure 9. The assigned and passby site generated traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted traffic for the study area. Figure 10 shows the short range (2022) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The College/Trilby intersection is currently signalized. The College/Site Access and Trilby/Site Access will not warrant signals in the future, nor do they meet the signal spacing criterion. Geometry Figure 11 shows a schematic of the short range (2022) geometry. The eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes are warranted with the existing traffic. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the College/Trilby, College/Site Access, and Trilby/Site Access Park intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting the year 2022 condition. The calculated delay associated with level of service F is provided. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the College/Trilby, College/Site Access, and Trilby/Site Access intersections operate in the short range (2022) background future as indicated in Table 3. The short range (2022) operation analyses were conducted with the existing control and geometry at all intersections. Analyses were also conducted Attachment 5 SHORT RANGE (2022) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 14 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/Right-out) Site Access Trilby Road 151/270 1179/1075 90/99 78/263 692/1317 95/201 246/151 377/337 188/150 191/118 264/377 89/144 1616/1344 2/12 865/1778 0/3 2/5 4/1 2/1 491/909 4/2 807/637 AM/PM Attachment 5 SHORT RANGE (2022) ASSIGNED SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 15 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/Right-out) Site Access Trilby Road 2/1 2/1 2/0 2/1 2/0 2/1 2/1 4/1 2/0 2/1 4/1 2/0 AM/PM Attachment 5 SHORT RANGE (2022) PASSBY SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 16 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/Right-out) Site Access Trilby Road 23/4 -22/-4 -1/0 -1/-1 4/2 8/1 25/5 -7/-1 -3/-1 -3/-1 4/2 -1/-1 17/7 -17/-7 21/8 9/3 30/6 35/8 -9/-3 15/3 -15/-3 AM/PM Attachment 5 SHORT RANGE (2022) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 17 College Avenue Site Access (Right-in/Right-out) Site Access Trilby Road 176/275 1157/1071 89/99 77/262 698/1320 105/202 273/157 370/336 185/149 188/117 270/379 88/143 1616/1344 21/20 848/1771 25/12 13/8 36/8 41/10 482/906 21/5 792/634 AM/PM Attachment 5 SHORT RANGE (2022) GEOMETRY Figure 11 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 Page 18 College Avenue Site Access Site Access Trilby Road - Required Lane - Existing Lane Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 19 TABLE 3 Short Range (2022) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM College/Trilby (signal with existing signal timing and existing geometry) EB LT E D EB T/RT E F (144.9 secs) EB APPROACH E F (120.4 secs) WB LT C D WB T/RT E F (159.4 secs) WB APPROACH D F (132.7 secs) NB LT C F (131.4 secs) NB T E C NB RT C C NB APPROACH E D SB LT C D SB T C E SB RT C C SB APPROACH C E OVERALL D E College/Trilby (signal with adjusted signal timing and EB & WB right-turn lanes) EB LT D E EB T D E EB RT C D EB APPROACH D E WB LT C D WB T D E WB RT C C WB APPROACH D E NB LT B E NB T C C NB RT B B NB APPROACH C D SB LT C C SB T C E SB RT B C SB APPROACH C E OVERALL C D College/Site Access (stop sign) EB RT A C OVERALL A A Trilby/Site Access (stop sign) EB LT A B SB LT/RT D C OVERALL A A Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 20 with eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes at the College/Trilby intersection. As mentioned earlier, these right-turn lanes are warranted with the existing traffic volumes. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The College/Site Access and Trilby/Site Access intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The College/Trilby intersection will not meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard with existing geometry and signal timing in the afternoon peak hour. With eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes on Trilby Road, the College/Trilby intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the College/Trilby, College/Site Access, and Trilby/Site Access intersections operate in the short range (2022) total future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. As with the background traffic, the College/Trilby intersection will not meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard with existing geometry and signal timing in the afternoon peak hour. With eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes on Trilby Road, the College/Trilby intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk contributes zero (0) traffic to the eastbound and westbound right-turn lane volumes. Accident/Safety Analysis of the College/Trilby Intersection Accident data was obtained from the City of Fort Collins for the College/Trilby intersection for a four year, 10 month period (7/14/12 to 5/13/17). At the College/Trilby intersection, there were 203 reported accidents: 122 rear-end accidents, 35 approach turn accidents, 15 side-to-side same direction accidents, 10 accidents involving a vehicle striking a fixed object, nine right-angle accidents, four side-to-side opposite direction accidents, three other accidents, two overtaking turn accidents, two accidents involving a bicycle, and one accident involving a pedestrian. At signalized intersections (College/Trilby), rear-end accidents are the most common and most often are property damage only. They are often cause by driver inattention. Two rear-end accidents involved alcohol. The number and type of accidents at the College/Trilby intersection are typical. Based on the accident data, eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes could improve rear-end accidents by removing them from the through traffic stream. Removing of the drainage crosspan could also improve rear-end accidents by not having Trilby Road through traffic slow down as they approach the intersection. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site. The Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site is located within an area termed as “other,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories. There are three pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the proposed Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk development. These are: 1) the residential to the west of the site; 2) the commercial Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 21 TABLE 4 Short Range (2022) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM College/Trilby (signal with existing signal timing and existing geometry) EB LT F (92.1 secs) D EB T/RT E F (137.9 secs) EB APPROACH E F (114.7 secs) WB LT C D WB T/RT E F (160.1 secs) WB APPROACH D F (133.3 secs) NB LT C F (139.3 secs) NB T E C NB RT C C NB APPROACH E D SB LT C D SB T C E SB RT C C SB APPROACH C E OVERALL D E College/Trilby (signal with adjusted signal timing and EB & WB right-turn lanes) EB LT E E EB T D E EB RT C D EB APPROACH D E WB LT C D WB T D E WB RT D C WB APPROACH D E NB LT B E NB T C C NB RT B B NB APPROACH C D SB LT C C SB T C E SB RT B C SB APPROACH C E OVERALL C D College/Site Access (stop sign) EB RT B C OVERALL A A Trilby/Site Access (stop sign) EB LT A B SB LT/RT E D OVERALL A A Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 22 uses to the east and southeast of the site; and 3) the residential to the east and southeast of the site. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. Currently, there is a lack of sidewalks and connectivity in the area. The level of service for connectivity category cannot be achieved in the short range (2022) future. To increase connectivity would likely require right-of-way to install sidewalks. This would require a large intersection improvement project or the adjacent properties to redevelop. As this area redevelops and becomes more urban in the future, it is expected that there will be sidewalks along the existing streets. The sidewalks at the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk go to the edge of the site. As such, it can connect to future sidewalks along the external public street system; however these connections are not likely to be constructed by/before the short range (2022) future. It is not likely that there would be significant pedestrian interaction between Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk and the destination areas. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination area within 1320 feet of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk: the commercial area to the east and southeast of the site. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. The minimum level of service for this site is C. There are bike lanes on Trilby Road and College Avenue. Therefore, it is concluded that acceptable bicycle level of service can be achieved. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by the FLEX bus service. Attachment 5 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk TIS, June 2017 ASSOCIATES Page 23 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk development on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2022) future. The Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site is a proposed as a coffee kiosk with one drive-up window and one walk up window, located on the northwest quadrant of the College/Trilby intersection, just north of Southgate Church in Fort Collins, Colorado. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded:  The development of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk will generate approximately 900 daily trip ends, 152 morning peak hour trip ends, and 38 afternoon peak hour trip ends.  Currently, the College/Trilby, College/Site Access, and Trilby/Site Access intersections meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and afternoon peak hours, except for the College/Trilby intersection during the afternoon peak hour. At the College/Trilby intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound through/right-turn, the eastbound approach, the westbound through/right-turn, the westbound approach, and the northbound left-turn was commensurate with level of service F. At the College/Trilby intersection, the calculated delay for the overall intersection was commensurate with level of service E. It is important to note that eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes are warranted with the existing traffic volumes.  The College/Trilby intersection is currently signalized. The College/Site Access and Trilby/Site Access will not warrant signals in the future, nor do they meet the signal spacing criterion.  Figure 11 shows a schematic of the short range (2022) geometry. The eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes are warranted with the existing traffic.  In the short range (2022) future, given development of the Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk and an increase in background traffic, the College/Trilby intersection will operate unacceptably with existing geometry and signal timing, in the afternoon peak hour. With eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes on Trilby Road, the College/Trilby intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk contributes zero (0) traffic to the eastbound and westbound right-turn lane volumes.  Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-model transportation guidelines. In the short range (2022) future, connectivity cannot be achieved due to a lack of sidewalks and street connections. As this area redevelops and becomes more urban in the future, it is expected that there will be sidewalks along the existing and future streets. Attachment 5 Robert Benson Lake «¬287 Lynn Dr Rick Dr Debra Dr Orbit Way Vivian St Constellation Dr Strasburg Dr Flagler Rd Kevin Dr Uranus St Gala x y W a y Idalia Dr Gary Dr Solar Ct Pitner Dr E g y p tia n C t Hudson Ct Aurora Way Leo Ct P o l a r i s Dr Pulsar St Stoney Brook Rd Yuma Ct Strader Ln Ka s l a m C t Lyeena Ct Constellation Dr Avondale Rd S College Ave W Trilby Rd E Trilby Rd © Ziggi's Vicinity Coffee Map W Trilby Rd E Trilby Rd S College Ave Avondale Rd Avo n d a le Rd Strasburg Dr Stoney Brook Rd Constellation Dr AWuraoyra Lunar Ct N Yuma Ct OCriotn Vivian St Kevin Dr Egyptian Dr WooDdrrow Fl a gler Rd Lyee n a Ct Leo Ct LCutnar S Solar Ct Debra Dr Co n stel l ation Dr Strader Ln Uranus St Pulsar St Po l ar i s Dr E gyp ti a n C t Rick Dr Hu d son Ct G a Attachment 6 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk Queue Analysis, August 2017 ASSOCIATES that there would be one or more vehicles in the queue is 92 percent. Since the available length can accommodate 22 vehicles, it is concluded that the back of the queue will not spill onto College Avenue. From the foregoing analyses, it is concluded that site can accommodate the 85th percentile queue on site. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that no further transportation analyses be required for the proposed Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or desire additional information. Attachment 6 DELICH Ziggi’s Coffee Kiosk Queue Analysis, August 2017 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 938 Drive-Thru Coffee 0.50 KSF 1800 900 152 76 152 76 37.5 19 37.5 19 89% Passby 802 68 68 17 17 Assigned 98 8 8 2 2 Attachment 6 SCALE 1"=40' SITE PLAN Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's Coffee Kiosk Queue Analysis, August 2017 STOP ENTER Attachment 6 1385 S. Colorado Blvd., Penthouse Denver, Colorado 80222 (O) 303.778.0608 (F) 303.778.0609 (W) www.maharch.com This drawing is to be read in conjunction with structural, mechanical, electrical, and/or any other consultants drawings that may be applicable. This drawing is the exclusive property of the Architect and must not be reproduced without his written permission. Notes MAH Architectural Group Stamp Issues: Scale Date Drawn Drawn By Description Sheet Number ASE JUNE 07, 2017 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS A1.0 ZIGGI'S COFFEE-FORT COLLINS 6533 S. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 ZIGGI'S COFFEE-FORT COLLINS FDP RESPONSE-1: 08.03.17 LOT 2, C.O.L. COLLEGE AND TRILBY SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT DEVLPMNT PLAN: 06.21.17 1 GROUND VIEW 1 A1.0 2 GROUND VIEW 2 A1.0 NOT TO SCALE 1385 S. Colorado Blvd., Penthouse Denver, Colorado 80222 (O) 303.778.0608 (F) 303.778.0609 (W) www.maharch.com This drawing is to be read in conjunction with structural, mechanical, electrical, and/or any other consultants drawings that may be applicable. This drawing is the exclusive property of the Architect and must not be reproduced without his written permission. Notes MAH Architectural Group Stamp Issues: Scale Date Drawn Drawn By Description Sheet Number ASE JUNE 07, 2017 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A2.0 ZIGGI'S COFFEE-FORT COLLINS 6533 S. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 ZIGGI'S COFFEE-FORT COLLINS FDP RESPONSE-1: 08.03.17 LOT 2, C.O.L. COLLEGE AND TRILBY SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT DEVLPMNT PLAN: 06.21.17 +0'-0" FINISH FLOOR +4'-0" T.O. WAINSCOT +8'-3" B.O. AWNING +9'-0" B.O. SOFFIT +10'-0" B.O. ROOF +10'-0" T.O. PARAPET CORRUGATED METAL SIDING. BRICK VENEER: BRICK COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT BRICK BUILDING.. EXTERIOR LIGHTING (TYPICAL). PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CANOPY. 1385 S. Colorado Blvd., Penthouse Denver, Colorado 80222 (O) 303.778.0608 (F) 303.778.0609 (W) www.maharch.com This drawing is to be read in conjunction with structural, mechanical, electrical, and/or any other consultants drawings that may be applicable. This drawing is the exclusive property of the Architect and must not be reproduced without his written permission. Notes MAH Architectural Group Stamp Issues: Scale Date Drawn Drawn By Description Sheet Number ASE JUNE 07, 2017 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A3.0 ZIGGI'S COFFEE-FORT COLLINS 6533 S. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 ZIGGI'S COFFEE-FORT COLLINS FDP RESPONSE-1: 08.03.17 LOT 2, C.O.L. COLLEGE AND TRILBY SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT DEVLPMNT PLAN: 06.21.17 10'-0" 10'-0" 29'-10" 33'-4" 15'-0" 25'-2" 18'-0" 26'-1" 18'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" TRASH/ RECYCLING ENCLOSURE EXISTING 3'-0" WIRE FENCE 1 BICYCLE PARKING 1 3 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME 4406 SENECA ST. GROUP HOME STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION 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. APPLICANT: Greg & Justyuna Baustert 38844 CR 31 Eaton, CO 80615 OWNER: 4406 Seneca Street Trust 3654 Shampo Dr. Warren, MI 48092 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of 4406 Seneca St. Group Home, PDP170024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 4406 Seneca St. Group Home Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.6(A) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards, so long as the Board approves the modification to Section 3.8.6(A). • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.4 Low Density Residential (RL). COMMENTS: Background The property annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth - Harmony West Annexation on June 3, 1980. The property developed as a single-family detached home as part of the Regency Park PUD in 1987. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Residential (RL) School South Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached East Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached West Low Density Residential (RL), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached and single-family attached A zoning vicinity map is presented on the following page: Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 Site & Zoning Vicinity Map Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 2. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code - Modification of Standards Modification #1 Description: The applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.8.6(A) - Lot Area and Separation Requirements to have a residential group home with 8 residents, excluding supervisors. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and bolded for emphasis): Land Use Code 3.8.6(A): Zone Maximum number of residents excluding supervisors for minimum lot size Additional lot area for each additional resident (square feet) Maximum permissible residents, excluding supervisors Minimum separation requirements between any other group home (feet) R-L, N-C-L, H-C, E, R-F 3 1,500 8 1,500 Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Summary of Applicant’s Justification: The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted promotes the standard equal or better than a compliant plan): Applicant’s Justification Modification #1: · The home is 5,300 square feet, which provides ample living space for each resident while meeting the intent of the code section. · A strict application of this standard would result in an undue hardship upon the owner of the property. · State of Colorado licenses group homes, so this would not result in a burden on the City of Fort Collins. · No other Colorado city has an occupancy restriction for group homes based on lot size. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.6.2(E) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(1): the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. The purpose of this standard is to provide group home residents with ample space and retain the character of the neighborhood in which the home is located. In the RL zone, the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet per Section 4.4(D)(1). A group home with eight residents would require a 13,500 square foot lot in the RL zone per this standard. The lot at 4406 Seneca St. is only 10,468 square feet. Per this code standard, this lot could only accommodate five residents. The building in which the applicant is seeking to put the group home is unique. The home is 5,300 square feet, which provides 530 square feet of living space for each resident and the on- site supervisors. The applicant only proposes a minor change to the exterior of the building to accommodate a stairwell for improved ingress and egress. This means the residential character of the existing house will be retained. The home also sits across the street from two schools and is a short walk to Westfield Park, which provides additional outdoor amenities to the residents of the group home above and beyond the home’s yard space. None of the residents are allowed to own vehicles per the applicant’s submittal, so the number of residents will not have an adverse impact on neighborhood parking issues. Due to the size of the home, proximity to open space, and stipulation that residents will not be allowed to own vehicles, staff finds the proposal to be equal to or better than a compliant plan. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 6 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as detailed below. A. 3.2.1(D) - Tree Planting Standards The existing site already features a number of mature trees that meet requirements for street trees, tree-stocking, and diversity/size requirements. No new trees will be planted as part of the proposal and all existing trees are planned to remain in place. B. 3.2.1(E)(2) - Landscape Area Treatment The existing lot area not covered by buildings or paving features landscaping as installed by the previous homeowner in accordance with this code standard including turf grass, mulch, shrubs, and trees. C. Section 3.2.2(K) - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use Vehicle parking space requirements for group homes are derived from the following formula: two parking spaces for every three employees and one parking space for each four adult residents, unless the residents are prohibited from owning or operating a vehicle. The site plan indicates the group home will have three employees. The existing driveway can accommodate three cars without blocking other parked vehicles. None of the residents will be allowed to own cars. The three parking spaces provided meet this code standard. D. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility This section of the Land Use Code contains standards relating to building form (size, height, bulk, mass, scale), materials, and outdoor storage. The applicant proposes a minor change to the east side of the building. In order to provide better ingress and egress to the basement, the applicant proposes adding a stairwell. This stairwell does not appreciably change the size, height, bulk, mass, or scale of the building. By not making substantial changes to the building, the proposal meets this code section. E. Section 3.8.6(C)(1) This subsection of the supplementary group home standards states the decision maker shall establish the specific type of group home permitted and the maximum number of residents allowed. Staff recommends the group home at this location be permitted only to serve seniors for up to 8 residents if the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.6(A) is approved. Proposed changes to the type of group home population being served or increasing the number of group home residents would constitute a change in character, requiring a major amendment and an additional public hearing. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Low Density Residential (R-L), Division 4.4: Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 7 The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.4(B)(3)(a) - Permitted Uses Group homes are a permitted use subject to Planning & Zoning Board review, which satisfies this standard. B. Section 4.4(D)(1) - Density All developments in the RL require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet or three times the total floor area of the building, whichever is greater. Article 5 provides a definition of floor area, which means the gross floor area of a building as measured along the outside walls of the building and including each floor level, but not including open balconies, the first seven hundred twenty (720) square feet of garages or other enclosed automobile parking areas, basements and one-half (½) of all storage and display areas for hard goods.The main level of the house is the only portion of the site that would count towards the floor area calculation. The site plan indicates the main level of the home is 2,525 square feet. Three times the main level square footage is 7,575 square feet. The lot is 10,468 square feet, which means the lot complies with this standard. C. Section 4.4(D)(2)(a) - Minimum Lot Width For all uses except single-family dwellings and child-care centers, the minmum lot width is 100 feet. The lot at 4406 Seneca St. is 100 feet, which complies with this standard. D. Section 4.4(D)(2)(b) - Minimum Front Yard Setback The minimum front yard setback is 20 feet. The existing house is setback 25 feet from Seneca St. E. Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) - Minimum Rear Yard Setback The minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet. In 2006, the homeowner received a building permit for an addition to the rear of the home that encroached into the minimum setback. At its closest point, the rear addition is 11 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line. On April 2, 2007 City staff a letter of completion for the addition, inidicating the addition met all applicable City codes (attachment 4). Since the proposed group home is not showing a greater deviation from the standard, staff finds the proposal to meet this code section. F. Section 4.4(D)(2)(d) - Minimum Side Yard Setback The minimum side yard setback for interior side yards is five feet. The building is setback further than the minimum five feet in accordance with this standard. G. Section 4.4(D)(2)(e) - Building Height The group home structure is one story in height, below the maximum three stories allowed for group homes in this zone. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 8 City staff held a neighborhood meeting for this proposal on May 3, 2017 at Webber Middle School. 13 residents participated in the neighborhood meeting. Comments from the neighborhood meeting focused on the following issues: · Non-residential uses are not allowed per the Regency Park private covenants · Safety issues with seniors living in a basement · Concern about parking for visitors · 8 residents seems like too many 6. Findings of Fact / Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the 4406 Seneca St. Group Home Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.6(A) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards, if the Board approves the modification to Section 3.8.6(A). D. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.4 Low Density Residential (RL). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of 4406 Seneca St. Group Home, PDP170024. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map 2. Planning Document Set (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations) 3. Modification of Standard Request 4. Letter of Completion for Addition 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 6. Location of Group Homes in Fort Collins RL LMN UE MMN RL LMN MMN POL Webber Middle School Johnson Elementary Westfield Park Silvergate Rd Overlook Dr Prairie Ridge Dr Greengate Dr Regency Dr Westbrooke Dr Rolling Gate Rd Craig Dr Hilburn Dr Wakerobin Ln Chippendale Dr C e d a rgat e D r W e s t brook e C t Dusty Sage Dr C e n t e r Gate Ct Applegate C t C h oke c h erry Trl H i l b u rn Ct REMODEL FOR LOT 14, BLOCK TWO - REGENCY PARK P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT: P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 ISSUE DATE: REVISION: 5/25/17 4 4406 SENECA A1.0 - SITE PLAN A2.0 - EXISTING BASEMENT DEMO PLAN A2.2 - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR DEMO PLAN A2.3 - NEW MAIN FLOOR PLAN A2.1 - NEW BASEMENT PLAN INDEX OF DRAWINGS: A. ALL WINDOWS TO BE MIN. (.35 U-FACTOR) U.N.O. A. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE 2X6 STUDS 2'-0" O.C. U.N.O. B. ALL MAIN FLOOR WALLS ARE 9'-1 1 8" HIGH ON MAIN FLOOR U.N.O. C. ALL ANGLED WALLS ON FLOOR PLANS ARE AT 45 DEGREE ANGLE, U.N.O. D. ALL EXTERIOR HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 W/ 1-2x6 TRIMMER EA. END U.N.O. E. ALL WINDOW HEADER HEIGHTS TO BE 7'-0" FROM A.F.F. U.N.O. A. PROVIDE TEVEK HOUSE WRAP AS PER PENETRATION DETAILS, WRAP OVER TOP PLATE 12" TOWARD INSIDE OF HOUSE PRIOR TO INSTALLING TRUSSES. SHEETROCK INSTALLERS SHALL STAPLE 12" OVERAGE C. ALL OUTLETS AND SWITCHES TO BE INSTALLED PER LOCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL CODES D. VERIFY CABINET LAYOUTS WITH NOTES ON FLOOR OR WITH SUPER. E. VERIFY DOOR SWINGS WITH NOTES ON JAMBS OR WITH SUPER. GENERAL NOTES: NOTE: ( REFER TO INDIVIDUAL SHEETS FOR ALL REVISIONS.) A. ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED AND ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBLITY OF EACH TRADE TO VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPENCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE BUIDLING SUPERITENDENT BEFORE PROCEDING. A. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. ANY WORK COMPLETED NOT MEETING CODE SHALL BE CORRECTED AND THE COST FOR SUCH REPAIRS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUB CONTRACTOR WHOM HAS CAUSED THE VIOLATION. F. FRAMER SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL 2X6 BLOCKING IN WALLS EXCEPTING MILLWOK / CABINETS @ 34" O.C. HORIZ. / 56" O.C. HORIZ. / 86" O.C. HORIZ. - TYP. ALL LOCATIONS.A.F.F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: B. ALL MANUFACTURED ARTICLES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE APPLIED, INSTALLED, ERECTED, USED, CLEANED AND CONDITIONED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS. C. ALL CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS,SUPPLIERS AND FABRICATORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND FOR THE SUPPLY AND DESIGN OF APPROPRIATE MATERIALS AND WORK PERFORMANCE. CODES: B. DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES:. 1. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) A. PROVIDE SITE PREPARATION AS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND / OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. SITEWORK: B. PROVIDE CONSISTANT COMPACTION OF THE TOP 8" OF SUBGRADE AND ALL FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL BENEATH STRUCTURE, WALKS AND PAVEMENTS TO MEET THE STATED SOIL PRESSURE. C. PROVIDE FOUNDATION DRAINAGE AS SPECIFIED BY SOIL ENGINEER. D. PROVIDE TEMPOPARY EROSION CONTROL AS PER LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL CODES.. A. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS. CONCRETE: 4406 SENECA STREET 1 : 104.68' 1 ( 100.00' 1 : 109.76' LOT 14 5'-0" B.S. 5'-0" B.S. 10'-0" EASEMENT. STAIRS DN CONCRETE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING DRIVE 8'-6" 5'-8" 16'-0" 4'-0" NEW CONCRETE NEW CONCRETE STAIRWELL. REFER TO PLANS. PROPERTY LINE.-TYP. SETBACK LINE.-TYP. NEW STEPPED TIMBER WINDOW WELL. ADJUST LANDSCAPING AS NEEDED. S SITE PLAN LOT 14, BLOCK TWO SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NEW WHOLE HOUSE EMERGENCY GENERATOR. SIDEWALK. EXISTING FENCE EXISTING SHED. EXISTING ELECTRICAL PIT. EXISTING A/C CONDENSER TO REMAIN. EXISTING A/C CONDENSER TO RELOCATED. VERIFY SHOWER CLOSET BEDROOM 5 CARPET SHOWER TUB STAIRS UP CARPET MECHANICAL BATH TILE STORAGE REMOVE WALL AS NEEDED FOR NEW DOOR. REMOVE WALL AS NEEDED FOR NEW DOOR. REMOVE WALLS AS NEEDED FOR NEW DOOR. - TYP. REMOVE EXISTING DOORS. REMOVE WALLS AS NEEDED FOR NEW DOOR. - TYP. REMOVE EXISTING DOORS. OPEN AREA CARPET OPEN AREA CARPET OPEN AREA CARPET OPEN AREA CARPET CAREGIVER KITCHENETTE TILE CAREGIVER BEDROOM CARPET CAREGIVER FAMILYROOM CARPET CAREGIVER NOOK CARPET CAREGIVER W.I.C. CARPET CAREGIVER BATH TILE CLOSET REMOVE EARTH AS NEEDED FOR NEW EXTERIOR STAIRWAY. REMOVE CONCRETE AS SHOWER SHOWER TUB STAIRS UP CARPET CAREGIVER KITCHENETTE TILE CAREGIVER MECHANICAL CLOSET RESIDENT ROOM #8 CARPET BATH TILE CLOSET ENTRY WOOD HALLWAY WOOD GATHERING ROOM CARPET STAIRS UP CONCRETE 4'-1" 4'-1" 5'-3" 9'-61 4" 13'-4 3 4" 2/10X6/8 1R1S 36V 1R1S 5S 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 RESIDENT ROOM #7 CARPET OFFICE CARPET CAREGIVER BEDROOM CARPET CAREGIVER FAMILYROOM CARPET CAREGIVER NOOK CARPET CAREGIVER W.I.C. CARPET CAREGIVER DRYER WASH. 2 - CAR GARAGE CONCRETE LAUNDRY WOOD PWDR. WOOD FAMILY ROOM WOOD KITCHEN WOOD DBL. DESK OVEN ISLAND D.W COOKTOP GATHERING ROOM WOOD STAIRS DN. CARPET SPA POOL CLOSET CLOSET BEDROOM 4 WOOD CLOSET BEDROOM 2 WOOD CLOSET CLOSET TUB/SHOWER BEDROOM 3 WOOD BATH TILE COVERED PORCH CONCRETE HALLWAY WOOD W.I.C. WOOD MASTER BEDROOM WOOD 6' SOAKER TUB CLOSET SHOWER MASTER BATH TILE REMOVE EXISTING MAN DOOR. REMOVE EXISTING GARAGE DOOR. - TYP. REMOVE EXISTING STEPS. REMOVE EXISTING WALL CABINETS. - TYP. REMOVE EXISTING DOORS. REMOVE WALL AS DRYER WASH. LAUNDRY WOOD PWDR. WOOD FAMILY ROOM WOOD KITCHEN WOOD ISLAND D.W COOKTOP GATHERING ROOM WOOD STAIRS DN. CARPET SPA POOL CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET BATH TILE COVERED PORCH CONCRETE HALLWAY WOOD CLOSET HALLWAY WOOD OFFICE WOOD STAIRS DN CONCRETE CLOSET LINEN BATH TILE SHOWER 60" 30" PANTRY DBL. OVEN 54" REF. 54" REF. CLOSET BATH TILE SHOWER 60" 30" LINEN SHOWER 60" 30" REMOVE EXISTING MAN DOOR AND FRAME. FILL IN AND FINISH WITH MATERIAL TO MATCH EXISTING. EXISTING STUCCO FINISH. EXISTING BRICK. EXISTING TILE ROOF. EXISTING BRICK FIREPLACE CHIMMNY. 1-1/2" DIA. STL. WT. WELDED STEEL PIPE GUARDRAIL. SEE DETAIL. 3'-0" 1" STL. PICKETS. TYP. 4" SPHERE SHALL NOT PASS THRU CONCRETE STAIR WALL. EXISTING STUCCO FINISH. EXISTING BRICK. EXISTING GARAGE DOORS TO BE REMOVED. FILL IN REMOVED GARAGE DOOR LOCATIONS WITH MATERIAL TO MATCH EXISTING. TYP. 5/0X4/0 SL. NEW WINDOW. 5/0X4/0 SL. NEW WINDOW. EXISTING DRIVEWAY. EXISTING HOUSE. EXISTING LANDSCAPING. TYP. A2.4 Sheet Scale Project Date No. Revision/Issue Date PLAN NOTES: "Seller reserves the right to make any and all changes due to code requirements, constructability, HOA requirements, and or substitute any material for a material of equal or greater value at their sole and absolute discretion. All measurements are approximate. Home will be built in substantial accordance with these plans changes that are not a substantial deviation from the plan are not grounds for Buyer to cancel their sales contract." IF THIS IS NOT RED Attachment 3 Attachment 4 4406 Seneca St. Group Home Neighborhood Meeting Summary Date: May 3, 2017 Location: Webber Middle School Presenters: Clay Frickey (City of Fort Collins – Planning Department) Greg Baustert (Applicant) Justyna Baustert (Applicant) Summary of City Presentation: • Group home proposed for 8 residents at 4406 Seneca St. • Proposal will be assessed for compliance with the Land Use Code • Applicant has not submitted a formal development application with the City yet • It is unknown when the applicant will submit their development application • Planning & Zoning Board will be decision maker on project Summary of Applicant Presentation: • Looking to convert house to group home for 8 elderly residents • Caretakers will live on-site and will have professional with over 20 years’ experience assist with care of the residents Summary of Question and Answer Session: Question: Why did you pick to locate your group home in a neighborhood that violates the covenants? Response (Applicant): We were unaware that this would violate the covenants. Do the covenants expire at some point? Comment: The covenants show up on the title, you should know about the covenants. Question: Does the Planning department know about the covenants? Response (City): No, the only department that might would be Neighborhood Services. Covenants are up to the neighborhood to enforce. Since a covenant dispute is between two private parties, the City will not act to enforce covenants. Comment: This feels intentional: Response (Applicant): It’s not, we had no idea. Comment: There’s a difference between the covenants and the HOA. Comment: We need to know the boundaries for the covenants to determine if this property is controlled by these covenants. Attachment 5 Comment: Seniors are good neighbors. I’m the previous owner of the house and we went to great lengths to vet the new homeowners. We received a lot of offers for the homes and one of them was a family with 13 kids. Big families can have a far greater impact on the neighborhood than a home full of seniors. Comment: I’m concerned with safety issues of having seniors living in the basement. In the event of a fire or a flood, how will a senior be able to get out of the basement safely? There’s also no natural light in basements so I am concerned about their quality of life as well. Response (Applicant): The primary caretakers will be living in the basement. We could perhaps house a senior in the basement if it was a good fit. We wouldn’t put a senior in the basement that couldn’t make it out in the event of an emergency. Question: How many residents are you looking to have? Response (Applicant): 6 residents upstairs, 2 downstairs. Question: How big will the bedrooms be? Response (Applicant): The smallest will be 11 x 12 feet. Question: What will it cost to live in this house? Response (Applicant): It’s private pay, they will need to cover the costs. Comment: This feels like a way to get around You + 2. Response (City): Group Homes are a distinct use from other residential uses. You + 2 only applies for single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Comment: I’m concerned about traffic and parking. Response (Applicant): This is a response to some earlier concerns about the size of the rooms. There will be a lot of common area and people will tend to congregate in the common spaces. People won’t stay in their rooms very often. Comment: Our neighborhood is sensitive due to some bad neighbors in past. We have a business operating out of a home that has been a particular problem. Response (City): The City allows home occupations but they are limited to 1 employee that doesn’t live in the home. Comment: We also dealt with a re-zoning for some townhomes that is still a sore spot. These people seem trustworthy, though. Attachment 5 Comment: I’m concerned about the long-term maintenance of the property. What happens if these folks sell their house to another party that wants to run a group home but doesn’t care about property maintenance? What’s your business plan? Response (Applicant): I don’t know if I can respond this question, it isn’t very fair. We want to stay in this house when we get old. Comment: We will all need a similar place to go when we get older. There’s no guarantee the property will be maintained regardless of the use or who lives there. Comment: I have confidence in the plan. Question: Will there be an age limit as to who qualifies as a senior? Response (Applicant): The State regulations say a senior is anyone aged 55 years and older. Comment: I don’t know, there are some pretty wild 55 year olds. Response (Applicant): The State has many regulations on behavior to prevent disruptive residents. Question: Why did you pick this house given the issues with the covenants? Response (Applicant): We didn’t know about the covenants otherwise we wouldn’t have bought the house. The house is already fully accessible with wide doorways since it was the ultimate vision of the previous owner to turn this into a group home. Comment: The difference is that since all of these folks will not be related, this plan is not better due to increased traffic and parking. Response (Applicant): The difference is that in our case, we get to pick our residents. The other group homes in Fort Collins that are in neighborhoods are fine and fit in well. Question: Will you be re-building the home? How many bedrooms are you looking to have? Response (Applicant): No, the house has 6 bedrooms now and we are looking to have 8. Comment: 8 residents seems like a lot. Do you have floor plans? Response (Applicant): The house is big. The living room is 500 sq. ft. and the house overall is 5,200 sq. ft. There’s plenty of room for 8 bedrooms. Comment: I don’t think a large family will be a bigger issue. I’m concerned about parking since there will be people living in the house, caretakers, and visitors. Response (Applicant): Sadly, after the first couple of months people don’t to visit very often so we don’t think parking will be a big issue. Comment: But it could still happen. Attachment 5 Response (Applicant): There’s lots of parking on Seneca. Families will have more potential for issues with parking. Also, our visiting hours will be limited from 7-7. Question: Will there be a traffic study for this project? Response (City): No, this project does not meet the threshold for a traffic study. Question: Are you proposing to convert the garage to bedrooms? Will this permanently be a group home? Response (Applicant): Yes, we are looking to convert the garage to bedrooms. No, that change would not make this a group home permanently. It could be converted back to a garage. Question: Will residents have cars? What about the administrative staff and family living in the house? Response (Applicant): No, residents will not be allowed to bring cars. The family will have one car. Comment: Just so you know, there’s no parking on Seneca right next to Craig. Comment: I would like to see the values of homes 1 year before and 1 year after a group home going into neighborhoods in Fort Collins. Response (Applicant): Can we do that empirically? Comment: We would really like you to consider property values when making a decision on this project. Response (City): We can’t consider property values for numerous reasons. It’s too difficult what elements directly influence property values. Question: I’m confused, what’s up for consideration? Response (City): What the City is considering is a change of use from a single-family detached home to a group home. The City will also consider a modification to get 8 residents as opposed to the 5 allowed by the Land Use Code. The applicant will have make a compelling case as to why the City should allow 3 additional residents. Question: Can you pick your residents based on disabilities and a background check? Response (Applicant): Yes. Comment: The covenants also require garages. I can give you a copy of the covenants if you would like. Response (City): That would be great, thanks. Comment: One perk is that if someone in the neighborhood has an elderly family member living in this home, they would be able to walk over and visit easily. Comment: But there’s good facilities that provide care for elderly folks in the community already. Attachment 5 Response (Applicant): But this provides choices to families. Comment: Sorry if this is coming off wrong, but we’re just trying to get answers. Response (Applicant): It’s ok, our residents will be well vetted. We won’t have any wanderers that get out of the house. We’ll transfer residents out that need more intensive care. If the residents feel independent in a home-like setting, their quality of life increases. Question: Will the residents be allowed to have pets? Response (Applicant): No. Question: What about smoking? Response (Applicant): No, we will not allow smoking. Comment: The circular drives are a safety feature to ensure cars are not backing out onto Seneca around the schools. Please don’t block these drives and make sure the residents don’t back out onto Seneca. Comment: At first, I was a little scared about this development but the more I thought about it, the more I thought this is a really good idea. We would have loved this for our aunt that was in a large senior home. This is an opportunity to take care of the elderly and move them away from large homes. Everyone has different needs and this provides good proximity for families to come visit if they live in the neighborhood. Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 From: Heather Bennetts [mailto:Heather.Bennetts@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:37 AM To: Clay Frickey Subject: Seneca House senior citizen small home Dear Mr. Frickey, I had the pleasure of meeting you at a public meeting about the proposed Seneca House, a St. John Assisted Living small group home for senior citizens, at 4406 Seneca St. in Fort Collins. I understand that there is another meeting about the proposal this Friday, but unfortunately I am leaving on a 2-week trip. I am the prior owner of the property and also intended to start a small group home for senior citizens, but with four of our prospective residents being relatives and the law allowing for 2 more unrelated residents, I was exempt from the city approval process. When our older daughter passed away unexpectedly last year, my husband and I decided to pass our vision for a neighborhood senior citizen small group home on to someone else. We received a half- dozen full-price offers for the house – which has an indoor therapy pool and is completely handicap accessible – three of which were from people wanting to create a small group home for the elderly. We carefully vetted each, and selected Greg Baustert. We could have easily fetched more for our home and sold it to the chain group home operator – who has a successful history of receiving permission to operate in Fort Collins and other Colorado cities, but does not live locally or visit the properties frequently – or the family with 11 kids, which would be far more residents, cars, and noise than 8 elderly people. Contrary to a couple NIMBY-prone neighbors’ misconceptions, small neighborhood-based group homes for the elderly actually increase property values; everyone wants a quiet, good, reliable neighbor. The neighborhood elderly home concept is replacing the large, dorm-style nursing home concept. Just look at Loveland’s proliferation of small group homes for senior citizens – which charge thousands more per month than the Bausterts intend to charge. Even Eaton has a neighborhood senior citizen home, with people vying for a couple spots. Two neighbors of 4406 Seneca St. have already inquired about their elderly parents living at Seneca House! I predict that Seneca House’s presence will increase demand for homes within a mile radius, so that people can live near their parents or grandparents, visit them more frequently, and know that they are in excellent hands with caring locals whose own father will probably live there. If Fort Collins is making a (much-needed and well-done) effort to incorporate all types of folks into neighborhoods – such as at the new Harmony Cottages a half-mile down the road – then senior citizens needed to be included in those efforts. I have worked with the elderly my entire life, and founded and ran a nonprofit directed at the elderly for 12 years, and have not met anyone more capable and caring (yet with business experience, for without that the best intentions will fail) than the Bausterts in doing this. The couple that they have hired to be full-time, live-in caregivers for the residents are hands-down the nicest, gentlest, kindest, and most hard-working and earnest people I have ever met – I would adopt them if I could. I hope the City of Fort Collins does everything it can to make the process smooth for them, for the good of the city and its residents. On a side note, when I lived at 4406 Seneca St. from 2005-2017, I had a business license and conducted nonprofit work from there, with clients stopping by daily. I had a 2 x 3 ft sign out front. People would leave commodes and hospital beds and other equipment in my driveway. My disabled daughter also Attachment 7 had therapists and caregivers over every day, we had a full-time housekeeper/helper for years, and up to 6 relatives living with us at a time. I frequently had meetings for 15-25 people there, and hosted Girl Scout troops and exercise classes. Not once did we ever receive a complaint or comment or sideways glance from a neighbor about any of this. There was more hustle and bustle, and more vehicles coming and going, when I lived there than there ever will be with the Bausterts’ home for the elderly. Thank you for your consideration, and please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Heather Holmes Bennetts 9 Cottonwood Ave., Eaton Cell 970-690-5680 Heather.Bennetts@comcast.net Founder/former director, GoodHealthwill Attachment 8 From: Cory Raasch [mailto:cnraasch@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:07 PM To: Clay Frickey; Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: 4406 Seneca St Group Home PDP 170024 Input Clay and Sylvia, We live in the property right next door to the proposed group home at 4406 Seneca St. and are very concerned and disappointed that we will be out of town and unable to attend the public hearing on this development proposal . We are the original owners of our home and have lived there 27 years so our comments are based on many years of experience with the unique circumstances of our neighborhood. We feel that this proposal to exceed the land use code by 60% to allow 8 residents in the home instead of 5 is excessive, unwarranted and a major safety concern. When evaluating the proposal, we feel that special consideration should be given to the fact that the property is immediately across from Webber Middle School. 1. The covenants of the neighborhood require a single family dwelling with a 2-3 car garage. The plan to convert the garage to bedrooms is a major violation of the covenants and legal action could be taken to enforce them. 2. Once the garage is converted to bedrooms, it is highly unlikely that this home will ever be anything but a group home. Should this business close, some other group home would be pursued such as a home for recovering drug addicts or a half way house. Many of these uses would be a big concern to have right across from a school, so the decision to allow any kind of group home in this location is a major one, having long term implications. 3. It is our understanding that all the homes across from the school were required to have circular driveways so that vehicles could pull forward onto Seneca St and have full view of any children that might be present. The on-site parking plans for the group home will block the circular driveway causing safety concerns for the school children. 4. When you cram 60% more residents into the home than the land use code allows, traffic and parking requirements increase substantially. If you take 8 residents times spouses, siblings, children, grandchildren and friends along with staff for nursing, housekeeping, landscaping, therapy, medical, salon services and more, you have the potential for many visitors. Using street parking for all of this will block the spaces used by parents dropping off and picking up students from the school. This is a major safety concern as kids may dart out between all the parked cars and some child may get hit. We have personally witnessed near misses and the added congestion from the group home will increase the risk substantially. 5. Because of the school, Seneca St. is a "snow route" and gets plowed in the winter. Many times, the snow piles up along the street for months, blocking the street parking that the group home requires. Attachment 8 6. Should a resident have a medical emergency when parents are dropping off or picking up students before and after school, the school traffic could impede the emergency vehicles from getting to the home, putting the resident's life at risk. 7. Having elderly residents live in a basement that has flooded in the past is a major issue. 8. We certainly are concerned about the negative effect this will have on home values in the neighborhood. We have taken great care of our home for 27 years and being right next door, will be affected the most, especially if the garage is converted to bedrooms. 9. If this must become a group home, a more reasonable path forward would be to have a group home with 5 residents without converting the garage to bedrooms. It does not violate the covenants, abides by the land use code, reduces the traffic and parking concerns near the school, has less impact on neighboring home values and does not lock the home into being a group home forever. Otherwise, we do not understand why this party feels they are above the law and can violate their property's covenants and the land use code standards. Allowing them to do so will harm neighborhood residents and will be putting our school children at risk to enable an investor to profit from a business venture. Here are some pictures of how Seneca St gets filled up with parked cars from school activities to emphasize the parking and safety issues. Attachment 8 Here is how the snow gets piled up on Seneca St, blocking the street parking that the group home requires. Attachment 8 Please ensure that this feedback is presented to the Planning and Zoning Board members. We hope this input is carefully considered when ruling on the proposal. Thanks, Nancy & Cory Raasch 4401 Craig Drive Attachment 9 From: Patricia Perry [mailto:perrymom@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:23 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Group home on Seneca drive To Whom It May Concern, I am writing for myself and in behalf of my husband, Greg Perry. We reside on Briargate Court here in Fort Collins. We are not able to attend the meeting about the approval of the group home to be located at 4406 Seneca Drive. But, we wanted to let you know that we would give approval for the home to be built or created in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Greg and Patricia Perry 541-231-8691 for questions Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION 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 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. APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNER: Forbes, Kenneth E and Jeanette L 2008 Turnberry Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve, subject to one condition, the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018. Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds the proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions if the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are met. • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts if the development meets the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c). COMMENTS: 1. Background The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club East Annexation on September 6, 1983. In 1989, the property owner subdivided property to create the existing lot pattern that exists today. The site has been used as a farm property and contains buildings dating from 1900 to 1950. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Vacant West County Residential (R) Single-family detached residential A zoning and site vicinity map is presented on the following page. Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 3 Figure 1: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Zoning & Site Vicinity Map Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 4 2. Compliance with Article 1 of the Land Use Code – General Provisions The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not allowed in the LMN zone. For proposals where a use is not allowed in the zone district but is allowed elsewhere in the City, an applicant may apply for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). An APU will allow the proposed use on this parcel only. In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment that facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN) zone district. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, “… to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the LMN zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. As such, the proposal satisfies this criterion based on the conditions of approval recommended in the subsequent section of this staff report. Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 5 C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the city. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in northeast Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim (attachment 4). The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires municipalities to permit cell towers. Municipalities may determine where in the community these towers are located but may not de facto ban cell towers through zoning (attachment 5). In the portion of the city where Verizon has coverage gaps, only six parcels within the city limits have zoning that would allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. All of these parcels are owned by Anheuser-Busch/InBev. Anheuser-Busch/InBev denied the applicant’s request to build a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on their property (attachment 6). None of the other parcels in the applicant’s search ring that are within the city limits have zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Many properties near the development site, however, are still located in Larimer County. County zoning allows commercial mobile radio services, synonymous with wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zones subject to special review. If a development proposal in the County is on a parcel contiguous with the city limits and is subject to special review, then the property would be required to annex into the City of Fort Collins. Per the Structure Plan Map, none of the parcels in the applicant’s search ring would enter the City of Fort Collins with zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility except for one (attachment 7). The property that would enter the City with appropriate zoning would be the Fort Collins Country Club. Fort Collins Country Club also denied the applicant’s request for a lease (attachment 8). The county parcels not contiguous to city limits in the applicant’s search ring are lots containing single-family detached homes, which do not make ideal sites for a cell tower. Given this scenario, the sites best suited for a cell tower are large sites that will allow the tower to be sited away from nearby developments to mitigate the size of the tower. The large sites nearby include Maple Hill Park, Richards Lake Park, the future school site owned by Poudre School District, the future Northeast Community Park site, and the legacy farm lots along Turnberry Rd. Neither the City of Fort Collins nor Poudre School District allow leases for cell towers on their property (attachments 9 and 10). The only remaining large lots in the search ring are along Turnberry Rd., including the site under consideration with this development application. Given the FCC’s requirement to allow cell towers, the proposed development site is as appropriate of a site as any in the applicant’s search ring. Land Use Code section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.1.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Immediately adjacent to the site on the south is a single-family detached home on a large lot. Maple Hill sits north of the development site with one parcel separating the development site from Maple Hill. Maple Hill comprises single-family detached homes, a neighborhood park, open space, and a neighborhood pool. Story Book lies south of the development site. Similarly to Maple Hill, Story Book comprises single-family detached homes and open space. Across Turnberry Rd., west of the development site, are a number of County subdivisions. These County subdivisions comprise small multi-family developments, Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 6 townhomes, and single-family detached homes on large lots. Poudre School District (PSD) owns the land east of the development site. PSD proposes a school to be located here in the future. Anheuser-Busch/In Bev owns the land east of the PSD site, which is currently used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two- story, single-family detached home with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm prior to the area developing. The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non- residential structures exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000’s with the development in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No structure nearby exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the agricultural activities beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would harken back to the agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and located properly. The current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site. Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins (attachment 11). Both silos are around 30 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on the development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to be construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not appear integral to the operation of the site. Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process: 1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet. 2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear integral to the site. These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of the facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co-location in accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co-location opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 7 Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the cell tower be designed and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have no greater impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located near agricultural outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this criterion. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the two silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be approved, will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this requirement. F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conditions of approval for Criterion C would keep the proposed tower in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and locate the tower appropriately to minimize community impacts and make the silo appear integral to the operation of the development site. Given the findings of Criterion A and the recommended conditions of approval for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review. Section 5 of this staff report contains an overview of these neighborhood meetings. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 8 The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.6.6 – Emergency Access The applicant proposes a 20-foot-wide gravel path in an emergency access easement with a turnaround to provide emergency access to the tower. This path will allow emergency vehicles to access the site and provide fire and emergency services pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. B. Section 3.8.13(C)(1) – Setbacks Facilities must be setback from the property one foot for every one foot in the facility’s height. The applicant may also demonstrate the facility is designed to collapse rather than topple to meet this requirement. The proposed facility is 121 feet away from the nearest property line, which meets this requirement. If the conditions of approval for 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are approved, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the new location of the facility to also satisfy this requirement. C. Section 3.8.13(C)(2) – Wireless Telecommunications 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. As discussed previously in this staff report, the proposed silo is consistent with the agricultural character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed material, fiberglass, is equal to or better than the materials used on the house and outbuildings located on the development site. D. Section 3.8.13(C)(5) – Fencing Fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six feet in height. The proposed fence is made of wood and will not exceed six feet in height in accordance with this standard. E. Section 3.8.13(C)(8) – Color Wireless telecommunication facilities 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. The proposed color will be a muted green to fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods and agricultural uses in accordance with this standard. Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 9 F. Section 3.8.13(C)(11) – Access Roadways The proposed access roadways meet the requirements for emergency access per Section 3.6.6, satisfying this standard. G. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) – Stealth Technology Applicants must use stealth technology to the extent reasonably feasible to minimize the visual impact of the facility. Silos are included in the list of permissible structures per this section so long as the structure has a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Given the agricultural heritage of northeast Fort Collins, a silo generally provides this contextual relationship. To better satisfy this code section, staff recommends a condition of approval related to Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) that reduces the height of the silo to 45 feet and locates the proposed facility closer to existing outbuildings. This will make the silo better integrated into the existing site and mitigate the visual impact of the tower. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.5(B)(1) – Permitted Uses The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not permitted in the LMN zone. For this application to be approved, the applicant must satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. By approving the project with staff’s recommended conditions of approval, this project would achieve an APU and would thus come into compliance with this section of the code. 5. Public Outreach Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 30, 2016 at Tavelli Elementary School. 70 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 25, 2016. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017. 54 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: • Concern about radio frequency emissions • The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods • A 60 foot tower is too tall and obtrusive • Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower • Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 10 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions if the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are met. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards if the plan is modified consistent with the requested conditions of approval. D. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts if the development meets the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 subject to the following condition: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and the facility shall be moved further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Narrative (PDF) 3. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Document Set (PDF) 4. Coverage Maps From OpenSignal and Sensorly (PDF) 5. Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PDF) 6. Photos of nearby grain silos 7. City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map for Northeast Fort Collins (PDF) 8. Letter From Fort Collins Country Club (PDF) 9. Administrative policy disallowing new wireless equipment and facilities on property owned by the City of Fort Collins (PDF) LMN Proposed (mountain Vista Site) Maple Hill Park E Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Sunbury Ln Marshfield Ln Forecastle Dr Lake View Dr Nedrah Dr Frontage Rd Lind e n La k e R d S h e r e l l D r Chesapeake Dr Summerpark Ln Cott o nwoo d P o i n t D r Cambria Ln Adriel Dr Muir Ln Milton Ln D a yto n D r Friar Tuck Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct E l i m C t Ashland Ln Supplementary Narrative – Long Pond August 22, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 60’ Stealth Silo Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524. This facility will be 2,500 square feet and house a 60’ silo communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. This request is made in an effort to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Kenneth E. Forbes Jeanette L Forbes Address: 2008 Turnberry Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant: Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 36' 51.50" N 105° 02' 14.96” W Zoning: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Lease Area: 2,500 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a silo and housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a developing residential area where there is very spotty coverage and the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As there area develops, and the existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. 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. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect We strive to design our facilities and locate parcels that create the least amount of community disturbance. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped farmland and residential properties of medium density. The proposed site was previously used for agricultural purposes with multiple agricultural structures. The proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a silo and blend with the surrounding area and the aesthetics of the proposed parcel. Attachment 2 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could vary depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could vary on occassion. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could vary depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. Generators are used in rare instances for backup emergency power, and for very limited run times, if needed. The generator would create very minimal noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (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 Attachment 2 3 attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility is required to be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had favorable zoning and cable of addressing the growing coverage need and demand of the area. Exhibit 2 to this application shows the ring where Verizon would ideally place a tower. Exhibit 3 shows an expanded search area around Verizon’s ideal location that Atlas has considered for a possible lease, though not all of these locations would necessarily be effective for housing a WTF or meeting the coverage objectives planned for this WTF. This expanded search ring is based on nearness to the population to which the proposed telecommunications facility will provide coverage, and nearness to Verizon’s ideal location. Atlas’s expanded search ring is about one mile from Verizon’s ideal location, while as near as possible to the medium dense residential areas to the southwest of Verizon’s ideal location. The proposed site is just south of Verizon’s ideal search ring. Properties to the east of the proposed site are undesirable because they are not near the population that the tower will serve. In order for a telecommunications facility to function effectively, it needs to be near the population it will serve. The Industrial zoned properties to the east are over a mile from the center of the residential areas that the proposed telecommunications facility would serve, and therefore are undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. In addition to being located too far away from the coverage objective, the Industrial zoned properties to the east of the search area are also undesirable because they are significantly lower in elevation than the desired coverage area. In order for towers to work effectively, they need line of site with each other and with most of the area to which they will provide coverage. Properties to the east and northeast of the proposed site have a drop in elevation of 30ft – 50ft as shown in Exhibit 4. This 30ft – 50ft elevation drop makes the Industrial zoned properties to the east undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. The proposed site is ideal when taking into account likely future development in the area. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the area to the west of the proposed site is a medium dense residential area. To the north and south of the proposed site are new residential developments that are in the process of development. Directly to the east of the proposed site is the site of a future high school. As depicted on Exhibit 5, the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility is zoned LMN or UE. Both the LMN and UE zones are designed to support residential housing. If the proposed telecommunications facility is not developed at the proposed site, as the area continues to be developed with residential properties, the portion of northern Fort Collins from just east of College to what will be Timberline will be almost exclusively residential properties. This would be an almost two- mile wide area among which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a telecommunications facility, especially one of sufficient height. The proposed telecommunications faculty is within what will be a residential area and will allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to northeastern Fort Collins with almost no negative visual effect. Atlas was unable to secure a lease on other properties within the search area depicted on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is an image of the zoning in the search area with notes concerning Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease. Atlas and Verizon were unable to secure a lease on the property to the northeast of the proposed site owned by State of Colorado Land Commissioners or the property to the east owned by Anheuser-Busch. Neither of these properties indicated interest in a lease of any price. The Fort Attachment 2 4 Collins Country Club to the west of the proposed site was also not interested in a lease for a cell tower at a reasonable rate. Exhibit 7 is a letter from Greg DiBona, a contactor for Verizon, stating that after about a year of work, he was unable to secure a lease on a preferentially zoned property that meets Verizon’s coverage objectives and was acceptable to the Fort Collins Planning department. (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 owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant 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. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (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 the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed telecommunications facility would be located 136ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 118.5ft from the nearest property line. (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. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a silo, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which includes small residential farming properties and larger working farms, among other medium dense residential properties. We are proposing a wooden fence, as depicted in page C-2 of the Zoning Drawings enclosed with this application. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing farm buildings and residence. (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. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth silo a beige color that matches the existing buildings on the property. All of the antennas on the stealth silo will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth silo and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. Attachment 2 5 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. This tower will be a new stealth silo, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building 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 extent 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. All antenna mounted to the stealth silo will be mounted behind the paneling of the silo, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. 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. Please see fencing detail on pg. C-2 of the enclosed drawings. A 6’ wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (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 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. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. 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. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. C-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. Attachment 2 6 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. As designed, the telecommunications facility does not have vegetation and therefore would not need automatic irrigation systems. (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. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth silo, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. (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. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (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. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Existing access roads are paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. Extension of the access roads will be made of gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (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. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 8. (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. Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (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. Attachment 2 7 The proposed site is not located on any designated historic site or structure. Atlas has obtained NEPA and Phase I environmental studies for the proposed site. The studies have determined that the site will not negatively impact any nearby historically significant sites. (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 and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth silo in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a WTF. 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. According to Division 4.5, (A) Purpose: the L-M-N District is “to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood.” The proposed telecommunications facility would be a supporting land use to the neighborhood because it would provide a vital utility to the surrounding area. The L-M-N District lists “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. In addition, because the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility has been, or is currently, used for agricultural purposes, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would not look out of place. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 6, the location of the proposed tower is over 110 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original Attachment 2 8 location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth silo. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 60 ft. silo on farm property, the proposed 60 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. Exhibit 8 to this narrative includes photo simulations showing what the proposed WTF would look like at the proposed site. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the surrounding area is a mix of newer residential properties and older rural properties, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. The L-M-N District has “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with other permitted uses for the L-M-N district which include small scale and medium scale solar energy systems and wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. Attachment 2 9 The proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 60’ stealth silo tower at 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Ken Bradtke Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 Attachment 2 Network Engineering RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Overview: Verizon Wireless strives to provide excellent wireless service for our users with a network of telecommunications facilities that allows our users to reliably place and receive mobile-phone calls and utilize data services. Verizon is working to improve its network in the residential areas in northeast Fort Collins, centered near Long Pond. The performance of a network consists mainly of two factors: coverage and capacity. Coverage can be thought of as the strength of a wireless signal in a given area. Capacity can be thought of as the ability of the wireless network to handle the amount of voice and data demands placed upon it. Neither the coverage nor the capacity of the network in northeastern Fort Collins meet Verizon’s performance goals or user expectations. Increasing coverage and capacity in the area requires the development of a new telecommunications facility that can house up to twelve antennas, near users, with line-of-site to much of the surrounding area. Line of Site Requirements: In order to provide excellent service, which Verizon Wireless defines as –80 dBm, the telecommunications facility needs to provide a line of sight to the roads, offices, and homes where users work and reside. One of the challenges of providing excellent coverage is providing strong in-building coverage to users. Strong in-building coverage is often difficult to attain because of the degradation of the Radio Frequency (RF) signal when it travels through solid obstacles such as tree foliage or buildings. A tower height that is greater than the existing tree and building clutter increases in-building coverage because it decreases the number of solid objects, such as trees and buildings, that a cellular signal must pass though in order to reach a user. Because the proposed facility would be located on ground that is relatively high and the stealth silo would be taller than the surrounding buildings and trees, the line-of-site from the proposed facility would be ideal for providing coverage to the surrounding residential area. With the proposed facility at 60ft, Verizon could install its antennas at 55ft on center and could have line-of-site coverage to most of the users that Verizon seeks to serve with the proposed facility. Location Requirements: Early cellular network designs placed tall telecommunications facility towers (often in excess of 200ft) on top of hills. This provided cellular providers the ability to cover the most area possible with very few telecommunications facilities. As cell-phone users have increased, these tall, hill top facilities have been forced to provide service to an increasing number of users in a given area. In addition to there being more users, the average user is utilizing applications on their phones and tablets that require more data than ever before. With more people using cell phones and most cell-phone users requiring more data, existing structures are no longer able to handle the capacity load placed upon them. Cellular design has evolved so that multiple shorter cell sites, located near high traffic or high population areas, are now favored. These smaller sites near population centers can provide fast and reliable service to a more focused geographic area. This ultimately results in fewer dropped calls and access failures for users. The proposed location directly abuts the residential area the proposed facility would cover. The proposed location is ideal for providing fast and reliable coverage to much of the residential area of northeastern Fort Collins. Exhibit 1 Attachment 2 11 The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network in northeastern Fort Collins (north of Vine and east of College) is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations. Verizon has received multiple complaints from users of dropped and degraded calls and slow data speeds. In this area there are both issues of coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year in order to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non- functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are requiring more and more data. In addition to this, Fort Collins is growing quickly and there is planned development in northeastern Fort Collins. As more homes and schools are built, the existing infrastructure will become less and less able to meet demand. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because more and more people are no longer utilizing landlines, it is becoming more and more common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Charts Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Average users in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. Exhibit 1 Continued Attachment 2 12 Propagation Maps: The propagation map below is a computer simulation of Verizon’s existing coverage in northeastern Fort Collins. Map Legend: (Same for both Maps) Exhibit 1 Continued Attachment 2 13 The propagation map below is a computer simulation of what Verizon’s coverage in northeastern Fort Collins could be with the proposed facility. Conclusion: Verizon needs to increase both its network coverage and capacity in northeastern Fort Collins for both current and future use. The proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road it ideally situated with regard to both topography and with regard to its proximity to the residential users it is intended to serve. The topography of the proposed location allows line-of-site coverage to much of the surrounding residential area and its location places it among population it is intended to serve. The proposed site’s topography and location is ideal for Verizon’s purposed and will allow it to greatly improve wireless performance in northeastern Fort Collins. Sincerely, Ram Nandiraju RF Engineer Verizon Wireless FTC_LongPond Exhibit 1 Continued Attachment 2 14 Exhibit 2 Attachment 2 15 Exhibit 3 Attachment 2 16 Exhibit 4 Attachment 2 17 Exhibit 5 1 -- Ridnour Wesley P/Gerldine J – In addition to being located too far away from the search ring and coverage area and having insufficient elevation, Atlas inquired about leasing on this parcel with the landlord in the fall of 2015, and was unable to secure a lease. The property owner was un-interested in a lease. 2 – Colorado Board of Land Commissioners – Atlas Tower reached out to multiple contacts regarding a lease on this property and was informed that the owners and occupiers of the property were not interested in leasing for a WTF. Additionally, this location is largely too far from the search ring center and is too low in elevation for the proposed tower to function effectively. 3 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Atlas made multiple rounds of calls to the Landlord with no response. Additionally, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future. 4 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 5 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 6 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Calls to Landlord were unsuccessful in getting a response. Furthermore, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future and how to site the tower location. Our parcel and siting location has established agricultural residences that allow for a stealth structure that fits the character of the existing development, while still providing the much needed coverage. Text Text Lease Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Attachment 2 18 Exhibit 5 Continued 7 – Fort Collins Country Club – In the summer of 2015, Greg Dibona, approached the Fort Collins Country Club, but was unsuccessful in securing a lease. Additionally, Atlas employee, Mike Powers approached the Fort Collins country club, but they were completely uninterested in a telecommunications lease. Atlas discussed a lease with the Fort Collins County Club again, at the request of the City, as recently as August of 2017, and after providing the details of the project the golf course indicated they were not interested in pursuing a lease. An email from the General Manager, John Stebbins, is included with this submittal indicating the course's decision not to pursue a lease. 8 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 9 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – Verizon contractors reached out to Budweiser in the fall of 2015, and Budweiser never responded to Greg’s inquiries. Atlas additionally reached out to local and corporate Budweiser contacts regarding cell tower leasing options, and received no interest or response. Additionally, as stated by Verizon RF engineer, Ram Nandiraju, in Exhibit 9, the Anheuser-Busch property is too far from Verizon’s desired search ring to provide effective coverage to the target area. In fact, the Anheuser-Busch property falls within another search ring being pursued by Verizon and would not be suitable for the desired coverage of this search ring. 10 – Poudre R-1 School District – This parcel is undeveloped and not a better location for the proposed telecommunications facility as it has the same zoning as the proposed site and is lower in elevation than the proposed site. Additionally, this is the planned area of a new school development. With the uncertainty in development and the type of planned development, this is not a suitable candidate for communications tower siting or leasing. 11 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 12 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – See response to #9 above. This property is too far away to provide the intended service to the desired coverage area. Additionally, multiple leasing efforts have failed.. Attachment 2 21 Lat40 , Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 SITE PLAN ATLAS TOWER: FORBES Exhibit 6 Attachment 2 22 Exhibit 7 Attachment 2 23 Exhibit 7 Continued Attachment 2 24 Exhibit 8 Photo Simulation #1 Attachment 2 25 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #1 Attachment 2 26 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 Attachment 2 27 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 Attachment 2 28 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 Attachment 2 29 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 Attachment 2 30 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 Attachment 2 31 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 Attachment 2 32 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 Attachment 2 33 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 Attachment 2 34 Exhibit 9 Attachment 2 35 Exhibit 9 Continued Attachment 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 2008 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS C-2 TOWER ELEVATION C TURNBERRY KES NMC A 04-27-16 ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS C 07-27-16 ZONING TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: ³ ´ ³ ´ GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL EROSION NOTES: PUBLIC ROAD NOTES: CONSTRUCTION NOTES: ³ ´ ³ ´ ³ ´ EROSION & DRIVEWAY PLANS C-2 SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 SILT FENCE DETAILS STANDARD ROAD SEC. (POOR SUBGRADE) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE STANDARD ROAD SEC. (GOOD SUBGRADE) FIRE ACCESS ROAD SIGNS SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN TURNBERRY ROAD CODES TESTING GUARANTEE CO-ORDINATION: EXAMINATION OF SITE CUTTING, PATCHING AND EXCAVATION: SCOPE: ELECTRICAL NOTES: CONDUCTORS GROUNDING PENETRATIONS: EXTERIOR CONDUIT: EQUIPMENT: RACEWAYS ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND MATERIALS POWER NOTES: UTILITY PLAN SCHEDULE H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-1 ELECTRICAL NOTES & UTILITY COORDINATION ELECTRICAL NOTES UTILITY COORDINATION NOTES: FRONT VIEW REAR VIEW POWER PANEL SCHEDULE NOTES: VZW SERVICE RACK (FRONT AND BACK) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (FRONT) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (BACK) ONE LINE DIAGRAM NOTES: NOTES: NOTES: DRAWING NOTES: H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-2 ELECTRICAL DETAILS SERVICE RACK DETAILS ONE LINE ELEVATION ONE LINE DETAIL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT(S) TRENCH DETAIL POWER AND TELCO PLAN TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FIXED GENERATOR GROUNDING NOTES DRAWING NOTES: NOTES: SINGLE CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS GROUNDING DETAILS E-3 ELECTRICAL DETAIL H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 CADWELD GROUNDING DETAIL TOWER GROUNDING ISOLATED GROUND BAR COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD TOWER GROUNDING MOUNTING DETAIL COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXTERNAL CIGBE - BOTTOM TYPE 1 GROUND BAR TYPE 2 GROUND BAR COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXT. CIGBE - TOP & INTERMEDIATE GROUNDING PLAN GROUNDING AT GATE POST TRENCH DETAIL INSPECTION WELL DETAIL CONNECTOR AND HARDWARE DETAIL entity (including the owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way).'. SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- `(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. `(B) LIMITATIONS- `(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- `(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and `(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. `(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. `(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. `(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. `(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such Attachment 5 action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. `(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- `(i) the term `personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; `(ii) the term `personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and `(iii) the term `unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).'. (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. SEC. 705. MOBILE SERVICES DIRECT ACCESS TO LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS. Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end Attachment 5 City Structure Plan Printed: August 30, 2017 Fort Collins GMA City Limits Zones that do not allow wireless towers Zones that allow wireless towers © Adopted: February 18, 1997 Amended: January 6, 2015 CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT COLLINS INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These and were map not products designed and or all intended underlying for general data are use developed by members for use of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in labeling thereon. or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of the by any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or may not be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Zones that will allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Mountain Vista Rd. Turnberry Rd. Giddings Rd. Richards Lake Rd. Douglas Rd. Applicant's Search Area Site Attachment 7 From: John Stebbins <johns@fcgolf.org> Date: August 17, 2017 at 6:15:45 PM MDT To: Mike Powers <mpowers@atlastowers.com> Subject: Tower Mike the Board of Directors turned down the offer to discuss the Cell tower. Thank you for educating me on the project. John John Stebbins General Manager Fort Collins Country Club Attachment 8 City of Fort Collins Administrative Policies 90 C. Any donation valued under $5,000 may be accepted by a department. The appropriate department shall prepare and furnish a quarterly report to the City Manager and Accounting containing a listing of the donations accepted including information designated in B.1. above. Upon acceptance of the donation, the department shall furnish the donor with a receipt acknowledging the donation, if requested by the donor. Any individual donations received in connection with a specific fundraising program or project of a department shall be included in the quarterly report above, but may be reported in summary form indicating the total amount received in connection with the program or project and the information designated in B.1. above regarding the overall program or project (each individual donation need not be separately reported). 4.8 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Owned Property A. Purpose and Scope The potential for location of wireless telecommunication facilities, including transmission towers, antennae, and signal repeaters, on lands open for public recreation has created concern in the community. In order to uphold community values and investments in such lands, this policy exercises the City’s discretion as a property owner to prohibit the issuance of any license, permit, or other consent, for third parties to locate wireless telecommunication facilities on any City parkland, golf course, cemetery, public facility, or open space (“public land”). B. General Conditions and Restrictions 1. This administrative policy prohibits granting to third parties, pursuant to a license, permit, easement, lease, or other form of consent, any property interest to locate wireless telecommunication facilities on any City-owned public land, including park land, city golf courses, cemeteries, city facilities, or open space. 2. This policy does not affect development rights otherwise available under applicable land use and zoning regulations, with regard to location of such facilities on private property. 3. Wireless telecommunication facilities existing on public land in City Park at the time of this policy’s adoption may remain in place, and co-location of equipment by multiple carriers may be encouraged. 4. Exceptions to the strict application of this policy may be made at the discretion of the City Manager. Attachment 9 Attachment 10 From: KATHRYN MODDELMOG [mailto:dkmodd@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 5:52 PM To: Clay Frickey Subject: Long Pond cell phone tower Mr. Frickey, My wife and I live in the Chesapeake Subdivision just SW of the new cell tower location and we think the new tower would be a good decision. Our cell phone coverage is very poor. To improve our reception we purchased new cell phones, have talked with our provider and have activated a Wi-fi application to enable us to communicate better during our cell phone calls. And even with that, the reception is poor most of the time. When I call certain cell phone numbers, the receiving phone will not accept my call because of the Wi-Fi boost. We do not have a land line, so cell phone coverage is very important to us, so we hope a new tower would improve our ability to communicate when using our cellphones. Thanks you for taking my comments. Dennis Moddelmog 1805 Chesapeake Ct. ______________________________________________________________________________ My husband and I live in the Richards Lake area of Fort Collins (2750 Catamaran Cove) but will be out of town for the next meeting regarding the proposed cell tower. After living with 7 years of poor service since we moved here from Wisconsin I want to express our support for this project moving forward and as expeditiously as possible. Nancee Bernstein Hi Mr. Frickey, We would like to voice our families support of the proposed cell tower at 2008 Turnberry. We live in the Richards Lake Neighborhood. Not only would it be great to have improved cell service in our day to day lives, it is imperative for emergency services in this area. Please consider emergency situations when making this decision. Thanks! Jenni and Victor Sifuentes 1908 Mainsail Dr, FC, 80524 970-210-1869 jennil_white@hotmail.com Attachment 10 Clay, Thank you for mediating our neighborhood meeting. I wanted to shoot you a quick message and voice my opposition to the cell phone tower. My major concerns are concerns are: a.) possible health risks b.) property value. My husband and I live a few hundred yards away from the proposed site and we are worried about the long term health and financial consequences of the tower. We recently moved into the neighborhood and are expecting a baby in June and plan to be here for quite some time! Thank you and all the best. Please continue to update us regarding the next meeting. -Katie Strand Attachment 11 From: Buffington,John [mailto:John.Buffington@ColoState.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:06 AM To: Clay Frickey Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Public Hearing on Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility We will be unable to attend the public hearing regarding the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility on 14SEP17. We strongly encourage the City of Fort Collins to approve this development proposal. The lack of dependable wireless communications that this proposal would address goes well beyond just being an inconvenience and is clearly a defined public safety issue. Two recent articles in the Fort Collins Coloradoan illustrate this point. Emergency medical services were delayed in reaching an individual having a cardiac event because a cell call could not be placed initially due to no cell signal. Another article covered the importance of wireless smartphones during natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey. We know there are individuals in the area that are opposed to this proposal based on concerns of exposure to radiofrequency waves from the cellular tower or that it might be unsightly. We personally think the aesthetics of the proposal are fine and will not look out of place at all at the proposed site. Until there is some credible information regarding possible health concerns due to exposure, we would rather the City of Fort Collins deal with the immediate issue of public safety presented by the lack of dependable cellular communication and approve this project. Respectfully, John & Teresa Buffington 1908 Nedrah Drive Fort Collins _____________________________________________________________________________________ From: coloradosandy@aol.com [mailto:coloradosandy@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 2:42 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Hearing for Cell Tower Sylvia, thank for your time on the phone today. I wish to send an email on behalf of myself, Sandra Lee Knox, and my husband, Duane R. Knox. We live at 2151 Sherwood Forest Court, near the site of the proposed cell tower. We both wish to go on record as being in favor of the tower. Our cell phones never have five bars and most of the day experience none, one or at most two bars. This makes phone reception on our cells nonexistent to inadequate most of the time. Therefore, we highly support this project and hope it passes and we are able to benefit from its prompt installation. I was on the north side of the golf course recently at an estate cell and wanted to call my husband and they said they never could use their cell phones. Thanks, Sandra Knox LAT40 INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) LATITUDE: : 1 LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV G TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 64)7 /($6($5($ 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL SITE NAME: TURNBERRY UTILITY PLANS LAT40, INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: TURNBERRY LATITUDE: : 1 LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 64)7 /($6($5($ 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL PLANNING DRAWINGS R a ng e v ie w Dr Maid Marian Ct Rainbow Dr Hi l lsid e D r S View Dr Sherwood Forest Ct K e dr o n Dr M iram on t D r Banbury Ln Middlebury Ln Waterbury Ln Adri e l Cir Adriel Way Simsbury Ct Shelburne Ct Barrington Ct Westover Ct Kalmar Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct Milton Ln Rangeview Dr Maple Hill Dr Thoreau Dr Bar Harbor Dr Turnberry Rd Country Club Rd Mountain Vista Dr N Timberline Rd © Long Pond and Wireless Addition Telecommunications of Permitted Use Facility 1 inch = 667 feet Zoning & Site Vicinity Map Site Attachment 1 DO NOT COPY THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. AND CAN NOT BE COPIED, MODIFIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 1/4"=1'-0" 5/19/17 SENECA REMODEL REMODEL FOR 4406 SENECA LOT 14, BLOCK TWO REGENCY PARK P.U.D. PROJECT: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ELEVATIONS LEGEND: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. NEW CONSTRUCTION. 1 FLOOR PLAN REVISION 5-21-17 2 REVISED WINDOW WELLS 5-25-17 3 PDP SUBMITTIAL 6/15/17 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR ON THIS DAY OF , A.D. 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR OWNER CERTIFICATION 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 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY. LOT 14, BLOCK TWO, REGENCY PARK P.U.D. NAME DATE NORTH LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/11/17 CLOSET 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 3/0X6/8 4/0X6/8 BI-FOLD 4/0X6/8 BI-FOLD 5/0X6/8 PAIR 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 4/0X6/8 BI-FOLD 4/0X6/8 BI-FOLD 3/0X6/8 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 48V 1R1S 1R1S 5S 48V 48V 1R1S 32V 32V 1R1S 5S 5S RESIDENT ROOM #6 CARPET RESIDENT ROOM #1 CARPET RESIDENT ROOM #5 CARPET RESIDENT ROOM #4 RESIDENT ROOM CARPET #3 CARPET RESIDENT ROOM #2 CARPET 2/10X6/8 POCKET 2/10X6/8 POCKET 2/10X6/8 POCKET 1'-91 2" 1'-9" 6'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-83 3'-4 4" 3 4" 5'-31 2" 5'-4 3 4" 3'-6" 1'-61 2" 3'-8 3 4" 4'-3" 2'-1" 4'-1" 4'-1" 3'-6" ARCHWAY TO MATCH EXISTING 7'-101 4" 4'-4 5'-0" 1 2" 7'-0" 2'-41 2" 1'-11" 2'-9 1 2'-6 4" 1 4" 4'-6" 4'-6" 1'-9" 3'-3" 5'-0" FILL IN WITH LIKE MATERIAL. EQUAL EQUAL 1'-91 2" 2'-1" ROLL IN SHOWER BASE. ROLL IN SHOWER BASE. 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 1 2 " GYP. BD. EA. SIDE. TYP. S S3 WP S S3 S3 S3 S3 WP GFCI GFCI S3 S3 GFCI S3 S GFCI F F F S S F F F S3 S3 S CAT6/TV S3 S 3 WP F SS GFCI 4'-0" 16'-0" 5'-0" FIELD VERIFY STEPS TO GRADE AS PER CODE. 3'-101 4" FILL IN WITH LIKE MATERIAL. FILL IN WINDOW WITH LIKE MATERIAL. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. - TYP. FILL IN ARCHWAY WITH LIKE MATERIAL. RELOCATED EXISTING DBL. OVEN AND CABINET. NEW MTL. SHELVING. OWNER SUPPLIED. 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 1 2 " GYP. BD. EA. SIDE. TYP. 1-1/2" DIA. STL. WT. WELDED STEEL PIPE GUARDRAIL. SEE DETAIL. 5/0X4/0 SL. 5/0X4/0 SL. 7'-3" 9'-8 7'-3" 1 2" 3'-6" ADD NEW BRICK / STUCCO AS NEEDED TO MATCH EXISTING. 36" CONCRETE WALL. 1 A2.3 NEW STEPPED TIMBER WINDOW WELL. - TYP. GFCI GFCI GFCI GFCI GFCI GFCI 3S INSTALL TWO 15" DEEP SHELVES STARTING AT 36" A.F.F. - 18" APART. S3 S3 CAT5/TV CAT5/TV CAT5/TV FUTURE ELEVATOR EMERGENCY WHOLE HOUSE GENERATOR 3'-0" 5'-0" 1-1/2" DIA. STL. WT. WELDED STEEL PIPE GUARDRAIL. SEE DETAIL. 1" STL. PICKETS. TYP. 8" THK. CONCRETE WALL. SEE STRUCTURALS. 4" THK. CONCRETE SLAB. SLOPE TO CENTER DRAIN. SEE STRUCTURALS. CONCRETE STEPS. AS PER CODE. SEE STRUCTURALS. 1'-0" 71 8" VERIFY DRAIN. ATTACH TO SUMP PIT IN STORAGE AREA. 6" GRADE 3'-0" 4" SPHERE SHALL NOT PASS THRU NOTE: PROVIDE HANDRAIL @ STAIRS AS PER LOCAL CODES DOWEL REBAR INTO EXISTING FOUNDATION. LANDSCAPE BED. 3'-0" FOOTINGS AS PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. TYP. A2.3 MAIN FLOOR Sheet Scale Project Date No. Revision/Issue Date PLAN NOTES: "Seller reserves the right to make any and all changes due to code requirements, constructability, HOA requirements, and or substitute any material for a material of equal or greater value at their sole and absolute discretion. All measurements are approximate. Home will be built in substantial accordance with these plans changes that are not a substantial deviation from the plan are not grounds for Buyer to cancel their sales contract." IF THIS IS NOT RED DO NOT COPY THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. AND CAN NOT BE COPIED, MODIFIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 1/4"=1'-0" NEW WORK MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL SUB CONTRACTORS REFER TO COVER SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES. 5/19/17 SENECA REMODEL REMODEL FOR 4406 SENECA LOT 14, BLOCK 2 REGENCY PARK SUBDIVISON PROJECT: 2) ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED AND ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBLITY OF EACH TRADE TO VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPENCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE BUIDLING SUPERITENDENT BEFORE PROCEDING. SUBDIVISION 1631, PARCEL 97344-11-014 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NEW WORK PLAN LEGEND: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVED. NEW CONSTRUCTION. EXTERIOR STAIRWELL / GUARDRAIL SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 FLOOR PLAN REVISION 5-21-17 1 2 ADDED WINDOW WELL 5-25-17 ADDED ELECTRICAL ADDED ELECTRICAL ADDED ELECTRICAL AND SHELVING. REVISED ARCH AND ADDED FUTURE ELEVATOR. ADDED GENERATOR. REVISED DESIGN. 3 PDP SUBMITTIAL 6/15/17 4 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/11/17 NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE SHELVING AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING DOORS. -TYP. REMOVE WALL AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. TYP. REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW AND FILL IN WITH MATERIAL TO MATCH EXISTING. REMOVE EXISTING TUB AND DECK. RELOCATE PLUMBING AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE WALL AS NEEDED FOR NEW ARCHWAY. REMOVE HANDRAIL AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING COUNTERTOP, SINKS AND CABINETS AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING DOOR. REMOVE EXISTING TUB AND DECK. RELOCATE PLUMBING AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING COUNTERTOP, SINKS AND CABINETS AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING TOILET. RELOCATE PLUMBING AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING SHOWER. RELOCATE PLUMBING AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE AND RELOCATE EXISTING DBL. OVEN AND CABINET. SEE NEW CONSTRUCTION FLOOR PLAN. REMOVE EXISTING CABINETS AS SHOWN. A2.2 MAIN FLOOR Sheet Scale Project Date No. Revision/Issue Date PLAN NOTES: "Seller reserves the right to make any and all changes due to code requirements, constructability, HOA requirements, and or substitute any material for a material of equal or greater value at their sole and absolute discretion. All measurements are approximate. Home will be built in substantial accordance with these plans changes that are not a substantial deviation from the plan are not grounds for Buyer to cancel their sales contract." IF THIS IS NOT RED DO NOT COPY THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. AND CAN NOT BE COPIED, MODIFIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING MAIN FLOOR DEMO PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL SUB CONTRACTORS REFER TO COVER SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES. 5/19/17 SENECA REMODEL REMODEL FOR 4406 SENECA LOT 14, BLOCK 2 REGENCY PARK SUBDIVISON PROJECT: 2) ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED AND ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBLITY OF EACH TRADE TO VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPENCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE BUIDLING SUPERITENDENT BEFORE PROCEDING. SUBDIVISION 1631, PARCEL 97344-11-014 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EXIST / DEMO PLAN LEGEND: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVED. 1 FLOOR PLAN REVISION 5-21-17 2 ADDED WINDOW WELL. 5-25-17 3 PDP SUBMITTIAL 6/15/17 4 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/11/17 BATH TILE CAREGIVER BEDROOM CARPET CAREGIVER STORAGE CONCRETE CAREGIVER BATH TILE 6/0X6/8 BI-FOLD 5/0X6/8 BI-FOLD 3/0X6/8 3/0X6/8 3/0X6/8 2/10X6/8 2/10X6/8 SHOWER 60" 30" 2'-6" 1'-7" 1'-10" 3'-6" 4'-6" 2'-01 2" 2'-41 2" 2'-6" 1'-9" 2'-11" 2'-1" 11 1 2" 4'-6" 1'-5" 5'-0" 2'-6" 4'-0" 16'-0" 5'-0" FIELD VERIFY STEPS TO GRADE AS PER CODE. ROLL IN SHOWER BASE. 2X4 FLOATING STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 1 2 " GYP. BD. EA. SIDE. - TYP. FILL IN WITH LIKE MATERIAL. 8" THK. CONCRETE WALL W/ CONCRETE STEPS AS PER CODE AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. SUMP PIT WITH PUMP ATTACHED TO EXTERIOR DRAIN. DRAIN TO LEACH FIELD IN YARD. EXISTING FURRDOWN. TYP. EXISTING WALLS. TYP. EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS. TYP. GARAGE ABOVE EXTERIOR DRAIN. SLOPE CONCRETE TO DRAIN. 1 4 " PER FOOT. EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY. 1'-8" S3 S3 S3 S 3 S3 S3 F WP S 3 S3 GFCI S4 S4 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 1 2 " GYP. BD. EA. SIDE. TYP. CUT IN NEW DOOR INTO EXISTING WALL. 1'-10" EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. - TYP. S 3' TALL. 3' NEW PLANTER AREA. 3'-6" S3 S3S 4 S3 S3 S4 S4 S4 NEW STEPPED TIMBER WINDOW WELL. GFCI CAT5/TV CAT5/TV FUTURE ELEVATOR 3'-0" 5'-0" uc WP SD SINGLE POLE SWITCH 3-WAY SWITCH DIMMER SWTICH GARAGE DOOR OPENER GARBAGE DISPOSAL S3 SG SGD 110V OUTLET 220V OUTLET HALF-SWITCHED OUTLET GFCI OUTLET WATER PROOF 110V 110V FLOOR OUTLET FL LIGHTS SURFACE MOUNT LIGHT RECESSED CAN LIGHT WALL MOUNT LIGHT PENDANT LIGHT WALL SCONCE KEYLESS LIGHT K T THERMOSTAT F FAN FAN/LIGHT COMBO PHONE TELEVISION CEILING FAN CEILING FAN w/ LIGHT NOTES: OUTLETS NOT SHOWN, BUT WILL BE INSTALLED PER CODE. IF OUTLETS ARE SHOWN, THEY ARE ON PLAN FOR SPECIFIC LOCATION NOTE 1: WIRE SMOKE DETECTORS IN SERIES NOTE 2: ALL OUTLETS AND SWITCHES TO BE INSTALLED PER LOCAL AND GOVERNING CODES NOTE 3: VERIFY CABINET LAYOUT w/ NOTES ON FLOOR OR w/ SUPERINTENDENT NOTE 4: VERIFY ALL DOOR SWINGS WITH NOTES ON JAMBS OR w/ SUPERINTENDENT NOTE 5: PROVIDE ONE WORKING OUTLET ON EACH LEVEL & 220V UPON COMPLETION OF ROUGH-IN NOTE 6: WIRE ALL APPLIANCES SHOWN ON PLAN NOTE 7: WIRING DIAGRAM FOR CONCEPTUAL, WIRE ACCORDING TO LOCAL CODES NOTES UNDER CABINET LIGHT OUTLETS SWITCHES F MISC. FIXTURES S WATER PROOF RECESSED CAN LIGHT W LIGHT BAR (4) LIGHT LIGHT BAR (3) LIGHT D DEDICATED CURCUIT 4' FLOU. STRIP LIGHT GFCI 4' FLOU. LIGHT A2.1 BASEMENT Sheet Scale Project Date No. Revision/Issue Date PLAN NOTES: "Seller reserves the right to make any and all changes due to code requirements, constructability, HOA requirements, and or substitute any material for a material of equal or greater value at their sole and absolute discretion. All measurements are approximate. Home will be built in substantial accordance with these plans changes that are not a substantial deviation from the plan are not grounds for Buyer to cancel their sales contract." IF THIS IS NOT RED DO NOT COPY THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. AND CAN NOT BE COPIED, MODIFIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 1/4"=1'-0" NEW BASEMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL SUB CONTRACTORS REFER TO COVER SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES. 5/19/17 SENECA REMODEL REMODEL FOR 4406 SENECA LOT 14, BLOCK 2 REGENCY PARK SUBDIVISON PROJECT: 2) ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED AND ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBLITY OF EACH TRADE TO VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPENCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE BUIDLING SUPERITENDENT BEFORE PROCEDING. SUBDIVISION 1631, PARCEL 97344-11-014 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NEW WORK LEGEND: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVED. NEW CONSTRUCTION. ELECTRICAL LEGEND: 1 FLOOR PLAN REVISION 5-21-17 2 ADDED WINDOW WELL. 5-25-17 ADDED ELECTRICAL ADDED WINDOW WELL. REVISED DOOR LOCATION, ADDED FUTURE ELEVATOR. REVISED DESIGN AND LOCATION, 3 PDP SUBMITTIAL 6/15/17 4 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/11/17 NEEDED TO INSTALL NEW SUMP PIT AND DRAIN LINES. REMOVE WALLS AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. DEMO EXISTING WINDOW WELL AND EARTH AS NEEDED FOR NEW STACKED TIMBER WINDOW WELL. DEMO EXISTING WINDOW WELL AND EARTH AS NEEDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. DEMO EXISTING WINDOW WELL AND EARTH AS NEEDED FOR NEW STACKED TIMBER WINDOW WELL. A2.0 BASEMENT Sheet Scale Project Date No. Revision/Issue Date PLAN NOTES: "Seller reserves the right to make any and all changes due to code requirements, constructability, HOA requirements, and or substitute any material for a material of equal or greater value at their sole and absolute discretion. All measurements are approximate. Home will be built in substantial accordance with these plans changes that are not a substantial deviation from the plan are not grounds for Buyer to cancel their sales contract." IF THIS IS NOT RED DO NOT COPY THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. AND CAN NOT BE COPIED, MODIFIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING / DEMO BASEMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL SUB CONTRACTORS REFER TO COVER SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES. 5/19/17 SENECA REMODEL REMODEL FOR 4406 SENECA LOT 14, BLOCK 2 REGENCY PARK SUBDIVISON PROJECT: 2) ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED AND ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBLITY OF EACH TRADE TO VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPENCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE BUIDLING SUPERITENDENT BEFORE PROCEDING. SUBDIVISION 1631, PARCEL 97344-11-014 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EXIST / DEMO LEGEND: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVED. 1 FLOOR PLAN REVISION 5-21-17 2 REVISED WINDOW WELLS 5-25-17 3 PDP SUBMITTIAL 6/15/17 4 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/11/17 EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER. E E E G G G EXISTING GAS METER. W W W W S S S 9'-0" UTILITY EASEMENT. EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. TYP. - U.N.O. 10'-0" A1.0 SITE PLAN Sheet Scale Project Date No. Revision/Issue Date PLAN NOTES: "Seller reserves the right to make any and all changes due to code requirements, constructability, HOA requirements, and or substitute any material for a material of equal or greater value at their sole and absolute discretion. All measurements are approximate. Home will be built in substantial accordance with these plans changes that are not a substantial deviation from the plan are not grounds for Buyer to cancel their sales contract." IF THIS IS NOT RED DO NOT COPY THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. AND CAN NOT BE COPIED, MODIFIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAVANT HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX 2066 FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 970-472-5667 1/4"=1'-0" SITE: = 10,468 SF. 5/19/17 SENECA REMODEL REMODEL FOR 4406 SENECA LOT 14, BLOCK TWO REGENCY PARK P.U.D. PROJECT: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LEGEND: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN. NEW CONSTRUCTION. 1 FLOOR PLAN REVISION 5-21-17 2 REVISED WINDOW WELLS 5-25-17 3 PDP SUBMITTIAL 6/15/17 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR ON THIS DAY OF , A.D. 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR OWNER CERTIFICATION 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 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY. LOT 14, BLOCK TWO, REGENCY PARK P.U.D. NAME DATE HOUSE: = 5,300 SF. GARAGE: = 493 SF. FRONT PORCH = 112 SF. POOL ROOM = 391 SF. EXISTING CONCRETE WALK: = 482 SF. EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVE: = 1,192 SF. NEW CONCRETE WALK/STAIRWAY: = 274 SF. 4 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/11/17 GENERAL NOTES: 1. RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO OWN CARS. 2. A MAXIMUM OF 8 RESIDENTS WILL BE ALLOWED PLUS CARETAKER. 3. MAXIMUM OF THREE EMPLOYEES WITH ONE CAR EACH. PARKING PROVIDED 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. 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. 7. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPERATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 9. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE 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. 10. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREET SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENCE. 11. 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. 12. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICAL 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 AND BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. STREET TREE NOTES: 1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCULDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES SND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICES, ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. 5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER - STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMADTE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPERATIONS BEWTWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS, STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPERATION STANDARDS. TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE. THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBRANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T- POSTS. NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF(1/2) OF THE DRIP LINE. EHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTED ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREA CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPERATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILIT EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF". RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLSHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FITY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE- TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW. TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 OVER 19 1 2 5 10 12 15 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1- JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. FOR FOUR SPACES. GENREAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE- FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DIFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSRYMAN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT (8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPEAREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD. AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND 91,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132. 5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT. PERFORANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6. MAINTANCE: TREES, AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING. BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 8. THE FOLLOWING SEPERATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES. 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATERAND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES. 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACEDD A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a). 10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPEICES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION - AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST. SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. NATIVE SEEDING NOTES: DOES NOT APPLY FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY NOTES: DOES NOT APPLY - (PROJECT NOT IN FLOODPLAIN) 4. THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXCEEDS THE 40% COVERAGE, NO ADDITIONAL PARKING WILL BE ADDED OR NEEDED. 5 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/25/17 6 CITY CORRECTIONS 8/30/17 FRAMING: REVISIONS: # DATE: DESCRIPTION: GLAZING: B. TEMPERED GLASS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS AS NEEDED TO MEET CODE. G. PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING AS NEEDED IN ACCODANCE WITH R602.8 OF THE 2006 IRC. THERMAL BARRIER: ELECTRICAL: A. INFORMATION AND LAYOUTS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS ARE ONLY SCHEMATIC IN DESIGN AND SHALL BE REVIEWED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, SUPPLIERS AND BUILDING OFFICALS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNING CODES AND GOOD COMMON CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. B. PROVIDE AND INSTALL GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTERS (GFCI) MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL GOVERNING CODES. ALL OUTDOOR, BATH AND NON-DEDICATED GARAGE WALL RECEPTACLIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT PROTECTION.. F. INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND APPLIANCES AS PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMEDATIONS. VERIFY AND PROVIDE PROPER ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES TO EACH. G. PROVIDE AND INSTALL LOCALLY CERTIFIED SMOKE AND CARBON DETECTORS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL GOVERNING CODES. SMOKE DECTORS SHALL BE 110 VOLT POWERED, AND EQUIPPED WITH A BATTERY BACKUP AND SOUND AN ALARM AUDIBLE IN ALL SLEEPING AREAS. WHEN MULTIPLE ALARMS ARE REQUIRED IN A DWELLING UNIT, THE ALARM DEVICES SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED SO ACTUATION OF ONE ALARM ACTIVATES ALL ALARMS. B. PROVIDE THERMAL BUILDING INSULATION AT ASSEMBLIES ADJACENT TO EXTERIOR SPACES IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURES SPECIFIACTIONS, LOCAL ORDINANCES AND CODES. H. ALL ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS SHALL BE HANDLED AND INSTALLED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. I. ALL WOOD PLATES BEARING ON CONCRETE OR MASONRY SHALL BE DECAY-RESISTANT AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNING COEDS.. SYMBOLS: 1 A2.1 SHEET NUMBER DIRECTION ELEVATION OR SECTION KEY. = ROOF PITCH 12 8 = ANGLE CL = CENTERLINE HB = FREEZE PROOF HOSE BIB G = GAS LINE STUB W/ CUTOFF. O = ROUND OR DIAMETER 1R1S = CLOSET - (1) ROD (1) SHELF 2R2S = CLOSET - (2) RODS (2) SHELVES 5S = (5) STACK SHELVES = LAVATORY - SEE SPEC. = WATER CLOSET - SEE SPEC. = TUB/SHOWER - SEE SPEC. DW = DOUBLE SINK- SEE SPEC. = SINGLE SINK- SEE SPEC. = RANGE / COOKTOP- SEE SPEC. = DISHWASHER- SEE SPEC. REF. = REFRIGERATOR- SEE SPEC. 6060SL = WINDOW (60"X60" SLIDER) 2/6X6/8 = DOOR (2'-8"X6'-8") FP = FIREPLACE- SEE SPEC. 2. 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) 3. 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (IECC) 4. 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (IMC) 5. 2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE (IFGC). 6. 2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE IPC AS AMENDED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO. 7. 2017 INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE. NEC AS AMENDED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO 8. ACCESSIBILITY: STATE LAW CRS 9-5 & ICC / ANSI A117.1-2009. 9. SNOW LOAD - LIVE LOAD: 30 PSF / GROUND SNOW LOAD : 30 PSF. 10. FROST DEPTH; 30 INCHES. 11. WIND LOAD: 100 MPH. - 3 SECOND GUST. 12. SESMIC DESIGN CATAGORY B 13. ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE - 2015 (IECC) RESIDENTIAL CHAPTER (CLIMATE ZONE 5). TO BOTTOM OF TRUSSES PRIOR TO INSTALLING SHEETROCK, TYPICAL ALL EXTERIOR WALLS. REMODEL FOR LOT 14, BLOCK TWO - REGENCY PARK P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT: 4406 SENECA 1 5/21/17 Floor plan redesign mtg. 5-10-17 5/10/17 2 5/25/17 Added window well. 14. OCCUPANCY R4 3 6/15/17 PDP SUBMITTAL 4 8/11/17 CITY PDP MARKUP CORRECTIONS A. PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION AS PER CODE -IFC 903.2.8.3 PFA NOTES THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS REQUIRED BY IFC 903.3.1.2 FOR CONDITION 2, FIRE SPRINKLER / FIRE ALARM & DETECTION: GROUP R-4 OCCUPANCIES. ATTICS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.2.8.3.2 C. FIRE ALARMS SYSTEMS AND SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN GROUP R-4 OCCUPANCIES AS REQUIRED IN SECTIONS 907.2.10.1 THROUGH 907.2.10.3 A2.4 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PERMITS: 1. PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK AS PER FEDERAL, STATE, CITY AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES. S h a d o w b r o o k e C t M i l l C r e e k C t Fromme Prairie Way M o r n i n g D ove Ln P e ar l g a t e Ct V i ew po int Ct Wakerobin Ct Soda Creek Ct Zahn Ct Briargate Ct Rosegate Ct Irongate Ct Regency Ct Willowgate Ct Cedargate Ct Seneca St Regency Dr W Troutman Pkwy W Harmony Rd © 4406 Zoning Seneca & Site St. Vicinity Group Home Map 1 inch = 417 feet Site Attachment 1 8 9 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 18 16 19 3 3 3 14 14 17 5 5 14 14 AREA HAS BEEN SEEDED WITH NATIVE GRASSES ENTER LOT 2 (71,022 S.F. / 1.630 ACRES PER COLLEGE AND TRILBY SUBDIVISION PLAT) (6) SPACES (7) SPACES (9) SPACES T DRIVE-THRU ORDER WINDOW WALK-UP ORDER WINDOW EXISTING PARKING LOT 1 EXISTING CHURCH S. COLLEGE AVE. 10'-0" DRIVE THRU LANE FIRE LANE EXISTING DETENTION POND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED SINGLE STORY BUILDING 492 S.F. 0 10' 20' 40' N 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 SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. 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. 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. 7. 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. 8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL SITE SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. INCLUDING ALL ASSOCIATED FOUNDATIONS AND ATTACHMENT OF MONUMENT SIGNS AND PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN INSTALLED BY SIGN VENDOR. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REQUIRED POWER AND FINAL CONNECTIONS. GENERAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION ISSUES ARISING DURING SIGN INSTALLATION. 17. NO ADDITIONAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED FOR THIS PARCEL AT THIS TIME. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 KEYED SITE PLAN NOTES NEW STAMPED CONCRETE PATIO WITH SCORE JOINTS AT 10'-0" O.C. BOTH DIRECTIONS. TYP. LOCATION FOR NEW PAINTED STOP BAR AS INDICATED. LOCATION FOR NEW BICYCLE RACK. SEE DETAIL 7/2.1 NEW 5'-0" WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH CONTROL JOINTS AT 5'-0" O.C. TO TIE INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK ALONG S. COLLEGE AVENUE. NEW ADA PARKING STALL. ALL SIGNAGE AND STRIPING TO MEET EXISTING CITY STANDARDS. SEE DETAIL 8/A2.1 NEW ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL. NEW PAINTED TRAFFIC ARROWS. SEE DETAIL 4/A2.1. NEW LANDSCAPING. NEW PAINTED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STRIPING AS SHOWN. NEW 6" DIA. CONCRETE FILLED STEEL BOLLARD. SEE DETAIL 6/A2.1. NEW ADA PARKING SIGN, SEE DETAIL 5/A2.1. NEW PAINTED LETTERS. NEW STOP SIGN. ALL SIGNAGE AND STRIPING TO MEET EXISTING CITY STANDARDS. NEW FIRE LANE SIGN, SEE 7/A2.1. NEW 750 GALLON GREASE INTERCEPT LOCATION. LOCATION FOR NEW ILLUMINATED MENU BOARD AND ORDERING STATION. PROVIDE POWER FOR LIGHTING AND CONDUIT WITH PULL STRING FOR COMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIONS. LOCATION FOR NEW CMU BLOCK TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH STONE VENEER AT ALL SIDES & PAINTED STEEL GATE. SEE SHEET A2.2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NEW ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER WITH CONCRETE PAD. PAINT TO MATCH NEW BUILDING FIELD COLOR IF POSSIBLE. COORDINATE AS REQUIRED WITH XCEL ENERGY. NEW ADA SIDEWALK CURB RAMP. SLOPE TO BE 1:12 MAX. EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHT W/ CONCRETE BASE. SCALE: 1" = 20' 1 SITE PLAN A3.0 1"=20'-0" ROOF LINE (BEYOND). STANDING SEAM COPPER METAL ROOF. +0'-0" FINISH FLOOR +3'-0" SILL +4'-0" T.O. WAINSCOT +7'-2" HEADER +8'-3" B.O. AWNING +9'-0" B.O. SOFFIT +10'-0" B.O. ROOF +10'-0" T.O. PARAPET +13'-6" +15'-6" CORRUGATED METAL SIDING. BRICK VENEER: BRICK COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT BRICK BUILDING. RTU (BEYOND). EXTERIOR LIGHTING (TYPICAL). PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CANOPY. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING: KAWNEER 451T VG #40 DARK BRONZE ROOF LINE (BEYOND). STANDING SEAM COPPER METAL ROOF. DISPENSING WINDOW. +0'-0" FINISH FLOOR +4'-0" T.O. WAINSCOT / SILL +7'-2" HEADER +8'-3" B.O. AWNING +9'-0" B.O. SOFFIT +10'-0" B.O. ROOF +10'-0" T.O. PARAPET CORRUGATED METAL SIDING. BRICK VENEER: BRICK COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT BRICK BUILDING.. PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CANOPY. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING: KAWNEER 451T VG #40 DARK BRONZE RTU (BEYOND). ROOF LINE (BEYOND). STANDING SEAM COPPER METAL ROOF. +0'-0" FINISH FLOOR +4'-0" T.O. WAINSCOT +8'-3" B.O. AWNING +9'-0" B.O. SOFFIT +10'-0" B.O. ROOF +10'-0" T.O. PARAPET +13'-6" CORRUGATED +15'-6" METAL SIDING. BRICK VENEER: BRICK COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT BRICK BUILDING. RTU (BEYOND). EXTERIOR LIGHTING (TYPICAL). PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CANOPY. DISPENSING WINDOW. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING: KAWNEER 451T VG #40 DARK BRONZE COPPER METAL FASCIA EIFS STUCCO: TAN ROOF LINE (BEYOND). STANDING SEAM COPPER METAL ROOF. SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" A2.0 2 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION A2.0 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 3 NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" A2.0 4 NORTHWEST ELEVATION A2.0 3/8" = 1'-0" laxy Way Orbi t W a y Lynn D r Pitner Dr Gary Dr I dalia Dr «¬287 BenRsoobnert Lake NC RL CL CL UE RL LMN LMN UE POL MMN CG MMN LMN RL RL © Ziggi's Zoning Coffee Map 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 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 laxy Way Orbi t W a y Lynn D r Pitner Dr Gary Dr I dalia Dr «¬287 BenRsoobnert Lake NC RL CL CL UE RL LMN LMN UE POL MMN CG MMN LMN RL RL © Ziggi's Zoning Coffee Map 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 3 D r Lynn Dr Rick Dr Woodr o w D r S m o k ey S t Janse n D r Egyptian Dr Aran St Fossil Creek Dr Kim Dr S a n J uan Dr C o l b y S t Ston e y Bro o k R d D e r ry D r Frontage Rd Pola r is D r Orbit Way Sc e n i c Dr S t a r w a y S t Plateau Ct B u e no Dr Du n n e Dr N e p t u n e D r Kevin Dr R a m a h D r G a l a x y W a y I d a li a D r Pl e as a nt Hi l l L n Gary Dr Solar Ct Mer c u r y D r I d a l i a C t P o r tn e r R d Vivian Ct Pitner Dr Parl i a m e n t Ct H i l l v iew Ct Agate Ct Fort Morgan Dr Fossil Crest Dr Eg y p tian Ct Hudson Ct Dunraven Dr Gala x y Ct Shadbury Ct Boyne Ct Cleopatra St Sparrow Pl Leo Ct Claire Ct Orion Ct Snyder Ct Strader Ln Pluto Ct Kersey Ct Avondale Rd E Skyway Dr Tria n g l e D r F ossil C reek P k w y A u t u m n R i d g e D r S College Ave W Trilby Rd E Trilby Rd © Ziggi's Coffee Drive-Shop Through 1 inch = 1,000 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 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 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. Land-Use Statistics 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 185-417 * 40' SF/MF ----------------------- MMN (PARCEL B) +/- 16.69 AC 12 DU/AC MIN 200- 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 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 1 811 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