Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/16/2019 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 May 16, 2019 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Christine Pardee, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Hobbs 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Ruth Rollins Jeffrey Schneider 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 May 16, 2019 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Packet Pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 May 16, 2019 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April 18, 2019 Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the April 18, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April 12, 2019 Special Meeting The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the April 12, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board special meeting. 3. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April 16, 2019 Special Meeting The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the April 16, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board special meeting. 4. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan – Transfer of Density Units Program - Closure PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to bring closure to the Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program included in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, adopted September 22, 1998 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The TDU Program was established specifically for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The TDU Program has been successful in reducing density within the Fort Collins- Loveland Community Separator area and preserving important natural resource lands surrounding the Fossil Creek Reservoir area. The TDU Receiving Area is essentially annexed and built out, with only one remaining parcel with limited development potential. Several actions are needed to bring closure to the Program including amendments referencing the Program in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, and applicable County Land Use Code sections by both the City and Larimer County. APPLICANT / OWNER City of Fort Collins Larimer County STAFF ASSIGNED: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Matt Lafferty, Principal County Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. VOA Senior Residences, PDP190005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan (PDP) to construct a three-story, affordable, senior housing project at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive, one block west of Timberline Road. Four modifications of standards are proposed to the LMN zone district standards for density, number of units in a building, maximum building square footage, and required off-street parking spaces. APPLICANT: Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 e. klara@ripleydesigninc.com OWNER: Volunteers of America 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clark Mapes, City Planner Packet Pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 May 16, 2019 6-A. Annual Land Use Code Amendments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in the Spring of 2018 and the Mid-Winter update in January of 2019. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins STAFF ASSIGNED: Noah Beals 6-B. Land Use Code Revisions – Variances by Director PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding revision to the Land Use Code. This revision would allow minor variances that are considered routine to be authorized by the Director. This revision is accompanied by the annual Spring package of revisions to the Land Use Code but is a separate Ordinance due to the new authorization. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins STAFF ASSIGNED: Noah Beals 7. CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University to construct a new surface parking lot at 615 Lake Street and 634 & 626 Prospect Road (parcels #9714300018, 9714000002, and 9714300026). Approximately 120 parking stalls are proposed. Primary access is taken from West Lake Street to the north, with emergency service access provided to West Prospect Road to the south. The total project area is approximately 1.4 acres. The proposed project is within the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H- M-N) zone district. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Colorado State University Facilities Management 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 OWNER: Colorado State University 01 Administration Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 STAFF ASSIGNED: Jason Holland, City Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Date: Start Time: Stop Time: Roll Call Hobbs Hogestad Pardee Rollins Schneider Whitley Hansen Vote X X Absent X X X X 6 present 1 –4 Consent: Minutes for April hearing & 2 special meetings, Fossil Creek Res Area Plan Hobbs Rollins Pardee Hogestad Schneider Whitley Hansen Y Y Absent Y Y Y Y 6:0 5 - VOA Senior Residences, PDP1900005, Modification #1 Rollins Pardee Hogestad Schneider Whitley Hobbs Hansen Y Absent Y Y Y Y Y 6:0 5 - VOA Senior Residences, PDP1900005, Modification #2 Pardee Hogestad Schneider Whitley Hobbs Rollins Hansen Absent Y Y Y Y Y Y 6:0 5 - VOA Senior Residences, PDP1900005, Modification #3 Hogestad Schneider Whitley Hobbs Rollins Pardee Hansen Y Y Y Y Y Absent Y 6:0 5 - VOA Senior Residences, PDP1900005, Modification #4 Schneider Whitley Hobbs Rollins Pardee Hogestad Hansen Y Y Y Y Absent Y Y 6:0 5 - VOA Senior Residences, PDP1900005 Whitley Hobbs Rollins Pardee Hogestad Schneider Hansen Y Y Y Absent Y Y Y 6:0 6-A - Annual Land Use Code Amendments Hobbs Rollins Pardee Hogestad Schneider Whitley Hansen Y Y Absent Y Y Y Y 6:0 6-B - Land Use Code Revisions - Variances by Director Rollins Pardee Hogestad Schneider Whitley Hobbs Hansen Y Absent Y Y Y Y Y 6:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Planning & Zoning Board 5/16/2019 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Date: XXX Document Log Any written comments or documents received after the agenda packet was published are listed here. Unless otherwise stated, these documents are included in the online “Supplemental Documents” for this meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April 18, 2019 Hearing 2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April 12, 2019 Special Meeting 3. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April 16, 2019 Special Meeting 4. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan – Transfer of Density Units Program - Closure DISCUSSION AGENDA: 5. VOA Senior Residences, PDP190005 • UCitizen emails/letters:U o Letter of support from Jim Becker representing the Partnership for Age-Friendly Communities, citing the current lack of affordable housing for older adults in Larimer County. o Letter from Jim Rose with concerns regarding the maintenance of the only public park in the vicinity, traffic and parking, future HOA cost, and future use of the property. • Additional documents provided by the applicant, including: a PACF Letter of Support, Email from the HOA representative, Highland Group Market Analysis, Fire Access Diagram, Solar Analysis, Drainage and Erosion Control Letter, Recorded drainage easement for detention pond, Utility Plans, Photometric Plans, Grading Exhibit, Preliminary Demand Analysis, and Senior Housing Proposed Pond. 6-A. Annual Land Use Code Amendments • UCitizen emails/letters:U o • (None) 6-B. Land Use Code Revisions – Variances by Director • UCitizen emails/letters:U o • (None) 7. CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot • UCitizen emails/letters:U o • (None) GENERAL CITIZEN EMAILS/LETTERS: • (None) EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Shar Gerber, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 2019 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 18, 2019 Planning & Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 18, 2019 P&Z Minutes Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Christine Pardee, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Hobbs 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Ruth Rollins Jeffrey Schneider 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 April 18, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Rollins, Schneider, Whitley Absent: Pardee Staff Present: Beals, Leeson, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Ward, Smith, Wilkinson, Betley, Scheidenhelm, Beane and Gerber Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Development Review Manager Beals reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 2 of 13 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Kara Linn, 5100 Northern Lights Dr. - Spoke of her frustration with the Harmony Corridor plan and process. She implores the Board to not approve the amendment and let it go to City Council. Lisa Alworm, 6453 Rookery Rd. - She seconds what Kara spoke of and added that there should be more public input and the ecological impacts. She would like the amendment delayed for more public input. CDNS Director Leeson addressed the concerns of Kara and Lisa. Stating that several conversations have been had with Kara and other neighbors regarding the Harmony Corridor Plan. Public process is on-going, and that the amendment is moving forward. There is a planned work session in May with City Council to review this amendment. There have been multiple public outreach meetings and have incorporated comments into the amendment. It will be a public and transparent process moving forward. Once completed with City Council this amendment will go before the Planning and Zoning Board. Attorney Yatabe cautioned the Harmony Corridor Plan should be looked at as legislative item and that the Board needs to be careful to draw the line when looking at a development. Look at the item on a legislative level as to what could generally go in there, to his knowledge there has not been a project development plan submitted for H25 for anything concrete up to this point. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from March 21, 2019, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the March 21, 2019, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment MJA#190001 Chair Hansen addressed the following issue: Prior to the hearing Chair Hansen requested that a summary of information communicated by board member Pardee to all, but one board member be placed into the agenda materials for this item. Member Pardee was not present at the hearing due to a work commitment. At this point all board members are aware of the information communicated by Member Pardee. The information provided by Member Pardee is only relevant to this hearing as it may relate to the ability of one or more board members to hear the application in a fair and impartial manner. The summary placed in the agenda materials was not written by Member Pardee but is based on information she provided to the board. City Legal staff assisted in writing the summary and is not intended to be an exhaustive recounting of all the information member Pardee provided to the board. The summary is not intended to establish or comment upon whether the interaction occurred as described by Member Pardee and is presented not for its truth, but to document the information that was provided to the board by Member Pardee. A full text of this summary is contained in the agenda materials. Gino Campana, applicant, has submitted documents that dispute Member Pardee’s accounts, these documents are part of the record of this hearing. The purpose of disclosing this information is to check in with each board member to see if he or she can apply the land use code standards to the major amendment application in a fair and impartial manner in light of the information provided by Member Pardee and Gino Campana. Chair Hansen asked each member of the board if ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 3 of 13 they felt they could do so. Member Whitley, yes; Member Hogestad, yes; Member Schneider, for disclosure he was not at last months hearing, he did watch the tape, and feels he can be part of the hearing with the information provided; Member Hobbs, recused himself; Member Rollins, yes; Chair Hansen, yes. Chair Hansen outlined the procedure: 1. Staff input on additional information received since last hearing. 2. Applicant will have opportunity to provide additional information and testimony. 3. Public will have opportunity to provide additional information and testimony. 4. Applicant and staff rebuttal/response to public comment. 5. Questions from the board. Questions can be asked at any point. 6. Close and enter into board discussion and decision. Project Description: This is a request for Major Amendment for a child care center located on Tract C of Bucking Horse Second Filing. The one-story building would be 11,238 square feet in size. The 2.5-acre site is located on the east side of Miles House Avenue, south of Nancy Gray Avenue, north of Drake Road and southwest of the Great Western Railway. Access to the site would be taken from the existing driveway along Miles House Avenue. This request would amend the approved plan, which designates this parcel as a Working Farm and Agricultural Activities. The parcel is fully entitled and partially developed including the parking lot. A request for Modification of Standard is included and pertains to the relationship of the existing parking to the adjoining property. The parcel is zoned U-E, Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that numerous items were received and are as follows: • Letter of opposition received from Jennifer Beccard citing the extreme change in plans by the developer. • Letter of opposition from Kathleen Hunt-Speciner concerned about the timing of the March hearing when many people were out of town. • Letter of opposition from Jake Wilson with timeline information regarding homes being purchased, and how the center will negatively impact property values. • Multiple emails from Tim and Donna Clarkson, requesting additional information on the Land Use Code and opposing this item citing code, safety issues, and respect for current residents. • Letter of opposition from Sharon Ross, who does not feel this is an appropriate location for a daycare center. • Letter of opposition received from Mary Patterson stating the neighborhood was falsely advertised by the developer • Letter of opposition from Rachel Smith, who does not believe this commercial property fits appropriately into the neighborhood. • Letter for support from Susan Ernst who believes the daycare center will further foster a sense of community in their neighborhood • Letter of support from Doug Mayes stating the previous agricultural plans were not realistic, and the daycare center will support a family friendly environment. • Letter of support from Beverly Wood Thurber, citing research regarding the lack of licensed child care availability in Larimer County. • Letters of support from Adelle Leblanc, Katie Watkins, Amanda Broz, and Lisa Poppaw who state Fort Collins is lacking in high-quality child-care facilities. • Letter of opposition from Samuel and Marianna Jeng with concerns regarding the child care’s proximity to a sewage and treatment facility with attached research article. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 4 of 13 • Three letters of opposition from Arnold Robinson, including two letters stating the information the developer presented at the March P&Z hearing was inaccurate, and one letter with concern for the safety of the children regarding the FEMA flood zone. • Letter of support from Rebecca Jones who has three children that have all attended the current Fort Collins Sunshine House. • Staff Report Supplement Memorandum. • Board Member Interaction Information. • Childhood Center Buffer document. • Two Comment Letters, one from December 14, 2018 and one from February 15, 2019. • Water Treatment Plant Buffer meeting notes. • Parking Demand Analysis. • Recorded Development Agreement. • Survey of 256 members of the community with comments. • Water Board Variance Packet. Staff and Applicant Presentations CDNS Director Leeson gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project and provided answers to questions from the work session. Member Schneider requested capacity and hours of operation information. Director Leeson ran through capacity information on various centers in Fort Collins; 2 Young People’s Learning Center, Hearts and Hand, Primrose School, Little People’s Landing, Little Bear’s Child Center, Children’s Workshop, Bright Horizon’s. Director Leeson mentioned that a question was also asked regarding compliance or conformity to the existing land use code with each of these locations. Many of these were approved under much older versions of the land use code and without doing full analysis of the current code, there was not enough time to do that. However, the fact that these were approved and given building permits, we presume that they were in compliance with the land use code. In regard to the City park; hours of operation will be 5:00 am to 11:00 pm, there are no lighting requirements for a City park. If lighting is installed it will be out by 11:00 pm. This is a six-acre park with a potential start of construction date to be 2021 and possibly slipping to a construction start of 2022. This is dependent on the BFO. This will be a drop-in use only, not a programmed field. Gino Campana provided a brief verbal presentation stating that the remainder of his presentation will be completed by his attorney Caroline White. Attorney White provided a verbal/visual presentation of the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment. She spoke of the 49 criteria of the land use code highlighting those that are relevant to the project. She also spoke of the Water Board’s approval of the project. Attorney White requested the Board approve the project as presented. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Rachel Smith, 2608 Palomino Ct., stated she left the last hearing feeling she was heard, and that she heard the Board as well. She wanted to call the Board’s attention to some relevant items in the land use code. Article 1, Division 1.2, 1.2.2 Purpose (M)&(N). Article 5, 5.1.2. She knows that they are hard to measure, but at the heart of dismay. Troy McKaskill, 2608 Palomino Ct, spoke of the December 31st community meeting and the thought to purchase the property and that the interest of a farm still exists. They remain interested. He feels the information from Russel Mills is inaccurate and was given validation by the staff presentation. He would like the Board to review the zoning of the parcel. Laura Schaffer, 1652 Sprocket Dr., spoke of her support for the Sunshine House. She is a current customer and is in support of the project. It is compliant with City zoning and very much needed in the community. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 5 of 13 Matthew Fowler, 2445 Palomino Dr., spoke of the Fort Collins noise ordinance. He believes there will be twice the children at the proposed location, therefore increasing the noise level. He feels that those living there made the decision to live there based on what they were told when purchasing. Maria Martin, 2837 39th Ave., Greeley, is currently an employee of Sunshine House in Fort Collins. She read two letters regarding the shortage of childcare in Fort Collins. Charlie Odell, Ft. Collins resident, spoke of her daughter who will be moving back to Fort Collins with her very young children. They found Sunshine House and are very impressed. She supports the project. Genesis Steffens, Loveland resident, Regional Director for the Sunshine House, spoke of being good positive neighbors and how they contribute to the communities in which they exist. She supports this project Jake Wilson, 2421 Palomino Dr., he is against the project due to the character of the neighborhood. This is a major change as it is built out, not a new development. Carly Finch, 1813 Belmar Dr., A5, Center Director of the Sunshine House. She addressed compatibility, pick up and drop off times, safety, being a good neighbor, traffic and noise. Mary Space, 2603 Palomino Ct., she is concerned with safety and traffic. Samantha Coontz, 2732 Wakonda Dr., she knows that trust has been broken. She spoke of the trust that parents put in them the previous day when the school districts in the entire State of Colorado were closed. Jackie Montoya, 2636 Walkaloosa Way, she is opposed to the daycare center. She spoke of conflicting information stating specific documents within the supplemental items. Jenna Maeda, 3320 Yule Trail Dr., spoke of how difficult it was to find daycare in Fort Collins. The Sunshine House called in time. She is in support of the project. Mike Montoya, 2636 Walkaloosa Way, he is opposed to the daycare center. He feels that there is a bait and switch situation. He would like to ensure that this center is used only for Sunshine House during set hours of operation. He asked for numerous considerations for a response. Tracy Yoder, 2225 Podd Berg, Johnstown, she is a current educator at the Sunshine House. She supports the project. Oren Ryssman, SE Ft. Collins, he supports the project. Childcare is needed in our community Tracy Ryssman, 2814 Paddington Rd., she supports the project. Childcare is needed in our community Steven Sorenson, 1404 W. Mountain Ave., HOA Board member, attending as private citizen. He spoke of health of community. From a business perspective, he has lost employees as they could not find affordable childcare. He feels that the development does have the character of the neighborhood. Mary Ward, 126 N. Sherwood, St., she spoke of the need for quality childcare. She provided statistics of childcare for the area. Jediah Foster, 2624 Walkaloos Way, thanked the Board for their service. Discussed traffic requirements from previous approval and how it is current state. He believes that the developer does not comply with standard conditions nor adhere to the land use code as written. Steve Schonfeld, 2630 Walkaloosa Way, he is opposed to the project. According to what he saw before purchasing was a farm. Please take the neighborhood input seriously. Dave Nanninga, 2414 Palomino Dr., listed land use code sections. He feels Mr. Campana has been allowed to create his own standards. He feels that if this project is built, it will be setting a precedent. He is opposed to the ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 6 of 13 project. Candice Capitelli, 2275 Cutting Horse, is in support of the project. Donna Clarkson, 2708 Walkaloosa Way, spoke of the parking lot and lighting. She is concerned that the lighting will shine directly into the back of her house. She would like the modification modified. Elizabeth Giglio, 3501 Stover St, #55, she supports the project. She feels her son has done better in school because of daycare. Samuel and Marianna Jeng, 2642 Walkaloosa Way, they are against this project. There is a water treatment facility in close proximity to the daycare center. He feels this may cause potential health issues and provided statistical backup. Andy Reese, 2151 Cocklebur Ln., HOA board member, is in support of the project and opposed to the working farm. There is a high cost to managing a farm. Jennifer Beccard, 2602 Palomino Ct., thanked the Board for their service. Spoke of the memo posted by Rebecca Everette as well as other information found in the packet. Andrea Schaffer, 2203 Sandbur Dr., read a letter by Lisa Pappaw, Executive Director of Crossroads Safehouse. She states the need for affordable, quality childcare. Andrea is in support of the project. Courtney Johnson, 1331 Redwood St., spoke of what daycare provided for her when she needed it. Diane Ellen Phillips, 2439 Palomino Dr., community members are not opposed to childcare, but they are opposed to the Sunshine House in Bucking Horse on the estate side. Lindsay Roselle, 2614 Palomino Ct., Community Coordinator for the HOA. This was an informal non-scientific survey. This survey is not a good representation of the complete neighborhood. There was a working sub- committee created. Lower cost offers were forwarded to Gino. Collette Thepenies, 2383 Palomino Dr., is opposed to the project. They are not anti-kids or anti-daycare; they just do not want it in their neighborhood. No notation of a commercial entity was ever listed in documentation. Had she known; they may not have moved there. Zero interest in the project. Scott Frella, 2609 Palomino Dr., spoke of working garden and the Sunshine House being looked at for at least the last seven years. He is opposed to the project. Staff Response Director Leeson responded to Rachel Smith and Jake Wilson regarding dramatic change of character. The reason we are here this evening is because it is a change of character, this is what a major amendment is in place to do, otherwise it would be a minor amendment and would not go through this extensive process. Is it out of character with the neighborhood and is it not compatible? The type is a permitted use and compatible with the zone district, otherwise it would not be listed as a permitted use. Noise, light and traffic can be mitigated through conditions of approval or other efforts in design. Matthew Fowler, noise issues. The City does recognize and have ordinance throughout the City, 55 decibels from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm but we do not approve or disapprove a project on the potential to violate the noise ordinance. If it gets too loud, code offices can come out to enforce the noise ordinance. Dave listed the permitted uses and setting a precedence. It will not set a precedence as it is a permitted use. As for the several variances received, there is only two modifications being requested as part of this project; the setback and the landscape. Donna Clarkson mentioned the light from the parking lot. The modification does not affect this, as she is speaking of the cars that come out of the parking lot and shine across the street. The modification is more to the North. Jennifer Piccard mentioned Mr. Sheppard was removed because of improper behavior. This is not the case, he voluntarily removed himself from this project so that there was not a perception of bias. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 7 of 13 Martina Wilkinson responded to Mary Space regarding the intersection of Miles and Drake being signalized. This is a potential in the future. We look at the benefits and the impacts. These has been no crash history, not a signal crash in the last five (5) years. Signals generate crashes, impact. If crashes start to happen, it is possible the benefit of adding a signal will then outweigh. Jediah questioned the auxiliary turn lanes and appropriate left turn lanes. A previous filling did require auxiliary turn lanes and were completed. Appropriate left turn lanes are currently in place on all arterials. No requirement in place for a left turn lane on Miles House and to their access. Follow up and clarification was given to the traffic study regarding the 25% traffic reduction percentage. Attorney Yatabe clarified a previous point raised by Mrs. Smith regarding land use code section 1.2.2 Purpose. This is not considered to be a binding performance standard, you could consider this as guidance in terms of interpretation of particular standards within the land use code in an of itself, it does not set a binding standard. Caroline White responded to citizen concerns. She requested that all signs displayed be turned in as exhibits. She went over noise ordinance, compliance and that the client will comply or the City will use tools of compliance if necessary. To the extent that the member of the public spoke, she believes that the levels were taken from another Sunshine House location and that it was evidenced that this location was likely to violate the ordinance. She mentioned that there is a science around taking sound measurements and that code itself provides requirements. Unless there were evidence entered into the record about the calibration, distance, normalization of peak hours, ambient noise level, etc. She could not infer that this location would have similar levels. To the individual that stated the daycare was the plan all along, she encouraged that individual to read additional supplemental information and that the 7 years comment was the number of years Mr. Campana served on the Planning Commission, and not how many years he was working on the Sunshine House proposal. She addressed the original ODP and that childcare was acceptable and allowed. With the wastewater treatment plant, the measurement is from the source of the odor to the structure of Sunshine House. This distance is reduced to 500’ with mitigation in the code. In relation to the study from the Journal of Environmental and Public Health, it is unknown what the standards are in the stated location in Greece. The client has met the alternative compliance regardless of which measure is used. The last point is regarding headlights existing the parking lot to be visible in her home. Mr. Campana had offered to implement some mitigation to address this in the form of evergreen trees on the Sunshine House property or even on the individual’s property. He is still willing to do this and if the condition is added he would agree, he would agree even if it is not added as a condition. She asked for favorable approval of amendment. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Schneider questioned Mrs. Wilkinson regarding a potential roundabout instead of a signal as a potential opportunity the City is looking at. Mrs. Wilkinson responded that there is a standard for evaluating intersections for the potential of a roundabout. Roundabouts are typically considered if all the legs have a similar volume, which is not necessarily the case with this project. This is the same when considering a signal vs. pedestrian crossing. Member Rollins questioned Mrs. Wilkinson regarding a supplemental parking study and whether or not she had the opportunity to review it. Mrs. Wilkinson did, and she does not expect any type of queuing issue out onto Miles House. Member Whitley questioned parking requirements and on-street parking for the daycare center. Director Leeson overviewed the number of spaces available in the parking lot of the center and that there is not a conflict as in many cases neighborhood parks do not require parking. Mrs. Wilkinson explained that the on-street parking should not cause any issues with pick up and drop off at the Center. It is legal and appropriate for people to park on the street if they do so. Member Hogestad wanted to know who our representative was for the parking study. He held his question for later. Member Schneider wanted clarification and questioned distance from the facility, the wastewater treatment plant, variance and 1000 feet. Director Leeson informed the Board that there was not a representative from Utilities present, but that he believed that if there were a measurement discrepancy it’s a measurement from either the building to building or property line to property line. The larger concern from a utility’s standpoint was the distance from a future expansion (of the wastewater treatment plant). ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 8 of 13 Member Schneider asked about hours of operation. Why is there a deviation? Mrs. White explained that the earliest the site will be opened is 6:00 am and the latest, 7:00 pm. The exact hours for this location have not yet been established. Mr. Mann addressed the question and commented that exact hours have not yet been set. They set their hours based on community need, typically not more than 12 hours, but have not yet made the determination. It will be no earlier than 6:00 am and no later than 7:00 pm. At this time, they cannot clarify what the specific hours will be. Mrs. White offered the idea of a condition of approval that said a maximum of 12 hours being open, those hours to be between the hours of 6:00 am and 7:00pm. Member Schneider is seeking a solid clarification. Member Rollins likes the modification on timing and would also like it to be every day and not fluctuating. Member Whitley questioned the neighborhood nature walks. He would like to know if they allow these walks and in what neighborhoods. Mr. Mann stated it was community dependent and regulated by the State childcare licensing authorities. No determinations have been made. Member Whitley asked about the practices of other facilities. Mr. Mann brought up Carley French, Director of the Centerra location. They go on nature walks because they have an environmental learning center within their community. Member Whitley questioned if they were going to be walking through inhabited neighborhoods within Bucking Horse. The plan is to partner with the community. If they desire for the Center to stay within the center, then they will. Member Schneider asked about the 20-year lease, wanting to know if it was an accurate statement. Mr. Mann responded that it is committed to the community for the long-term. Member Hogestad asked about expansion. Mr. Mann responded that the maximum number is 176 and that in all likelihood they will not hit this number. This is based on quality decisions, not State licensing requirements. Member Hogestad asked for clarification and had questions on the parking demand analysis. Matt Delich responded to queuing questions and timing. Member Rollins clarified that within the parking lot there will really be no queuing, Mr. Delich agreed. Mr. Mann spoke to student drop-off times based on a study he conducted. The average time is 5 - 10 minutes with 35 parking spots available in the parking lot. Member Hogestad asked about prime time for pick-up and drop-off. Mr. Mann feels they are spread out further, not necessarily 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. They do meet the requirement for available parking spaces. Member Schneider asked about the potential modification for 5’ and lighting spillage. Director Leeson explained that the fixtures proposed are fully shielded and downcast, so that there is no spillage. There are large standard street lights which will drown out any light coming from the property to the adjacent homes. Member Hogestad asked if it was a single or multi-level light system. Mr. Leeson deferred to the applicant team. Mrs. White requested clarification, Member Hogestad clarified that there might be some lights that are on and some that come on later in the evening, as needed. Mrs. White responded that the lighting meets the standard and that the assumption is that the lights are all on at the same time. Member Hogestad is more concerned with the point source than the property line light levels. Member Schneider shared his understanding that the light fixtures are full cutoff, that you will not necessarily see a point source. Director Leeson agreed. Member Rollins asked if they will only be used as a daycare, you will not be renting it out, about the connection at Sharp Point and the park. Mr. Mann stated it will only be used for daycare. Mrs. Wilkinson responded to the Miles House and Drake traffic study which included the estimates. It is unknown what will happen until the connection opens. Director Leeson responded that the City has provided Bellissimo a letter of intent to purchase the property. This park will be going before the BFO the next cycle. Member Hogestad questioned operation on weekends. Mr. Mann responded, Monday through Friday with the potential of gatherings occasionally on the weekends. Member Whitley wanted to know when cleaning staff was on-site. Mr. Mann stated that they typically clean their own facilities, they do not have late night cleaning crews. Member Schneider asked that if there are two conditions of approval, one being 12 hours of operation between the 6:00 am and 7:00 pm consistent for five days a week, would this be amenable to the applicant. The second ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 9 of 13 condition for extra tree mitigation along Miles House to mitigate any headlight interference on adjacent property. Mrs. White stated that the applicant is prepared to agree to both (in concept). Chair Hansen wanted to know if there was any additional space directly opposite the driveway. The applicant is prepared to install the required mitigation in the place that it would make the most effective mitigation, provided that whomever owns the property actually wants it to be planted there. Mr. Campana feels that the best place is along one of the residents back property. They will work with the homeowners. Member Hogestad wanted to know if they would have any objection to curtailing weekend operations especially as they relate to childcare, as a condition of approval. Mrs. White was unclear of what Member Hogestad was asking; would the applicant agree to a condition of approval that prohibited the building from ever being used on weekends for any purpose, no. Member Hogestad clarified he did not say ever, but for childcare use. Mrs. White thinks that the operational flexibility of the Sunshine House, they are going to want to know if they need to go there on the weekends sometimes, they can. It all depends on how the board writes the condition. Member Hogestad wanted to make sure that the monument sign would not be luminated, as this may possibly be part of the conditions of approval. Mrs. White commented that the applicants intend to not luminate the monument sign. This is part of the intention and could be added as part of the condition. Chair Hansen discussed the crafting of conditions along with two modifications which require a separate motion and vote. Member Schneider did not see an issue with either one that they are asking for as it does not appear to be of detriment to public good. Chair Hansen feels there is some restraint on the site and a unique use, and they are trying to make the use function better. Member Hogestad supports a motion that would approve the modification to the parking lot setback 3.2.2, but that he will not support the modification for the lack of the landscape 3.2.1, based on the intense increase in use of the parking lot. Chair Hansen feels that if you move the setback then there would be no opportunity for landscaping in the space between. Would this be on the applicant or part of the park design? Member Schneider asked that the slide be brought back up. Member Rollins asked Member Hogestad if it was only on the Northern piece. Member Hogestad responded yes. Member Schneider did not understand why Member Hogestad would not support either one. Member Hogestad explained. Member Rollins stated she was in support of both modifications; she does not feel it is detrimental. Member Whitley disagreed as the headlights will be pointing toward residences. Light was one of the concerns of the neighbors. Member Schneider stated the problem was with lights coming out of the parking lot, not going into the park. Chair Hansen sees the wisdom in the placement of the parking lot. Member Hogestad feels he will not support either modification due to landscaping. Member Schneider made a motion the City of Fort Collins planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard request to section 3.2.1(E4) for the Sunshine House. This approval is based on the materials presented tonight, at the work session, at this hearing and the following conversations. The modification is not determined to be a detriment to the public good, and the plan performs equally as well as the plan complies with the standard. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 3:2 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the parking lot perimeter landscape modification request to section 3.2.2(J) based on the findings of facts of the agenda material, the items presented at the work session, the hearing and the Board discussion tonight, and that this modification is not detrimental to the public good and the plan performs equal as well or better than the plan that would be complied with in the standard. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 3:2 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Major Amendment for the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse MJA19001 based on the findings of facts of the materials presented tonight, the work session and deliberation with two (2) conditions of approval: 1. Add extra mitigation along Miles House to prevent headlights from entering onto lots 10 and 11. 2. Standard hours of operation not to exceed more than 12 hours in one given day, consistent from day-to-day through the normal five (5) day work week, and not to go earlier than 6:00 am and to exceed 7:00 pm. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 10 of 13 I find that all the findings and facts are relevant to the materials, work session, this hearing, discussion along with the findings of the staff report for the information provided. Member Rollins seconded. Member Whitley has sympathy for the neighbors but cannot see anything in the City code to disallow this. Member Hogestad thinks the architecture is in line with the land use code and is better than trying to mimic the residential characteristics of the houses. Member Schneider thanked everyone for their time and involvement and that the Board must follow the land use code and that he would be supporting the project. Member Rollins thanked the public, she will be supporting the project. Chair Hansen will be supporting the project based on the land use code. Vote 5:0 Chair Hansen asked that all signage present be photographed for the record. 3. Appeal of 744 Eastdale Drive Minor Subdivision – BDR180017 Project Description: Appeal of the administrative decision approving the subdivision of one lot into two lots in the NCL zone district located at 744 Eastdale Drive. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that a letter was received from Jim Legedda, opposing the zoning variance with concerns regarding the neighborhood and lot size. Staff and Applicant Presentations CDNS Director Leeson and Zoning Supervisor Beals gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Justin Lee was present along with Dennis Sovic and they provided a brief verbal/visual overview of his project request. Terry Dokken, appellant, joined via phone, he provided a verbal presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eileen Lyons, 801 W. Laurel., spoke of her concern for what could potentially be built behind her house in the future. She asked the Board for guidelines. Dennis Sovick, 750 Havel Ave., agent for owner, he feels that this is a really good project. He spoke of the size of the lot and perspective of shoregate. Laurie Stirman, 748 Eastdale Dr., great neighbors, they have improved the property, the split makes sense. Asked the Board to support the application. Doug Turley, 721 Eastdale Dr., the owners are highly considerate. He supports the project. Linday Cox, 760 Eastdale Dr., she supports the project. Staff/Applicant Response Mr. Lee provided a closing, urging the Board to approve the project. Mr. Dokken provided a response to the applicant as to how they framed their appeal. Director Leeson responded Board Questions / Deliberation Member Rollins asked City staff to respond to citizen input. Planner Beals spoke to minimum lot size in the NCL zone district. Staff would be fine with meeting with Eileen after the meeting to discuss her issue that is unrelated to ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 11 of 13 this appeal. Member Hobbs received clarification on needing a modification for a carriage house and it being the same process. Member Hogestad is concerned with house facing, this is regarding section 1.2.2. Planner Beals did state that they looked at it within the context of the whole neighborhood, and that it does fit. Member Hobbs wanted to know if there were other permitted uses, beside residential, within the NCL zone district. Member Hobbs questioned if it was possible to add a condition of approval to limit the size or style of structure that goes on the parcel? Attorney Yatabe responded that it does allow for the imposition for conditions of approval. Member Rollins agrees that the shortage of 35’ is inconsequential. Member Hobbs feels the ruling by staff is correct. He feels that it is important the Board take variances seriously and that it does not become a gray zone. Member Hobbs has some concern with what will be built on the lot and would need to take a deep look if it were a two-story building. Member Whitley agreed. Member Schneider cannot support a condition as it goes against property owner rights. Member Whitley feels that single-story would keep with the feel of the neighborhood. Member Hogestad is concerned with neighborhood character. 35’ will not make a difference on divide. He feels the questions is the lot size. Chair Hansen is looking at the character of the neighborhood and a potential modification. Member Hogestad feels addressing Laurel Street makes the most sense, front entry. There is no access to Eastdale and that troubles him. Attorney Yatabe spoke to section 1.2.2 regarding purpose. This section does not establish a binding standard. He cautioned using this section as a general ability to judge character or compatibility. Member Rollins questioned if a homeowner could tear down their house and build a two-story house and be completely compliant. Planner Beals responded that they could do just that, and that they could also “pop the top”. Chair Hansen feels that this is expected with densification, a modification to limit it would not be appropriate. Member Schneider made a motion that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to the Land Use Code Section 4.7(D1) the required lot area to allow each proposed lot to be less than 6000 sg. ft. In support of this approval the following findings, the modification will not be of detriment to the public good, the plan that was submitted will not diverge from the standards of the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in consideration form the perspective of the entire development plan and continue to advance the purpose of the land use code as contained in section 1.2.2. The findings and conclusions contained in the staff report adopted by this board, the discussion is based on the agenda materials, work session, and information presented at this hearing tonight. Member Hobbs seconded. Chair Hansen agrees that the standard of nominal and inconsequential is not defined and sometimes questionable to figure out what that is. 0.6% is nominal and inconsequential. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve BDR180017, 744 Eastdale Dr. Minor Subdivision and uphold the previous City staff decision. In support of this approval the Board adopts the fact, finds and conclusions contained in the staff report, and this decision is based upon the agenda materials, the work session and the information presented in this hearing. Member Whitley seconded. Vote 6:0 4. Northfield Project Development Plan - 180011 Project Description: This is a request to develop a residential project on 55.3 acres of vacant farm land located west of Lemay Avenue and north of the Alta Vista Neighborhood. As proposed, there would be 442 dwelling units, yielding a density of 8.00 dwelling units per gross acre. Dwellings are divided among four housing types and distributed across 57 residential buildings. The project includes a small commercial building with two apartments above, along with a clubhouse and outdoor amenities. Suniga Road bisects the parcel between Lemay Avenue on the east and the Lake Canal on the west. Two public local streets would be extended over the Lake Canal and tie into The Retreat, a student-oriented housing project on the west side of the canal. A total of 819 parking spaces are provided, divided between garages (660) and surface (159) spaces. The parcel is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 12 of 13 The P.D.P. includes two Modifications of Standard. Three conditions of approval are recommended that address landscaping along the south side of Suniga Road, raised walkways across alleys and the timing of approving the alternative mitigation strategy to ensure Adequate Public Facilities to serve the development. Recommendation: Approval Disclosure: Member Rollins disclosed that she is doing some transportation work for the applicant in Timnath, CO. She has no personal or financial interest in this project before the Board this evening and would like to continue but asks the Board if there is any hesitation. No board members felt she needed to recuse herself. Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen communications received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Shepard gave a brief verbal visual overview of the project. Jason Sherrill of Landmark Homes provided a brief verbal/visual presentation of the project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Mark Schafer, 605 Brewer Dr., is concerned with traffic issues on Lemay. He believes the City does not take into consideration when approving developments. Don Schlagel, 1131 Lemay, is happy that staff has handled this very well and glad to see it moving forward. Staff Response Planner Shepard called attention to packet pages 192-194 which identify the findings of fact and conclusion. Board Questions / Deliberation Planner Shepard deferred to Martina Wilkinson to the comment regarding Suniga Road. The solution to the traffic cannot legally be given to one applicant alone, though the City can have the applicant provide plans to mitigate their own traffic impact and to provide their proportional share contribution toward the major improvement. In this case the applicant must build roughly one-half mile of four (4)-lane arterial for Suniga. They are also being asked to provide a financial contribution toward the overpass project. Conversation was had about a stop sign at old Lemay, and that there would be one in place. Member Hobbs wanted more information on the safety of the pedestrian and bike traffic and trail connectivity between the units on the South side of Suniga. Mrs. Wilkinson commented that the crossing will not be put into place until it is needed. Until then, ped. and bike traffic will be routed to the Redwood intersection. Member Hogestad questioned if the historic park was a passive park. Mr. Sherrill showed that it is a bike ped. connection. Alta Vista was involved with signage and buffer. Member Whitley feels it is an impressive piece of work with all the variations. Member Hogestad agreed Member Whitley and appreciates the cohesiveness. Member Schneider has no issues or concerns with the two (2) modifications. Member Hobbs would like to see the at grade crossing sooner rather than later. Member Rollins appreciates the design. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 18, 2019 Page 13 of 13 Chair Hansen appreciates the effort put into the project. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the first modification of standard to Section 4.5(D3) to allow access to a neighborhood center for the area South of Suniga Road that must cross an arterial street. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and the hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the modification complies with all of the applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials and the information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this board. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Northfield Project Development Plan 180011 including the three (3) conditions of approval contained in the staff report on package pages 192 and 193. This approval is based up on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this items with the following findings; that the PDP complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials and the information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained it the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this board. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 6:0 Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 12:38 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Jeff Hansen, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Kacee Scheidenhelm, Administrative Services SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2019 P&Z SPECIAL MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 12, 2019 Planning & Zoning Board special meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 12, 2019 P&Z Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 18 DRAFT Jeff Hansen, Chair Conference Room A Christine Pardee, Vice Chair 281 N College Ave Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Ruth Rollins Jeffrey Schneider William Whitley 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. Special Meeting April 12, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Rollins, Schneider, Whitley, Pardee via phone Absent: None Staff Present: Beals, Yatabe, Schmidt, and Gerber Chair Hansen reviewed the items on the agenda. Mr. Yatabe clarified the reason for this session was for questions related to Ms. Schmidt’s presentation during work session training and how Robert’s Rules of Order apply to this board. Discussion regarding what should be included in this special meeting. Conversation can only include what has been noticed for this meeting. If there are legal questions regarding Robert’s Rules, then they can enter executive session for legal advice. Discussion cannot include specific items that will be in this month’s hearing without noticing it first to ensure all relevant parties are aware and present. Discussed scheduling another executive session that includes notice for different items. This needs to happen prior to the hearing to ensure there is a quorum. Regarding the current agenda, Boardmember Schneider would prefer more time to review the work session presentation and materials prior to making changes to their procedure. Chair Hansen stated that City Council has their policies written down, versus this board’s policies which are verbal agreements and by-laws. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Boardmembers agree they would like more time with the material and would like to see this as a topic in a future work session. Yatabe stated the Boards and Commissions Manual mandates any variations to Robert’s Rules must be adopted by majority vote. Boardmember Pardee had understood that the rules can be modified and had concern regarding the current vagueness surrounding Robert’s Rules. Chair Hansen agreed the rules they operate under are an informal set of rules, they are predictable but not written anywhere. Schmidt confirmed with the group that everyone is in agreement to operate under the existing informal procedure. The differences between Robert’s Rules and current practice are in the discussion before a motion, the amendments, and actions by consensus. In these areas we have moved away from the more formal process. Boardmember Pardee stated the current structure is fine. The confusion is to hear the introduction of “Bob’s Rules” without clarification on how they were modified. The group agreed “Bob’s Rules” were said in humor and as part of the group’s culture. Chair Hansen agreed we will take action in the future to formally adopt guidelines. Chair Hansen also brought up that Point of Order can be implemented at anytime to remind others how to proceed. Yatabe provided an adaptation of council’s rules but reminded the group that not all these guidelines necessarily apply to this board. Other Business (None) Adjournment Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Special Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kacee Scheidenhelm. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Jeff Hansen, Chair ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Kacee Scheidenhelm, Administrative Services SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 2019 P&Z SPECIAL MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 16, 2019 Planning & Zoning Board special meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 16, 2019 P&Z Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 21 DRAFT Jeff Hansen, Chair Christine Pardee, Vice Chair Large Conference Room Michael Hobbs City Attorney’s Office Per Hogestad 300 LaPorte Ave Ruth Rollins Fort Collins, CO Jeffrey Schneider William Whitley 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. Special Hearing April 16, 2019 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hogestad, Rollins, Hobbs, Whitley, Schneider, Pardee by phone Absent: None Staff Present: Beals, Yatabe, Schmidt, Leeson, and Scheidenhelm Chair Hansen reviewed the agenda. Boardmember Schneider moved that the board go to into Executive Session, seconded by Whitley. At 9:03 a.m., Chair Hansen stated that the Board would adjourn into Executive Session to consider legal issues related to the Sunshine House at Bucking Horse Major Amendment MJA190001. Yatabe read a procedural statement regarding Executive Sessions. [Secretary’s Note: No minutes are taken during Executive Session. Furthermore, only the beginning and end of the Executive Session are recorded.] At 11:25 a.m., Chair Hansen stated that the Executive Session was concluded. Yatabe read a procedural statement regarding Executive Sessions. Other Business (None) Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Adjournment Chair Hansen adjourned the meeting at 11:27 a.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kacee Scheidenhelm. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Jeff Hansenr, Chair ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR AREA PLAN - TRANSFER OF DENSITY UNITS PROGRAM - CLOSURE STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Matt Lafferty, Principal County Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to bring closure to the Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program included in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, adopted September 22, 1998 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The TDU Program was established specifically for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The TDU Program has been successful in reducing density within the Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator area and preserving important natural resource lands surrounding the Fossil Creek Reservoir area. The TDU Receiving Area is essentially annexed and built out, with only one remaining parcel with limited development potential. Several actions are needed to bring closure to the Program including amendments referencing the Program in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, and applicable County Land Use Code sections by both the City and Larimer County. APPLICANTS: City of Fort Collins Larimer County OWNERS: Same RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to City Council to amend the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement closing the TDU Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to bring closure to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program, adopted September 22, 1998, by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. The TDU Receiving Area is essentially annexed and built out, with only one remaining parcel with limited development potential. Several actions are needed to amend the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, and applicable County Land Use Code Sections by both the City and Larimer County to bring closure of the Program. Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 UCity of Fort Collins: 1. Proposed amendments to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to remove references to the TDU Program. 2. Proposed amendments to the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development, to remove references to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, TDU Program, and deferred annexation within the TDU Receiving Area. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. UBackground: In April of 1995, The Larimer County Planning Commission, along with the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, adopted UThe Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and LovelandU. The main premise of this Plan was to maintain separation between the two developing municipalities by preserving rural land use patterns and protecting sensitive natural resources occurring throughout the Plan area. In March of 1998, the Larimer County Planning Commission in collaboration with the City of Fort Collins adopted the UFossil Creek Reservoir Area PlanU. The intent of this Plan was to facilitate coordinated development patterns and practices in a specific area in the southeastern reaches of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). Protection of environmental and natural resources along the shores of the Fossil Creek Reservoir was a significant feature of the Plan, which Plan established a ¼ mile natural resource buffer around the edges of the reservoir, thus limiting development from encroaching into this sensitive natural area. In September of 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved the UTransferable Density Units for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area PlanU, which was a unique program to Larimer County. Transfer of Density Unit (TDU) programs are a growth management strategy that allows for the movement of unrealized development rights (density) from one property to another property in a specified plan area. The results of such programs are higher densities in the “receiving areas” where development is desired and lesser density in the “sending areas” where development is discouraged. For more than 20 years, Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins have cooperatively implemented the land use objectives and strategies for the jointly adopted Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The County TDU program was an instrumental part of the Plan as it provided landowners in the receiving areas a way to realize significantly higher development densities than would have been achieved by existing county zoning. Furthermore, the TDU program achieved desired outcomes in the sending areas by minimizing impacts to lands identified as having important community values, which primarily properties around the reservoir and in the separator area for Fort Collins and Loveland. In accordance with this program, proposed developments in the Transfer Density Unit "Receiving Area” (described below) were reviewed in the County prior to consideration for annexation. The Larimer County Planning Department was the primary reviewing authority for landowners and developers with land in the Receiving Area. This process of County plan review, followed by annexation, was implemented for all projects submitted for development in the TDU receiving area, and described in the ULarimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement for the Growth Management AreaU. The TDU program provided landowners the means to transfer development potential from one parcel of land to another. The purpose was to guide future growth in the County toward areas designated for higher density development, and away from areas that have important community values. The TDU program established a procedure to evaluate the development potential of a parcel and translate it into tradable units, or TDU's. Land within the Fossil Creek TDU program area is located within either the "Sending Area" or the "Receiving Area. Higher residential densities required by the Plan were located in the Receiving Area, which consists of approximately 900 acres north of Fossil Creek Reservoir, anticipated for annexation by Fort Collins (see attached Map). The remainder Packet Pg. 25 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 of lands covered by this Plan were in the Sending Area (approximate one-mile corridor bounded by I-25 to the east, Highway 287 to the west, CO Rd 30 to south, and Carpenter Road and Fossil Creek Reservoir to north). 2. UDetails and Status of Program A property evaluation system resulting in a certificate disclosing the allowable number of TDU’s that can be transferred from one property to another. Bonus TDU allowances for preservation of land that possess important features valued by the community. An open market system of selling and buying TDU’s allowing landowners and developers to negotiate a fair market price for TDU’s. Since 1998 approximately 1,760 TDU’s have been transferred into the Receiving Area from properties in the Sending Area. As a result of a series of annexations in the Fossil Creek Reservoir area over the past three years, one ‘receiving area’ parcel remains in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan Area, owned by Swift Farms LLC. This 20-acre parcel contains three single family residences, a dog school, and several agricultural-related outbuildings. This property has minimal development potential. The TDU Program has been successful in reducing density and protecting open lands within the Fort Collins- Loveland Community Separator area and preserving important natural resource lands surrounding the Fossil Creek Reservoir area. As a growth management tool, the use of TDU’s can be effective in reducing density and development potential for identified open lands and critical natural resource areas. The Fossil Creek Reservoir TDU Program accomplished these objectives to a certain degree for the Loveland/Fort Collins Community Separator, and Fossil Creek Reservoir Resource Management Area. Other growth management tools both jurisdictions have implemented have similar and often more effective results, such as conservation easements, land acquisition, cluster development, development regulations and other management plans. Presently, the TDU Receiving Area is primarily annexed and built out, with only a few small parcels remaining, including Homestead Estates which is an existing platted subdivision. As a result, both County and City staff acknowledge the TDU Program has reached completion. 3. UProposed Amendments: UClosure to the TDU program will require the following actions by both the City and County: 1. Amendment of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to eliminate references to the TDU program (see attachment No. 2). 2. Amendment of the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement to remove specific references to the administration and implementation of Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan being affected by the repeal of the Transferable Density Units for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan (see attachment No. 3). Amending the IGA will only affect the manner in which the City and County administer development review and annexation practices within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan Area. ULarimer County Action Only: 1. Amendment to repeal the TDU Program. 2. Deletion of County Land Use Code Section 4.2.3 – Fossil Creek Reservoir TDU Overlay Zone, and renumeration of Section 4.2.4 – Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone. 3. Deletion of Section 15.2.2 – Supplementary Regulations for Growth Management Areas. Packet Pg. 26 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 4. UPublic Outreach City and County staff did not facilitate any additional public outreach for the proposed closure of the TDU Program. RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to City Council to amend the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement closing the TDU Program. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fossil Creek Receiving Area Map 2. Proposed amendments to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 3. Proposed amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Packet Pg. 27 Carpenter Rd State Highway 392 Kechter Rd E County Road 36 S Timberline Rd E Trilby Rd Ziegler Rd Strauss Cabin Rd S County Road 11 S County Road 9 !"`$ ôZYXW Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan - Receiving Area CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS 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 them 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. Printed: April 22, 2019 Parcels Receiving Area Fossil Creek Subarea Plan Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Scale 1:27,460 © Remaining Receiving Property ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 ADOPTION Fort Collins City Council - March 17, 1998 Larimer County Planning Commission - March 25, 1998 A joint planning effort City of Fort Collins FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR AREA PLAN ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Adoption Dates Fort Collins City Council - March 17, 1998 Larimer County Planning Commission - March 25, 1998 Plan Amendments Amendment 1: Fort Collins City Council - February 2, 1999 Larimer County Planning Commission - September 22, 1999 Amendment 2: Fort Collins City Council - June 15, 2000 Larimer County Planning Commission - October 5, 2000 Amendment 3: Fort Collins City Council - September 19, 2006 A Joint Planning Effort ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 Credits The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is the result of a collaborative effort between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Cheryl Olson, Chair* John Clarke, Chair Pro Tem Jim Disney Larimer County Planning Commission Wendell Amos, Chair* Peter Salg, Vice Chair* Len Roark, Secretary Ray Dixon Mike Doten Ed Haimes Mark Korb Kathay Rennels George Wallace Larimer County Staff Frank Lancaster, County Manager Larry Timm, Director of Planning* Russell Legg, Chief Planner* Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works K-Lynn Cameron, Open Lands Manager* Daryl Burkhard, Open Lands Resource Sp Jean O'Connor, Administrative Aide *Larimer County TDU Focus Group City of Fort Collins City Council Ann Azari, Mayor Will Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Bertschy Michael Byrne Chris Kneeland Scott Mason Charles Wanner Planning & Zoning Board Gwen Bell, Chair Glen Colton, Vice Chair Alex Chapman Sally Craig Bob Davidson Jerry Gavaldon Karen Weitkunat City Staff John F. Fischbach, City Manager Frank W. Bruno, Assistant City Manager Greg Byrne, Director, CPES Joe Frank, Director, Advance Planning Tom Shoemaker, Director, Natural Resources Pete Wray, City Planner* Tom Frazier, TransFort General Manager Karen Manci, Environmental Planner Janet Meisel, Park Planner Doug Moore, Urban Design Specialist Susan Lehman, Administrative Aide I Consultants Blayney Dyett Feldsburg, Holt and Ullevig Dave Cooper, PhD Planners Transportation Environmental For more information Larimer County Planning Department at (970) 498-7709 Table of Contents Preface Larimer County Adopting Resolution City of Fort Collins Adopting Resolution Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Planning Area ................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Relation to Other Plans ................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Organization of the Plan .............................................................................................. 6 Chapter 2 - Land Use Framework Plan 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Land Use Classifications ................................................................................................. 9 2.3. Land Use Policies .......................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 3 - Transportation 3.1 Existing Transportation System .................................................................................. 19 3.2 Transportation Planning Process ................................................................................ 20 3.3 Street Network and Functional Classifications ......................................................... 21 3.4 Transportation Policies ................................................................................................ 24 Chapter 4 - Natural Areas and Open Lands 4.1 Natural Areas and Open Lands Protection ................................................................ 28 4.2 Natural Areas and Open Lands Policies ..................................................................... 34 Chapter 5 - Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities 5.1 Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................. 35 5.2 Community Facilities Policies ...................................................................................... 37 Chapter 6 - Implementation 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 39 6.2 Amendment of the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area Zone District ....................... 40 6.3 Action Plan ..................................................................................................................... 40 6.4 Implementation Policies .............................................................................................. 40 Appendix A Larimer County Master Plan and City Plan Principles and Policies ............................... 43 B Utilities and Services Background Information ................................................................... 51 C Implementation Action Plan .................................................................................................. 65 D Growth Management Area Boundary Adjustment ................................................................. 71 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 32 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Larimer County Adopting Resolution ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 33 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan City of Fort Collins Adopting Resolution 98-54 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 34 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan City of Fort Collins Adopting Resolution 98-54 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 35 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Executive Summary The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan represents a collaboration between Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and citizens in developing a long-range plan for an area outside Fort Collins municipal and Growth Management Area boundaries. The primary objective of the Plan is to direct future urban development toward municipal boundaries, while balancing preservation of open lands and critical natural areas around the Fossil Creek Reservoir and areas between Loveland and Fort Collins, and while maintaining sensitivity to the rights of individuals. This project is unique in that both jurisdictions – while operating under different land use regulations and planning environments – came together and worked through many complex issues and policy decisions, ultimately resulting in a jointly adopted Plan. The Plan is intended to balance urban development and environmental conservation by recommending a unique combination of City-County integrated implementation strategies. The key to the success of the planning effort is the formulation and adoption of a Transfer of Density Units program by Larimer County. Plan adoption represents significant advancement in the long history of mutual City-County cooperation for planning areas adjacent to the expanding Fort Collins community. The adopted Plan is accompanied by an Intergovernmental Agreement and regulatory document designed to address the principles contained in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the growth management concerns of each jurisdiction. Outstanding features of the project include: • A two-year planning process which began with an extensive inventory and analysis of existing conditions, assessment of goals and policies of adopted plans, and development of Geographical Information Service mapping. • Establishment of a land use framework for the area which integrates future urban and rural residential designations, parks and open lands. • A transportation plan which integrates existing City and County street alignments with a future travel network. The transportation component is designed to enhance connectivity between uses, while maintaining sensitivity to critical natural resource lands around Fossil Creek Reservoir. The transportation network linking facilities for not only vehicular traffic, but also for transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. • An extensive environmental assessment, which involved a collaboration between City and County natural resources and open lands staff, consultants, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Future development was primarily directed Executive Summary i ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 36 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan away from the reservoir; a ¼-mile Resource Management Area buffer was established to protect valued habitat areas; and existing drainage ways were identified for linkages to larger open lands within the study area. • Identification of a range of future park lands intended to serve the area – from neighborhood size parks to regional park preserves. • Development of an implementation plan which included: amending the existing Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, incorporating new development standards, and extending the Growth Management Area Boundary. Plan implementation occurred concurrent with adoption by amending the Intergovernmental Agreement between both jurisdictions. The Plan also identifies a Growth Management Area – lands the municipality expects and intends to annex within a specific time period. In addition, a Cooperative Planning Area was designated, acknowledging a long-term potential growth area for the City. A Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program for Larimer County was initiated by establishing a program specifically for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. This tool, in combination with other land management strategies, provides a mechanism for establishing a community separator between Loveland, Fort Collins and Windsor. Adoption of a Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program was not intended to occur at the time of Plan adoption, however, it is included in the proposed Implementation Action Plan. It is the intent of Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins that the Plan and accompanying regulatory tools will be reviewed and amended, as necessary, following joint evaluations. ii Executive Summary ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Plan The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is the result of a cooperative effort between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Larimer County’s Master Plan and the Fort Collins City Plan indicated that this is an important area deserving more specific planning focus in order to implement A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland “The Corridor Plan”. More specifically, the objectives of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan are: • To outline a vision for long-range and resource-based development, within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, that reflects the aspirations of Larimer County, City of Fort Collins, and adjacent municipalities, and incorporating a strategy for accomplishing that vision. • To provide a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and development standards, and consistent with Larimer County’s PLUS Master Plan and City Plan. • To allow County and City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards. • To provide for continuing consultation between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins on policies and standards that are within each governmental body's jurisdiction. Chapter 1 Introduction Page 1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 38 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan This Plan was developed in consultation with residents, property owners, utilities and school districts as well as others interested in the future of this area. It includes proposals to allow for development at urban densities close to or within an expanded Fort Collins Growth Management Area and preservation of open land in the southern portion of the area. It also includes innovations in land use planning which, if successful, can be a model for such programs elsewhere in the County to provide for open space preservation around sensitive environmental resources. Although the densities allowed by current County zoning form the framework for land development outlined in the Plan, there is a clear distinction between the northern and southern portions of the area with regard to assumed future densities and development type; these assumptions shaped the application of County and City policies to this Plan. Close to Fort Collins, where the land is designated for urban residential densities, the City's policies and standards acted as the basis for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan provisions. In the southern portion of the area, the County's approaches to development were incorporated into this Plan, including maintenance of open space and protection of the Airport Critical Zone. 1.2 Planning Area The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area includes over 5,062 acres of land. The planning area and its relation to Fort Collins’ city limits is shown on the vicinity map and the existing Larimer County Zoning map at the end of this chapter. While most of the land in the planning area is privately owned, substantial public and water and irrigation district ownerships include the Reservoir itself, the State Land Board’s parcel south of the Reservoir, the sewage treatment plan site and the city-owned wetlands west of Timberline Road. Page 2 Chapter 1 Introduction ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 39 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Current Zoning Within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, existing County zoning north of the Reservoir is predominantly the FA-1 Farming District, while much of the land south of the Reservoir is in the AP Airport District. Isolated parcels of multi-family zoning and commercial zoning also exist south and east of the Reservoir. Table 1-1 summarizes the acres of land within each County Zoning District in the planning area, while the map at the end of this chapter shows existing county zoning: Table 1-1 Existing County Zoning Zoning District Acres R - Residential 19.2 FA-1- Farming 2,721.8 M - Multi-family 29.7 T - Tourist 17.5 C - Commercial 49.7 AP - Airport 771.6 Parks, Natural Areas, & Water Bodies 1,452.5 Total Acres 5,062.0 Source: Larimer County Planning Department 1.3 Relation to Other Plans Although, prior to this effort, little site-specific planning has occurred for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area itself, there are a number of plans that address issues related to development in the area. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is intended to be consistent with and support implementation of these plans, including: • The Larimer County Partnership Land Use System (PLUS) - Master Plan, adopted in 1997, identifies strategies for urban development, intergovernmental cooperation, transportation, open space, and natural land protection on a countywide level, balancing these environmental concerns with property rights considerations. Chapter 1 Introduction Page 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 40 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan • Fort Collins City Plan, the City’s comprehensive plan, calls for a more compact urban development pattern and establishes mixed use development, activity centers, and multi-modal transportation corridors between destinations. City Plan also promotes creation of walkable and more livable urban environments which are connected by a framework of open lands and “green” corridors. • The Harmony Corridor Plan, which enables development of a major employment center just north of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, expanding the need and market for residential and mixed-use development in the southeast portion of the City. • A Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland (the "Corridor Plan"), designates land to be protected as open space, maintaining a permanent separation between Fort Collins and Loveland, which suggests higher urban density in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and calls for an investigation of the TDU Program as an important implementation tool. • City and special district plans for parks, schools and other community facilities, particularly in the southeastern portion of the city. 1.4 Planning Process The substantive planning effort for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area began in the Spring of 1996 when the Fort Collins City Council invited Larimer County to cooperate in planning for this area. The process included: • Project Start-up • Analysis • Issues and Options Assessment • Sketch Plan Alternatives • Preferred Alternative Selection • Land Use Framework • Implementation • Adoption of Plan A technical committee, composed of County and City staff, met frequently during the process. A committee composed of the Fort Collins Council Growth Management Committee and representatives from the Board of County Commissioners also met periodically to review progress on the Plan and provide policy direction. The adoption process by the County and City followed the sequence shown in Table 1-2: Page 4 Chapter 1 Introduction ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 41 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Table 1-2 Public Outreach Schedule - Key Dates and Plan Adoption Sequence. Date Event August 10, 1996 Open House Orientation. January 6, 1997 Open House Plan Alternatives. March 10, 1997 Open House Preferred Plan. November 3, 1997 Joint Study Session between Larimer County and Fort Collins. January 12, 1998 Joint Study Session between the Board of County Commissioners and the Fort Collins City Council. February 5, 1998 Open House – Plan and Implementation. March 2, 1998 Joint Public Hearing between the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County Planning Commission, Fort Collins City Council, and Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board. March 16, 1998 Board of County Commissioners Plan Recommendation. March 17, 1998 Hearing – Fort Collins City Council – Plan Adoption. March 23, 1998 Board of County Commissioners – Adoption of Regulations. March 25, 1998 Larimer County Planning Commission Plan Adoption / Recommendation of Regulations. Opportunities for additional public review and comment continued throughout the adoption process and prior to implementation of the Plan by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners and the Fort Collins City Council. Additionally, the Larimer County Planning Commission and the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board both reviewed the Plan during public meetings held prior to recommending action to the Board of County Commissioners and to the Fort Collins City Council. Following adoption of the Fossil Creek Area Reservoir Plan, a revised Intergovernmental Agreement, including regulation processes and tools to implement the Plan, will be considered by Larimer County and by the City of Fort Collins. Plan Development Process Three sketch plans were originally prepared to show alternative approaches regarding development in the area: Chapter 1 Introduction Page 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 42 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan • A market-based plan, focused around a proposed, traditional residential subdivision in the northern portion of the area. • A plan based on the land uses identified for the area in the Fort Collins Structure Plan. • A plan emphasizing a relatively self-supporting residential neighborhood, with a centrally-located neighborhood commercial center and an emphasis on internal connections and links to the rest of the City. Land Use Plan Based upon continued input from the technical committee and the community the Land Use Framework Plan emerged. The Plan establishes a basic arrangement of uses to respond to residents' concerns; however, these changes have been tempered by the need to be consistent with and respond to the policy directions of the County's Master Plan and City Plan. Plan Implementation As the Land use Framework Plan was refined, Plan implementation strategies were developed toward the end of the planning process, prior to adoption. 1.5 Organization of the Plan Plan Sequence The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is organized to provide an overview of the Plan's direction, followed by closer examination of specific provisions. The Plan chapters that follow include: • Land Use Framework – Chapter 2 • Transportation – Chapter 3 • Natural Areas and Open Lands – Chapter 4 • Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities – Chapter 5 • Implementation – Chapter 6 • Appendix The Policies will be numbered by using a combination of letters and numbers, such as FC-LUF-1, meaning Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (FC) - Land Use Framework or chapter name (LUF) - the actual policy number (1). Page 6 Chapter 1 Introduction ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 43 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Existing Larimer County Zoning 6C 1yt aof fortmC01linc, c ui,;t.tphs in. ·Iunf,uurulluu \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .... •.GMA Legend • I Loveland GMA- \ ----_-J, Parcels • Streams -- WaterBodies --- ["',]City Limits • Project Boundary Larimer County Zoning Airport Critical Area D AP AirportlnfluenceArea- C - E1 -FA -PD - FA1- R - M - T CJ O .•'\\ \ N o September . _.0•. .2s- 19, - o 2006 ·t iles A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 44 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Chapter 2 – Land Use Framework Plan 2.1. Introduction. 2.1.1. Development Concepts Overview. The proposed Land Use Framework Plan builds on the directions established in City Plan and the Larimer County Master Plan. Both of these plans emphasize compact urban form, with a clear distinction between urban and rural areas and a balance between urban development and rural conservation. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan is intended to support and implement these community- wide concepts, yet at a more detailed neighborhood level. The policies enumerated in this Plan are intended to be utilized with the principles and policies found in Appendix A of this document in support of the policies contained in the adopted City and County Plans. Land Use Framework Plan Objectives: a. Build a self-supporting group of neighborhoods with a full complement of parks, schools and community facilities, linked by open space systems, consistent with the County’s Master Plan and Fort Collins’ City Plan, Principles and Policies. b. Provide for protection of sensitive wildlife habitat around the Reservoir, as well as with standards for that habitat conservation. c. Provide neighborhood centers as a focal point for neighborhood activity. Provide a Neighborhood Commercial Center to serve surrounding Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) Page 7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 45 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan neighborhoods including a grocery store or supermarket and other neighborhood oriented retail services. d. Link the area to other districts and neighborhoods, encourage walking and bicycling, and accommodate transit service to the Neighborhood Commercial Center and other neighborhood centers. e. Complement, but do not compete with, development in the Harmony Corridor. f. Provide a "Transfer of Density units" (TDU) program in which development units may be transferred from the region between Fort Collins and Loveland to the Receiving Area portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, depicted on the TDU Sending and Receiving Area Map, located at the end of Chapter 6. fg. Achieve higher densities where they are appropriate and feather to lower densities as development nears Fossil Creek Reservoir. The Land Use Framework Plan is grounded in planning concepts that have emerged during the concurrent long range planning efforts undertaken by the County and the City of Fort Collins. 2.1.2. Land Use. The Land Use Framework Plan, shown on the map at the end of this chapter, balances urban development with conservation of natural resources and compatibility with existing development in the area. Mixed-use Neighborhood development is concentrated in the northern portion of the area. The area around and south of the reservoir is largely identified as a resource management area targeted primarily for implementing strategies to protect the area from development. Estate Residential development will provide the transition from the more intensive development in the north to rural residential in the south. The Land Use Framework Plan also identifies the area's existing and future street system, which is described in detail in Chapter 3, Transportation. Regional and neighborhood parks are located according to the standards articulated in Larimer County’s Mater Plan, City Plan, and the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Table 2-1 summarizes development at build-out under the Plan’s proposals, including the number of housing units and estimated population. 2.1.3. Natural Resource Protection. One of the primary purposes of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is to protect the area’s sensitive wildlife habitat and to maintain and enhance the Fossil Creek Reservoir as a component of the regional open lands system. Sensitive wildlife areas of the reservoir include, but are not limited to, the heronries, bald eagle winter night roosts and hunting perches, shorebird nesting habitat, pelican feeding and resting areas, and wetlands. The need to protect these unique wildlife habitats, to provide opportunities for passive recreation and interpretive education, and to provide Page 8 Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 46 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan other open lands in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area have previously been identified in a number of documents, including the Larimer County Parks Master Plan, A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, Fort Collins City Plan, Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan, and Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. These plans recognize the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area as an important constituent of the open land corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland. 2.2. Land Use Classifications. (Revised by Resolution 99-015, February, 1999) 2.2.1. Introduction. The Land Use Framework Plan identifies various land use classifications including mixed-use neighborhoods, a medium density mixed- use neighborhood with neighborhood commercial center at its core, estate residential, farming, airport, tourist, commercial, multi-family, and residential. Table 2-1 summarizes the acreage and potential development under each land use classification, based on assumptions regarding likely densities and limitations. Implementation mechanisms which will be used to achieve the densities and uses specified in the land use classifications are identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) Page 9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 47 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (Revised February, 1999) Table 2-1 Land Use Area / Dwelling Unit Calculations - 1998 (inside study area) Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres (15%) DU /Acre Minimum Total DUs New Urban Residential: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods 20.0 17.0 12.0 204.0 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods at 5 units per acre 53.0 461.5 5.0 2,307.5 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods at 3 units per acre 572.0 486.2 3.0 1,458.6 Estate Residential 646.0 549.1 0.5 274.5 Subtotals: 1,791.0 1,522.4 9.5 4,244.6 County Zoning Districts: FA-1 Farming 892.8 NA 0.5 465.4 AP - Airport 771.6 NA 0.5 385.8 T - Tourist 17.5 NA NA C - Commercial 87.7 NA NA MF - Multi-Family 29.7 NA NA R - Residential 19.2 NA NA Subtotals: 1,818.5 NA 1.0 851.2 Others: Neighborhood Commercial Center 10.0 NA NA Regional Park 473.8 NA NA City-Owned Natural Area 188.8 NA NA Open Water Bodies 789.9 NA NA Total Acres: 5,062.0 Total DU: 5,095.8 Source: City of Fort Collins, Advance Planning Department Page 10 Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised September 19, 2006) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 48 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 2.2.2. Neighborhoods. The Fort Collins City Plan supports the development of new neighborhoods that are conducive to walking, bicycling and transit use, and that provide an internal mix of uses and housing types. Consistent with City Plan policies, the Land Use Framework Plan promotes these community design objectives and provides for a mix of residential neighborhoods. Proposed neighborhoods are arranged on a street network that enables pedestrian and bicycle connections, and each is focused on a neighborhood center combining elements such as a park, school, community facility, or small-scale neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities. Neighborhood centers are to bring together the residents of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area neighborhoods. Whether for visiting the park, attending the elementary school, participating in a day care center or other activity at a neighborhood facility, or buying a convenience item, residents should find that the neighborhood center meets numerous every day needs. A medium density mixed-use neighborhood is shown in conjunction with a Neighborhood Commercial Center west of Timberline. This neighborhood is intended to be a place for attached and multi-family housing within easy walking distance of transit and a neighborhood commercial center. This neighborhood will form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial center with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and outdoor spaces will be arranged to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Recommended amendments to the intergovernmental agreement accompanying this Plan will specify neighborhood design and urban development. The land uses and densities proposed in the Plan are consistent with City Plan. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area is considered a part of the future urban area of Fort Collins. The Plan provides for a mix of urban and estate lots, with a general transition from higher densities near Harmony Road to lower densities near the reservoir. New urban residential neighborhoods abutting existing County large lot subdivisions, presently exist throughout the City, and as a whole, establish a range of densities that reflect the character of Fort Collins. Existing County large lot subdivisions have been designated “Estate Residential” for the purpose of maintaining the existing larger-lot character of these properties. This will allow for increased densities of between ½ to 2 acre lots for proposed future subdivisions. As development occurs next to existing large lot developments, the County and City staff will work with the property owners to maintain adequate compatibility between existing and future uses. Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) Page 11 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 49 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan The residential component of the Land Use Framework Plan addresses the following issues: • What should be the mix of housing types? • How should densities be regulated? • Should clustering be encouraged and, if so, where? • How can residential development occur in ways that protect the environment and are consistent with the character of existing development both within and adjacent to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area? 2.2.3. Residential Uses in FA-1/AP Designation. This land use classification designates those areas where cluster development would be permitted, similar to the rural conservation development designated in the Larimer County Master Plan. These areas are located in the northeast portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and south of County Road 32, as shown on the map at the end of Chapter 1. 2.2.4. Neighborhood Commercial Center. The neighborhood Commercial Center is intended to be a mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a grocery store or supermarket and a primary transit stop. The main purpose of this center is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on serving the surrounding neighborhoods including a medium density mixed-use neighborhood. In addition to retail and services, the center may include small civic facilities, day care, and dwellings. 2.2.5. Resource Management Area. Much of the surrounding Fossil Creek Reservoir Area lands are designated for close management of natural resources. This designation was based on a variety of considerations, including: • Presence of wetlands, critical habitat areas (particularly water bird nesting sites and bald eagle roosting sites), airport noise impact, and hazard areas. • Implementation of A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland which calls for protection of important natural resource habitat around and south of the reservoir. • Access limitations. The Land Use Framework Plan designates a Resource Management Area ¼ mile wide around the Fossil Creek Reservoir, including Duck Lake – bounded on the west by Timberline Road, on the south by County Road 32, and on the east by Interstate-25. A resource management study and plan would be required prior to development approval within this Resource Management Area. The ¼ mile boundary on the north is measured from the shoreline of the reservoir, as Page 12 Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 50 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan defined by the property line of the reservoir, approximately 50 to 80 feet above the high water line. Within the Resource Management Area development is discouraged. Proposed developments will be required to prepare resource management plans. These plans will identify, in detail, any natural resources on the development site, and then present design and regulatory options for their protection. Procedures for development in the Resource Management Area and for resource management plans are described in detail in Chapter 4, Natural Areas and Open Lands. 2.2.6. Mixed-Use Commercial Interchange. The southeastern portion of the planning area, including land north and south of the interchange of Interstate-25 and County Road 32, is currently zoned for higher density and non-residential uses. The northern portions are included in the Resource Management Area resulting in considerable environmental and infrastructure constraints for new development or use under the existing multiple zoning districts. These issues will need to be resolved in a joint planning effort involving the County, adjacent municipalities, and affected landowners. (See references to the Cooperative Planning Area, Chapter 6.) A regional bikeway route connects to a bikeway trail that runs through the planning area, encircles the reservoir, and links to the Poudre River Bikeway. Both Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins have identified a future Interstate-25 Corridor Study Project, which includes the Interstate-25 and County Road 32 interchange area in the analysis. Any development applicant in this area will need to include a Master Plan and Resource Management Plan for the project. 2.2.7. Transfer of Density Units. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program, adopted September 22, 1998, by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, provideds landowners the means to transfer development potential from one parcel of land to another. The Transfer of Density Units Program was discontinued in 2019. The purpose is to guide future growth in the County toward areas designated for higher density development, and away from areas that have important community values. Its goals are to promote the preservation of agriculture, open space, scenic vistas, natural and environmental resources, and recreational lands. The TDU program establishes a procedure to evaluate the development potential of a parcel and translate it into tradable units, or TDU’s. Lands within the Fossil Creek TDU program area fall within either the “Sending Area” or the “Receiving Area”. Higher residential densities required by this Plan are located in the Receiving Area, which consists of approximately 900 acres north of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The remainder of lands covered by this Plan are in the Sending Area. (See the TDU Sending/Receiving Areas Map, at the end of Chapter 6.) Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) Page 13 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 51 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Receiving Area Landowners who choose to develop must either cluster residential development without using TDUs or may develop by acquiring TDUs. A landowner or developer in the Receiving Area may bargain to arrive at a fair market price for TDUs with any willing seller in the Sending Area holding a TDU certificate. To develop in the Receiving Area without using TDUs, the landowner or developer must have the County Planning Department determine an acceptable range of dwelling units allowed for the parcel, this number will be based on County zoning and site constraints. Dwelling units must be clustered to meed land use and density requirements with any remaining developable land being designated for “future development”, and developed only by transferring TDUs from Sending Areas. Larimer County Planning Department is the primary contact for landwoners and developers with land in the Receiving Area. Sending Area Landowners in Sending Areas who wish to be compensated for limiting or foregoing the development of their land can sell transferable density units to buyers in the Receiving Area. The TDU Administrator evaluates the parcel to determine the number of transferable density units, or basic allowable TDUs. Factors that may increase the number of TDUs include lands providing: significant natural resource values, important community buffers, agricultural land preservation values, recreational trails or wildlife migration routes, significant historic sites, or environmental education opportunities. Conditions that may decrease the number of TDUs include parcel size (less than 40 acres), physical or public utility limitations of the parcel which limit development potential, and distance from existing development. Sending area sites that are outside the Fossil Creek Reservoir planning area were designated separately and are not a part of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. For additional information on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Transfer of Density Units Program contact the Larimer County Planning Department. Page 14 Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 2.2.8. Public Facilities and Services Public/Institutional. Schools and publicly-owned sites used for provision of public services, such as the sewage treatment plant or other land owned by an irrigation or sanitation district. Parks. Neighborhood parks and a "commons" or public open space in the neighborhood center. This designation also includes a proposed regional park south of Fossil Creek Reservoir, to be cooperatively developed and managed by Larimer County and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Special Area Designations. Several designations have been identified, which modify uses or development standards permitted by the base land use classification, based on environmental planning considerations. One of these designations, the Resource Management Area, is unique to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. Resource Management Area. The area within one-quarter mile of Fossil Creek Reservoir and Duck Lake, within which a Resource Management Plan will be completed as identified with Plan implementation. Wetlands. This designation includes all "jurisdictional" wetlands, meeting Federal criteria for a Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, or other wetlands meeting the broader criteria of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Development is not permitted in areas designated as wetlands. Airport Critical Area. Areas subject to hazards from aircraft takeoff and landing activities. Certain restrictions on development would be imposed within the airport critical area consistent with state policy, and cooperative implementation action between Larimer County and the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. 2.3. Land Use Policies. These Land Use Policies have been developed to guide development of residential neighborhoods in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, as well as other non-residential and natural resource areas. Neighborhood policies supplement those found in the Larimer County Master Plan and in City Plan; although they are based on the policy directions established in those plans, they are tailored to the particular conditions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The residential policies establish minimum densities for Estate and Low Density neighborhoods, but, measures needed to achieve these densities will depend on the implementation direction selected. Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) Page 15 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 2.3.1. Neighborhood Policies FC-LUF-1 Community Design. New urban development will be required to be consistent with the principles and policies for community design and new residential neighborhoods established by the Fort Collins City Plan. FC-LUF-2 Rural Residential. Areas currently zoned FA-1 and AP-Airport which are not designated for urban residential useare included in potential sending areas in the proposed TDU program. However, if developed they should be developed at residential densities consistent with the rural conservation development policy contained in the Larimer County Master Plan. The AP-Airport zoning south of County Road 32, adjacent to the I-25 Interstate exchange remains designated a mixed-use area as denoted in A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, “The Corridor”. FC-LUF-3 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will consist of a mix of housing types near parks, schools, and a neighborhood center. The density will be a minimum overall average of either 3 or 5 units per acre, with an overall maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre, and maximum of 12 units per acre for any single phase. This residential classification will require design and development standards agreed upon by both Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. The method of calculating density is shown in Appendix A. FC-LUF-4 A Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. A medium density mixed use neighborhood will be located in conjunction with a neighborhood commercial center on the west side of Timberline Road approximately 1½ miles south of Harmony Road. This neighborhood will be approximately 20 acres in size, shaped to generally wrap around the Neighborhood Commercial Center to form a transition and a link to surrounding mixed-use neighborhoods. The density will be a minimum overall average of 12 units per acre, with a minimum of 7 units per acre for any single phase in a multiple-phase plan. Buildings will be limited to 2½ stories in height. This residential classification will require design and development standard agreed upon by both Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. The method of calculating density is shown in Appendix A. FC-LUF-5 Relationships and Transitions at Edges of Neighborhood Development. Where a new neighborhood develops next to existing lower-density residential development, the neighborhood design and layout should complement the established patterns of buildings and outdoor spaces along the edge, with no drastic and abrupt increase in the size of buildings or intensity of building coverage. Page 16 Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan FC-LUF-6 Estate Residential. Neighborhoods in this area will consist of single family homes on larger lots than those found in mixed-use residential neighborhoods. The Land Use Framework Plan calls for Estate development north and west of the reservoir, providing a gradual transition between urban development and open lands. Estate areas will vary from lots between one-half and one acre in size, to lots of up to five acres or more, with overall gross density ranges from .5 to 2 units per acre. This category provides for large lot single family residential development of the type already found in the northwestern portion of the study area. The Estate Residential classification will require design and development standards agreed upon by both Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. 2.3.3. Neighborhood Centers Policies. These policies are based on City Plan policies for neighborhood centers, with specific attention to individual market and development conditions in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. They enable development of a range of nonresidential uses in the area and identify the appropriate character of development. FC-LUF-7 Neighborhood centers will be incorporated within new development, located for convenience to residential areas – preferably within walking or bicycling distance of most homes. FC-LUF-8 Land uses in a Fossil Creek Reservoir Area neighborhood center may include: a park or commons, one of the area’s elementary schools, a church, a community facility such as a day care center and/or recreation facility, and limited convenience retail shops, small professional offices, clinics, or other small businesses. 2.3.4. Neighborhood Commercial Center Policies. FC-LUF-9 Designated space for a neighborhood commercial center approximately 10 acres in size will be located on the west side of Timberline Road approximately 1½ miles south of Harmony Road. FC-LUF-10 A grocery store or supermarket will be encouraged as the anchor for this center, and the center may also include shops, offices and clinics, services, civic uses, residential (such as lofts or apartments) and some limited auto-related services. FC-LUF-11 Buildings will be limited to 2½ stories in height. Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) Page 17 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Page 18 Chapter 2 Land Use Framework (Revised February, 1999) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan E HARMONY RD Legend GMA City Limits Resource Management Area Parcels Project Area Proposed Trail Existing Trail Natural Areas Streams Loveland GMA WaterBodies Unified Development Plan Needed Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes Interstate Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Structure Plan Land Use Commercial Corridor District Neighborhood Commercial District Employment District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Rural Lands Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Poudre River Adjacent Planning Areas Adopted: March 28, 1998 Amended: February 18, 1999 City Council Amended: May 18, 1999 City Council Amended: September 19, 2006 Potential Interchange Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ZIEGLER RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 CARPENTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 KECHTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 S COUNTY ROAD 11 S TIMBERLINE RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 S TIMBERLINE RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 INTERSTATE 25 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Chapter 3 – Transportation Transportation needs in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area are inextricably connected to city, county, and regional transportation systems. Transportation planning considers land use planning needs, as well as area-specific issues. Transportation planning in the area is based on the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, which included forecasts of future trip increases for the region. This plan forms the basis for the improvements shown in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan and the proposed Larimer County Transportation Plan. Because the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan calls for development above that projected for the area in the North Front Range Plan, additional improvements not included in either the regional or the citywide plan are proposed for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area; however, these recommended improvements are consistent with the street classifications in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, and are projected to operate at the levels of service defined in the City's Multi-Modal Level of Service Manual. For Transportation Plan, see map at the end of this chapter. 3.1 Existing Transportation System The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area is currently served by a network of roadways, primarily providing access to Fort Collins. Most of the area's roadways are currently two-lane paved or unpaved rural roads, with the exception of the four-lane Harmony Road arterial and I-25 immediately to the east of the area. The area has interchanges with I-25 at County Road 32 to the south and Harmony Road to the north. The primary bicycle route serving the area is an on-street route along Timberline Road. In addition, bicyclists use several of the low traffic roadways in the area. There is currently no regular transit service to the area. The nearest service is a TransFort bus route that services Harmony Road west of County Road 9, approximately one mile to the north. Issues In identifying transportation improvements, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan identified several issues of concern for providing adequate circulation within the area and to other parts of Fort Collins: • How can the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area best be integrated into the county and citywide transportation systems? Chapter 3 Transportation Page 19 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan • What transportation service standards should govern land use decisions? • How should transit access and bicycle and pedestrian circulation be provided? • What measures are needed to ensure adequate access to community facilities and emergency access? 3.2 Transportation Planning Process The transportation planning process is summarized below. A full description of the process is included in the Fossil Creek Planning Area Transportation Evaluation (November 1996), prepared by Feldsburg Holt and Ullevig and available from Larimer County or the City of Fort Collins. Traffic Forecasting Increased traffic in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area was forecasted by combining future traffic levels projected for the area specified in the North Front Range Regional Model with vehicle trips that would be generated by full build out of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Vehicle trips generated were estimated by multiplying trip generation rates for each type of development to the projected amount of each type of new development. Trip generation estimates result in an estimated total of 41,400 vehicle trips per day from the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area at build out. Almost 4,320, or 10.4 % of these trips, would occur at the evening peak hour and 3,326, or 8% of these trips would occur in the morning peak hours. Trip Distribution The proportion of trips from the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area to seven subareas of the region were obtained from the North Front Range Regional Model. The destinations of these trips were then proportioned among nine potential roadway routes to or from the area. The resulting trip distribution estimates for Fossil Creek Reservoir Planning Area vehicle trips entering or leaving the area are shown on Table 3-1. Based on this distribution, estimated trips were assigned to the area's arterial and connector streets, forming the basis for the proposed circulation system. Page 20 Chapter 3 Transportation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Table 3-1 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Trip Distribution Direction Daily Trips Percent of Total North I-25 8,280 20% North County Road 9 2,070 5% North Timberline Road 6,210 15% West Harmony Road 8,280 20% West Trilby Road 4,140 10% West County Road 32 2,070 5% South I-25 6,210 15% East County Road 32 2,070 5% East Harmony Road 2,070 5% Totals 41,400 100% Source: Transportation Department, City of Fort Collins 3.3 Street Network and Functional Classifications The Transportation Plan map at the end of this chapter, shows the future arterial, collector, and connector/local street network for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, including the number of through lanes and functional street classifications. Classifications are based on the street classification system in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Primary streets fall either within the category of arterial - which provide access between the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and other parts of the city or county - or collectors - providing for circulation within Fossil Creek's residential neighborhoods. Specifications for the City's functional street classifications are described in Appendix B and in the City's Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways. Street patterns and connectivity standards are described in Article 3, Section 6.3 of the City’s Land Use Code. Chapter 3 Transportation Page 21 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Street Improvements Recommended street improvements in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area include: • Harmony Road is programmed by the City to be expanded to six lanes over the long term. As traffic levels increase, it may be desirable to limit left turns and crossing movements to signalized intersections. County Road 7 is recommended for signalization when traffic volumes meet signal warrants. • Timberline Road will be expanded to four lanes through the urbanized portion of the Fossil Creek planning area. The transition from a four-lane to a two-lane roadway is recommended to occur at Trilby Road. • County Road 36 is planned as a two-lane minor arterial street through a low density residential area, connecting Timberline Road on the west with County Road 7 on the east. The County Road 36 intersection with Timberline Road will be evaluated for signalization upon substantial Fossil Creek build-out. • A Central East-West Roadway, approximately mid way between the Trilby Road and County Road 36 alignments, is planned as an east-west access street through the center of the Fossil Creek development area. This roadway will be a Collector street. • Trilby Road is planned to be extended into the study area as a local street. • County Road 32 is shown on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan as a future four lane arterial through and west of the study area. A two-lane rural roadway cross-section will be adequate to accommodate traffic demands from the Fossil Creek development; the potential need for future widening to four lanes would be primarily a function of development levels west and south of the Fossil Creek study area. • County Road 9 between County Road 36 and approximately 1/8 mile south of Harmony Road will be a minor arterial road connecting to a four lane arterial road as it intersects Harmony Road. • County Road 7 is recommended to be a Minor Arterial street extending north from County Road 36 to Harmony Road. • Pending further analysis based on development identified in a Master Plan for the area's southeastern corner, I-25 Frontage Road will be expanded to a two-lane Collector street, with appropriate turn lanes at development access points and at cross-streets. The frontage road is recommended to be realigned to the west at its intersection with County Road 32, which has potential to warrant signalization as Page 22 Chapter 3 Transportation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan development occurs, to allow better intersection spacing between the frontage road intersection and I-25 ramp terminal intersections. • Other Collector / Connector Streets are presumed to be two-lane streets with turn lanes as appropriate at intersections with minor arterial and other collector / connector streets. The street alignments shown on the Plan are to indicate the approximate location of collector, connector, and local streets; and the exact locations of arterial streets. The collector, connector and local streets will be designed to fit the character of the neighborhood, the projected impact of the proposed travel behavior, and any existing conditions which will affect the construction of the roadway. More detailed evaluation will be required as specific development areas are designed. Street cross-sections can be selected at that time based on Fort Collins standards and decisions about inclusion of on-street parking on particular streets. Level of Service Congestion on roadways is measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS) A through F, with LOS A representing completely free traffic flow and LOS F representing very high congestion levels, where the number of vehicles meets or exceeds the roadway's capacity. The North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan sets a LOS threshold D for the region; the City of Fort Collins Multi-Modal Level of Service Manual presents a range of acceptable LOS, including E being acceptable for commercial arterial streets, D being acceptable for commercial collectors or residential major arterial streets, and C being acceptable for residential minor arterial and collectors. The roadway system as proposed for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area will provide a circulation system that meets all applicable level of service (LOS) standards. At build out, two street segments are projected to operate at LOS D: • Harmony Road, between County Road 9 and I-25. • The two lane segments of County Road 9, North of County Road 36. All other roadways in the vicinity of the study area are forecast, at a planning level, to operate at LOS C or better. Bicycle Routes The central east-west street and County Road 36 will both be designated as on-street bicycle routes, connecting the core neighborhood area to Timberline Road. The I-25 frontage road is also recommended as an on-street bicycle route through the study area, consistent with the Fort Collins Bikeway Map. In addition, off-road pedestrian / bicycle Chapter 3 Transportation Page 23 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan trails are recommended through the open space / park areas surrounding the Fossil Creek Reservoir, as shown on the Fort Collins Bikeway Map and the Land Use Plan. Transit Service With its residential development and proximity to the Harmony Road employment areas, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area will have a high transit ridership potential. TransFort bus service should be extended to service the area; a potential route could enter the area on Harmony Road and follow a loop consisting of Timberline Road, County Road 36, County Road 7, and Harmony Road. 3.4 Transportation Policies Seven policies have been identified to provide a basis for street improvements in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. In addition to establishing linkages by defining the physical requirements for new streets, the policies identify the level of service standards that will form the basis for impact analysis from new development. Transportation policies also define requirements for transit service, pedestrian connectivity and bicycle use. The policies are consistent with City Plan, expanding on the transportation and community design polices to meet the needs of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. FC-T-1 Street Location and Design. Locate streets according to the general alignments shown on the Land Use Plan, and design them to be consistent with the City's street standards, connectivity standards in the City’s Land Use Code and the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. FC-T-2 Level of Service Standards. Strive to maintain Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) "C" on residential streets and LOS "D" or better on arterial and collector streets and at all intersections. City Plan does not set specific standards, but these LOS standards are consistent with County policy and City practice, as well as with the Multi- Modal Level of Service Manual. FC-T-3 Street Connectivity and Pedestrian Linkages. In addition to the policies in City Plan, provide for street connectivity and pedestrian linkages by: FC-T-3.1 Providing at least two access points to existing local or collector streets for each 10 acres of new development. FC-T-3.2 Providing for both intra- and inter-neighborhood connections to knit developments together rather than forming barriers between them. Page 24 Chapter 3 Transportation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan FC-T-4 Transit Service. Work with TransFort to extend transit service to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area when the area has reached at least 50 percent of build out in order to provide service within a quarter mile of all residents, reduce dependence on the automobile, and improve mobility within the urban area consistent with city-wide transit policies. FC-T-5 On-Street Bicycle Lanes. Designate specific bike routes within the new neighborhoods and on the new central east-west arterial and County Road 36, consistent with city-wide policies on bicycle facilities and system design (City Plan Policies T-4.1 and T-4.2). The I-25 frontage road also is recommended as an on-street bicycle route through the area. Require secure, bicycle parking facilities in new multi-family residential and commercial development at a ratio of at least 5 bike spaces per 100 car spaces. Promoting bicycle use will make it safer for children to ride bicycles to school and park and recreation areas, if both riders and driver are made aware of routes. Bicycle promotion will also help provide access to the reservoir. FC-T-6 Off-Street Bicycle Trails. Provide off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails through the open space areas south of the Reservoir at appropriate locations that will not have an adverse impact on sensitive habitats. The Fossil Creek Trail is anticipated to come from the west, linking the Regional Preserve and potential Regional Park with the City's open space system. The off-street bicycle trail is indicated on the Land Use Plan. FC-T-7 Bicycle Safety. Increase bicycle safety by delineating and signing bike lanes and bike paths, providing lighting for separate bike lanes, and ensuring that streets have bicycle- safe drainage grates. Chapter 3 Transportation Page 25 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Page 26 Chapter 3 Transportation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 ·- Amended: June 21,2000 ,,.,a,,aa:iC:nt +· - -· - -- - Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Transportation Plan ..._.nd /I( ,,cu /V .,.,.,_ .,,.._,.o,m Adopted: March 25, 1998 Amended: February 18, 1999 ;, t'.,_,WrHMMIA6ENENrAl'IEA ·------ ---- ---- --- --- ---.. ---- -·- ---· N C111'a:-n»! • .,- ITIJOYIIOUNGAJl('y -- IOC•-""'«....-O.t..nQ0,1-.,U.ffwMN' . --· --- -·-- ---· -- --- -- ·-- -- -- ··- --- - "" Alt"""1AL (} J:J N IW'ICEt MO'hl'.4t>4t.4N£$1 D C:,1YtMTS "" MA..01t Alf.lt fllAI..#i..111($1 N C111'a:-n»! • .,- ITIJOYIIOUNGAJl('y ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Chapter 4 – Natural Areas and Open Lands One of the primary purposes of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is to protect the area’s sensitive wildlife habitat and to maintain and enhance the Fossil Creek Reservoir as a component of the regional open lands system. Sensitive wildlife areas of the reservoir include, but are not limited to, the heronries, bald eagle winter night roosts and hunting perches, shorebird nesting habitat, pelican feeding and resting areas, and wetlands. The need to protect these unique wildlife habitats, to provide opportunities for passive recreation and interpretive education, and to provide other open lands in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area have previously been identified in a number of documents, including the Larimer County Parks Master Plan, A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, Fort Collins City Plan, Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan, and Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. These plans recognize the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area as an important component of the open land corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland. Please refer to the Environmental Assessment map and the Park, Natural or Management Areas map at the end of this chapter. Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands Page 27 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 4.1 Natural Areas and Open Lands Protection Environmental constraints that will limit future development in portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area include areas where a geological report is required, 100-year flood plains, and natural areas. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area contains several areas designated 7-A on the Geologic Hazards Map, which indicates that the area is currently, or used to be, a physiographic flood plain. Reports will be required addressing the need for engineered footing and foundations for structures and also drainage reports will be required to address potential onsite and offsite flooding or drainage problems. Building locations and designs will be required to address the technical recommendations of the report. Page 28 Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Although all natural areas need to be protected to the greatest extent possible, the critical, sensitive areas, identified for wildlife protection, are primarily associated with the Fossil Creek Reservoir, Duck Lake, and their associated wetlands. The reservoir provides key winter habitat for the federally threatened bald eagle. Large cottonwoods at the reservoir edge provide critical night roosting sites, while the trees and shorelines provide hunting perches and feeding sites. As many as 15 bald eagles have been observed night roosting together in trees on the edge of the reservoir. These cottonwoods are also used by other large birds of prey, including the ferruginous hawk (Colorado Species of Concern), golden eagle, and red-tailed hawk. The reservoir, Duck Lake, and their associated wetlands provide extremely important nesting, migratory, and wintering habitat for a variety of wetland bird species, including many species that can only be found in the Fort Collins / Loveland area at these sites. To achieve the goals of the Larimer County Master Plan, the Fort Collins City Plan, and A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, the protection of other types of open lands, such as agricultural lands, are also an important component of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. A variety of strategies will be used to protect natural areas and these other open lands. Strategies include regulations, land acquisition, conservation easements, Transfer of Density Units (TDU’s), cluster development, and management plans. Use of these various strategies are best discussed by the general location of the resource identified or open land within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. 4.1.1. Resource Management Area The Land Use Framework Plan establishes a ¼ mile wide area around the Fossil Creek Reservoir, including Duck Lake. This area is identified as the Resource Management Area, bounded on the west by Timberline Road, on the south by County Road 32 and on the east by Interstate-25. The ¼ mile boundary is measured from the shoreline of the reservoir as defined by the property line of the reservoir – approximately 50 to 80 feet above the high water line. The Resource Management Area is recognized by both the County and the City as the most critical area in need of protection in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. Both agencies have envisioned the area around Fossil Creek Reservoir as both public and/or private open lands and wildlife habitat. Where appropriate, passive outdoor recreation will be allowed. The Resource Management Area may also accommodate limited development if it is demonstrated that there are no negative impacts to wildlife or the integrity of this area. However, the goal is to maintain a continuous, wildlife corridor of an average width of ¼ mile, with no new development occurring in that corridor. A number of tools are available to protect the Resource Management Area. No one tool will be adequate to protect the entire area and limited development will likely occur in some areas. a. Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program. One of the goals of the TDU program is to promote the preservation of natural and environmental resources. Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands Page 29 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Lands within the Fossil Creek TDU program area fall within either the “Sending Area” or the “Receiving Area,” as defined in Chapter 2. If a property develops at residential densities allowed by County zoning, it will be required to "cluster" the allowed number of dwelling units at Plan density and according to the new design standards for the planning area. Sending area sites that are outside the Fossil Creek Reservoir planning area will be designated separately from the adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. ab. Natural Areas Regulations. Both the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Standards and the County Environmental Regulations will apply throughout the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. At this time, County Environmental Regulations will be incorporated into the new Land Use Code. These standards and regulations include setbacks from natural areas and critical wildlife use areas. c. Cluster Development. Parcels that are located entirely within the Resource Management Area are eligible to participate in the TDU Program as sending parcels; however, if development is proposed, the property would be required to cluster at 1 unit per 2 acre density on 20% of the land with residual parcel designated as permanent open space as outlined in the rural conservation development principles contained in the adopted Larimer County (PLUS) Master Plan. bd. Conservation easements. Conservation easements may be dedicated by property owners that seek to protect open land. ce. Land Dedication. Property owners may seek to dedicate lands to a public or non-profit entity to allow owners to increase the number of units that can be built on the land in other classifications. The Resource Management Area is a sending area for development rights. df.Land Acquisition. Land may be purchased by the County, the City of Fort Collins, or a nonprofit organization such as the Larimer Land Trust, using state or local funds for open lands. eg.Land Management. Open lands preserved in the Resource Management Area under public purchase, land dedication, or placement in a conservation easement will be managed under a cooperative and coordinated system. North of the reservoir, where public access may infringe on sensitive wetlands and habitat areas, land may be managed as a wildlife preserve or agricultural land by private landowners, a local land trust (e.g., Larimer Land Trust), or possibly Larimer County Parks and Open Lands or Colorado Division of Wildlife. Appropriate agricultural Page 30 Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan uses may include crop land (such as corn, which benefits waterfowl that feed on the stubble in winter) or livestock pasture (with a proper number of animal units to prevent overgrazing). Land purchased by the public would likely be managed by Larimer County Parks and Open Lands or the City of Fort Collins. It is also possible that these entities, as well as others, could form a Regional District to manage public open lands in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Areas. fh. Resource Management Plans. To protect natural resources within the ¼-mile Resource Management Area, landowners will be required to prepare Resource Management Plans prior to development approval. These plans will ensure that important habitat areas are retained, and that development is compatible with wildlife needs. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands intends to work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and City of Fort Collins to develop a reservoir-wide Resource Management Plan in the future. When such plan is available, developers will be required to conform to this plan. Until that time, landowners will be required to prepare their own Resource Management Plan, which will include the following: Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands Page 31 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan An inventory and ecological characterization of known or potentially-occurring biological resources on the property and adjacent to the project site. This inventory shall include results of existing field studies and may require additional field studies conducted by consultants hired by the County, with funds provided by the applicant. 1. An updated map showing locations of special habitat features and proposed natural areas buffers and distances from sensitive wildlife habitat features. If appropriate, a map showing the relationship of special habitat features on the development property to other areas within the Resource Management Plan area may be requested. 2. A rationale and justification for any deviations from recommended buffer distances specified in the Natural Area and Feature Standards. 3. A discussion of proposed protection strategies and analysis of how the strategies address specific wildlife habitat requirements with regard to special habitat features. Any unavoidable impacts must be addressed in the protection strategies through the identification of viable mitigation options. 4. Design solutions for development that potentially affects special habitat features. 5. Opportunities for enhancement or expansion of existing habitat areas. 6. A written critique and recommendation regarding the Resource Management Plan by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands, and City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department. 4.1.2. Regional Park Preserve The Land Use Framework Plan proposes a publicly owned and managed site, partially within the Resource Management Area, on the south side of Fossil Creek Reservoir. This site is identified on the Land Use Plan as the Regional Park Preserve, see the map at the end of chapter 2. This concept has been envisioned in previous documents, including the Larimer County Parks Master Plan, A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland, Fort Collins City Plan, and Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. The goal of the Preserve is to protect wildlife habitat, while providing opportunities for passive recreation and environmental and interpretive education. The management of this Regional Park Preserve will be guided by a comprehensive and coordinated management plan that encompasses both the Regional Park Preserve and lands within the Resource Management Area. The Fossil Creek Bike Trail is proposed to go through the site, shown on the map at the end of Chapter 3. This hard-surface trail has been planned since 1988; however, the exact location of this regional bike trail within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area has not yet been determined. A more detailed examination of wildlife use along the proposed trail location, including the portion through the City’s Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area, Page 32 Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan will direct the final placement of the trail. The trail will be located to avoid impact to sensitive wildlife features. The purpose of this trail is to provide recreational use and will eventually connect the City of Fort Collins’ Fossil Creek Bike Trail to the west with the City’s Poudre River Bike Trail to the north and Loveland’s Boyd Lake Bike Trail to the south of the study area. This bike trail will also serve as an alternative transportation mode route (bikes) for the area. Regional active recreation and cultural facilities would be limited to the portion of the site south of County Road 32, outside of the more sensitive Resource Management Area. The principle strategy for protecting the land for the Regional Park Preserve will likely be through land acquisition by County and/or the City of Fort Collins, with potential partnerships with GO Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and other non-profit entities. Land dedication and conservation easements may also be tools in protecting this site. 4.1.3. Natural Areas Outside of the Resource Management Area The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan identifies other natural areas outside of the Resource Management Area that need to be protected, as well. These are, generally, wetlands that are protected by Federal regulations to some extent, and will mainly be protected during the development review process by required City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Standards and Larimer County Environmental Regulations. Most of these sites do not contain as critical of wildlife habitat as the Resource Management Area and could be incorporated into open space or park plans for individual developments to provide pocket natural areas. In addition, a “green corridor,” located along the stream bed/drainage way (Muskrat Creek) that traverses the Study Area north of Mail Creek Ditch and crosses County Road 36 is conceptually shown on the Land Use Framework Plan. The purpose of this green corridor is to link larger areas of open space and provide for the movement of animals and/or humans. Developed bike and pedestrian trails may be a part of this corridor depending upon the natural area values and sensitivity to human disturbance. 4.1.4. Other Open Lands Outside of the Resource Management Area The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan identifies other open lands outside of the Resource Management Area that will remain rural lands. These are lands identified in A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland and Fort Collins City Plan as “proposed open lands.” The intent of this category of land is for community separators between Fort Collins, Loveland, and Windsor, as well as protection of views and rural character along I-25. These lands may remain in agricultural use. Principle strategies to protect these lands will likely include conservation easements, and clustering, and utilization of the County’s TDU Program. Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands Page 33 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 74 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 4.2 Natural Areas and Open Lands Policies In addition to other adopted county and city natural area policies, two specific policies have been established for protection of the most critical natural areas in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The policies are consistent with planned resource management approaches of the County, City, and special districts. FC-NA-1 Resource Management Area. Establish a ¼ mile Resource Management Area around the entire Fossil Creek Reservoir and Duck Lake, as shown on the Land Use Plan map at the end of Chapter 2. The purpose of the Resource Management Area is to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat for nesting, migratory, and wintering waterfowl, water birds, and raptors, and other important species. Prior to approval of proposed development within the Resource Management Area, including estate subdivisions, clustered rural conservation development, and construction of roads and trails, require that a resource management plan be prepared to determine whether the proposed development would be compatible with the environment. As a condition of approval, mitigation measures may be imposed; development that would cause significant adverse impacts on wildlife habitat will not be approved. FC-NA-2 Regional Park Preserve. Work with landowners and others to establish a Regional Park Preserve on the south side of Fossil Creek Reservoir, as shown on the Land Use Plan map at the end of chapter 2. The site should be considered for public acquisition and management. Recreational use on the land north of County Road 32 should be limited to interpretive or passive uses, but land south of County Road 32 may be used for more active public recreation and cultural facilities if sufficient land is acquired. Municipalities will likely be responsible for any active public recreation because parks for this purpose are outside the current mission of Larimer County Parks and Open Lands. Page 34 Chapter 4 Natural Areas and Open Lands ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 75 - -- --·--- -- -··--- -·--- ---- --·- -·-- -- --- - -- - - Fossil Creek Reservoir Area , r I D Ol'lNWAf'ffl G:)' l.ftA.w>Fmer IA9end N CtTYt,l/tl!Tl,INC Adopterl: March 25, 1998 +· D WE11AM)'6(JUFC:E. 1. co tlfllnl1 WF.11..AM) . COl'W)QRi"TU'»J c:::J _ ,_. , D t.Al'I..AM)GJIIAU t A JIIC> E:551 $t \fW"GlOC.OG",C'LIAIIITNICN$(),N/)t1.JWl{r N "' STtllW Y /'o/ t".ltl:JWTHMMJACEI.M'll!IT AA6\ 1"'0,IOlff(':°'-"""" f0C,l H<9-UHOI ...Vl4'1'1M'-.i('f'J ·· ·- ·--- -- --- ·- - --- -- - - -- -- --- --- - --- - . --- ---- - -- --· - - - - ··-- -- -·-- - - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 76 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 77 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Chapter 5 – Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities The arrangement of parks, schools, and other community facilities in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan will be based on the provisions of Fort Collins City Plan, Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, and the Poudre R-1 Facility Master Plan. In keeping with these plans, efforts will be made to provide community destinations within walking or bicycling distance of most residences. 5.1 Community Facilities and Services The County and City will cooperatively address service provision responsibilities in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, in consultation with special districts, prior to development approval. Residential development north of Fossil Creek Reservoir will be eventually annexed to Fort Collins and, thus, services will be developed under the City's standards and procedures, including payment of development impact fees. Community facility and service needs were identified based on information provided by the City and special districts. In addition to planning for future parks, schools, and other community Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities Page 35 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 78 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan facilities, provisions for public water and sewer infrastructure are addressed in Appendix B. The challenges for service provision lie in funding and operation of facilities, which is discussed further in Appendix B. Parks. For development that will be annexed to the City of Fort Collins in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, parkland will meet the City’s per capita standard of 7 acres per 1,000 residents, with 2.5 acres allocated to neighborhood parks and 4.5 acres allocated to community parks. The Fossil Creek Community Park, located west of the railroad tracks outside of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, was proposed to meet the needs of southeast Fort Collins. However, an additional community park within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area may be necessary in the future, dependent on future needs and number of residents in the portion annexed and brought into the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Some of the future needs for active recreational use in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area may be met within the portion of the Regional Park Preserve south of County Road 32, shown on the map at the end of Chapter 4. The City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department will participate with developers in determining the location of all parks in the portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area that will be annexed to the City of Fort Collins. Schools. Two elementary schools will likely be needed for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The estimated need for two schools at build out is based on the Poudre School District's estimated elementary school generation rates for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The capacity of Poudre School District elementary schools is 550 students. The district has estimated a population of 1,148 elementary school age children, based on the plan’s projections of single family and multi-family homes at build out. The Poudre School District Facilities Review, June 1998, states, “By the 2001-2002 school year, it is predicted that enrollment should level off. We predict that our current facilities will be able to accommodate all growth through 2007.” The Poudre School District is constructing an elementary school on a site adjacent to Preston Junior High School, just north of the study area. Construction is scheduled to be finished in November, 1998. This facility, Core Knowledge, is a charter school whereby the parents of the students attending make decisions for the curriculum, with emphasis in special areas such as science, rather than the school board. An elementary school more centrally located in the proposed residential area of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan would be preferable. The school could provide an important focal point as a neighborhood gathering place. Co-location of schools and parks on the same site is preferable to both the Parks and Recreation Department and the Poudre School District. Because schools often serve as a neighborhood core, their sites are chosen with care. Walk-in areas and bus routes are considered when school sites are selected in order to Page 36 Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 79 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan avoid excessive busing costs, both in the short and long term. Travel distances for walk- in students are: • Elementary Schools – 1.0 mile • Junior High Schools – 1.5 miles • Senior High Schools – 2.0 miles Additional Community Facilities The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area will have additional community facilities as required by the population. In particular, the Poudre Fire Authority and Fort Collins Police Department both have service provision standards that will require development of additional stations in the southeastern portion of the city, possibly in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, in the future as population growth continues. Service requirements are included in Appendix B. 5.2 Community Facilities Policies Four policies have been developed with regard to future community facilities in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. FC-PSCF-1 Parks. Provide at least 2.5 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, as provided in the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. Provide a community park site if future needs warrant this type of park once the number of residents in the portion annexed and included in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area are determined. FC-PSCF-2 Schools. Provide at least two elementary schools (including the Preston site), per the Poudre School District Master Plan, within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, with one of the schools more centrally located within the proposed residential area north of the Fossil Creek Reservoir. FC-PSCF-3 Fire Station. As per Poudre Fire Authority Master Plan, construct a new fire station at a central location to provide fire service to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. FC-PSCF-4 Other Community Services. Support efforts to provide a branch library, health and social service facilities, and child care centers within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area at locations easily accessible to residents. Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities Page 37 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 80 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Page 38 Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, and Other Community Facilities ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 81 ...................l '--..J · - Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Park, Natural or Management Areas r I I ..d I- - 1---n D t:lrYOMoM'OAWttAIWLMttEA [D :]_,,MOrf'O..,..,.,fliDl'l/. l.t:IONAlN.M. Adopted: March25, 1998 rftfOll «<&,,,!f CJ .00 lt?MnootJAAIN ·-- ·-- - ---- · -·--- --··· --- ·- 1'tl$0t.lPICIIIJ.ANM;l_MINTAWA ·· IOCf4N'UC ..VlltJNII/' ----- ·-- -- -- ---- ---- ---·- --- --- ---- --· ---- • · - --, - - - .- - - - .- - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 82 •. &tl.ltWatx.ll'IIIONn" -- -..-4 · --- -- -- -- --- ··- - J\/ Gl'CJW'tH -..N/IG£Nlt:NT A,lilt'.A N cn' Y UM fL /111! --- - -..---- -··-...--- -·- · · - --, - - - .- - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 83 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Chapter 6 – Implementation 6.1. Introduction The Larimer County Master Plan and the Fort Collins City Plan Principles and Policies cited in Appendix A provide the fundamental guidelines for implementation of this Plan. The County and City plans call for integrated implementation strategies for all planning efforts through establishment of an Intergovernmental Agreement and Growth Management Areas. In addition, these plans establish annexation policies for cities and establish that rezoning to higher residential densities will not be approved by the County unless there is an agreement with the adjacent city. Also the plans call for adequate public facilities and services, and, implementing development regulations that will require applicants meet city design criteria and standards so that areas may eventually be annexed without extensive capital improvements or costs. Accordingly, both the City and County directive that the implementing regulations for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan be developed and consistent at the time of Fort Collins’ Plan adoption, along with an Action Plan to guide these implementing strategies. The specific steps outlined for Fort Collins’ Plan implementation are: • Amend the Larimer County Growth Management Area (GMA) Overlay Zone to include in the Zone designation of all areas between the existing GMA Boundary and Fossil Creek Reservoir. • In the expanded Growth Management Area Overlay Zone, those areas that will be required to annex prior to development are located north of County Road 36 and west of County Road 11. Those areas south of County Road 32 and east of County Road 11 may develop at current FA1 zoned densities with development clustered at Plan density and standards. • Development of a Larimer County Transfer of Density Unit Program for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. (Adopted September 22, 1998, by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.) • Establish by Plan designation and proposed regulations a Resource Management Area around Fossil Creek Reservoir. • Create, by Plan designation, a Cooperative Planning area. The area so designated represents a future study area designed to further implement the plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. Chapter 6 Implementation Page 39 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 84 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 6.2. Amendment of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Zone District As indicated on the Implementation Plan Map at the end of Chapter 6, the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone is expanded to include all areas between the previous boundary and Fossil Creek Reservoir. The three primary objectives of the expanded Growth Management Area Overlay Zone are: • Achieve higher residential densities where they are appropriate and feather to lower densities as development nears Fossil Creek Reservoir. Urban standards will be required to ensure eventual annexations of approved developments to the City of Fort Collins. • Achieve protection of identified natural or sensitive lands areas. • Require clustered development patterns utilizing existing County FA-1 Zone densities that will allow continued development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. As noted in the Implementation Action Plan the County will then continue to work toward establishment of a Transfer of Density Units program to achieve the planned densities for the residual land in the cluster development. 6.3. Action Plan As indicated, the specific implementation tool of a revised intergovernmental agreement between Fort Collins and Larimer County will be considered concurrently with the adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. However, other actions that are contemplated to implement the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan are outlined in Appendix C. This Action Plan, while not being all-inclusive is intended to set out a realistic overview with Plan of Action to continue implementation of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. 6.4. Implementation Policies Seven specific implementation policies were developed for the various areas of the expanded UGA. The Implementation Action Plan to establish these policies and regulations are discussed in Appendix C. The regulatory details of these policies are included in a proposed amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement considered concurrently with this Plan. FC-I-1 The E-Estate designation indicates the existing legal lots and uses are permitted to continue without change. If a property owner chooses to redevelop an existing Page 40 Chapter 6 Implementation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 85 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan platted lot, the E-Estate designation establishes the density and standards at which that redevelopment could occur. FC-I-2 Areas north of County Road 36 and west of County Road 11 are designated for a density of between 5 to 12 units per acre, and are required to annex prior to development. If one of these properties was not eligible for annexation, the County will process the application in accordance with density and development standards effecting the area. FC-I-3 Areas east of County Road 7 and west of I-25 designated as FA-1 zoning are required to cluster at rural conservation development standards, as outlined in the Larimer County Master Plan. FC-I-4 Activity or development in the Resource Management Area shall meet the Natural Area Resources Management Plan requirements. FC-I-5 The balance of the planning area south of County Road 36 and east of County Road 11 shall remain under current County zoning of FA-1 Farming (TDU Receiving Area). The City will not annex these areas until development has occurred at Plan densities and standards by utilization of the proposed TDU Program. In the interim, dDevelopment policies and proposal regulations shall require development proposals to meet the following standards: FC-I-5.1 The maximum number of units which may be developed are based on the underlying zoning and are calculated as follows: Total number of acres, less areas in designated flood ways, divided by minimum lot size for the applicable zoning classification. FC-I-5.2 All dwelling units must be located in clusters on the site such that the cluster is consistent with the planned densities and standards specified in the Land Use Framework Plan and development regulations for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The residual area of the development not in the cluster must be designated as a future development area. FC-I-5.3 The designated future development area could further be developed to planned densities and standards upon adoption of a Transfer of Density Unit Program Land Regulation by Larimer County. FC-I-6 According to the County’s Master Plan, a Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) is intended to be the area which is beyond a municipality’s Growth Management Area (GMA) but which could conceivably be annexed in the long term. The CPA is a cooperative planning arrangement (via intergovernmental agreement) between the municipality and Larimer County. Each municipality will have its own CPA, and no Chapter 6 Implementation Page 41 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 86 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan municipality’s CPA should overlap that of another municipality. Any planning in the CPA should be done jointly by the municipality and the County. It is intended that rural development in the CPA proceed, but in a manner that does not preclude or jeopardize urbanization when and if it becomes part of the municipality’s GMA. Another principle behind the CPA ideas is that if each municipality would identify its own CPA, the potential for “annexation wars” would diminish. For this reason, the south portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir planning area is shown in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to be in the Fort Collins CPA. The northwest and southwest corners of County Road 32 and I-25 have a statement on the Plan map indicating that when development is proposed in these areas then a unified development plan is encouraged, but not required, to be submitted for the development parcel and all other parcels in the designated areas north of County Road 32 or south of County Road 32. The objective of the overall development plan requirement is to achieve coordinated site planning of water and sewer infrastructure, internal road circulation/access to the frontage roads and potential land use relationships. The Plan should be at the concept level and would not depend upon detailed engineering. This submittal will enable the applicant, surrounding property owners and review agencies supplying infrastructure an improved opportunity to coordinate planning efforts, achieve infrastructure cost economies, and insure efficient transportation circulation to serve potential land uses. These areas are included in the Larimer County TDU “Sending Area” and land owners are encouraged to participate I that program. FC-I-7 Larimer County adopted the Transfer of Density Units (TDU) program, along with supporting maps, for the Fossil Creek Reservoir planning area on September 22, 1998. The Transfer of Density Units program was discontinued in 2019.receiving area for this program is within the Growth Management Area portion of the planning area, while the majority of the sending area sites are located outside the planning area in the region between the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Page 42 Chapter 6 Implementation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 87 D AM1£,t,...,,,.10 Vll.OIW1:N, C) "'-ICUMrf#.OAIIUW: CON.JlltltllrJCIND\IU'IIIWF) -·--- ----- ---- --··- - +· H Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Implementation Plan . c 1- l < l lr ' t V Co P lt W ll\'t •""'-'"- Lapnd C) T ffTOJS c:::J t.JIIS,,_.COI.Jll/ f YS:tMO YJ'SIOAIS u r.- 1 ,'ltaou,fMJ.J Adopted: March 26, 1998 1,o,.c,.•""'l"fO"-l-l'C M1·- __ o .Al"U ,,,_ . -·- - -_..-- ---- ----- ·----- - HJl'#1"COU.#IIIJ' CDOl>f'M1IW l"IAMIMDN'E ·---·---- • N. .. " ," ,u'° o,'" ,•.' "" t:n 'l' l.altrt lNt OIOVlfflf NTAlfEAIO I.N.WI"" --·- - - -------- ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 88 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Appendix A Larimer County Master Plan and City Plan Principles and Policies Larimer County Master Plan and the Fort Collins City Plan Principles and Policies cited in the text of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan are included below. Each are organized according to their classifications in their respective plans. A.1. Larimer County Master Plan TH-2. Natural and cultural resources shall be identified, conserved and protected. Environmental quality and impacts shall be considered when evaluating changes in land use. Long-term cumulative impacts of land use policies and decisions on environmental resources shall be monitored and used to evaluate the performance of the planning process. TH-5. Urban land use shall ultimately be in cities and towns. Becoming an urban service provider is not a goal of Larimer County. However, in Urban Growth Areas and LaPorte, in order to support community plans, urban land uses will be required. Also, the County may encourage urban development in certain areas suitable for such uses in return for preservation of open lands elsewhere in the County. TH-8. Adequate public facilities and services shall be provided concurrent with development. Level of service standards included in the Master Plan shall be performance-based and shall reflect differences between urban and rural areas. If adequate facilities and services are not available at the time of development, the developer will have several options: wait for facilities and services to be improved, finance needed improvements or select a different site. In rural areas, reducing the density of the project may also be an option. Capital expansion fees tied to actual costs of new development shall also be used to fund needed improvements in urban and rural areas. TH-11. Intergovernmental cooperation will be critical for Plan implementation. The Master Plan shall integrate land use policies and implementing strategies that complement and support the goals and objectives of the cities and towns and of the region. Amendments to the current Intergovernmental Agreements will need to be implemented, where feasible, concurrent with the Master Plan. Appendix A Larimer County Master Plan Page 43 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 89 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan TH-12. The Master Plan and the implementing rules and regulations shall be consistent. This consistency concept does not require that the Zoning Map be amended to strictly conform to the Plan’s designations or that zoning be changed to implement the plan. Rather, it is intended to ensure that Plan concepts are carried out through the County’s land use regulations, so that the Master Plan can serve as the County’s policy basis for development and conservation of resources. 2.4.1. Intergovernmental Agreements and Growth Management Areas. GM-1 Larimer County shall plan for long-term growth and physical expansion based on environmental, land use, community design and infrastructure considerations. GM-3 Larimer County will use transfer of development rights as a tool to protect important County resources, where appropriate. GM-3-s1 Larimer County shall continue to develop a transfer of development rights program in cooperation with the municipalities of the County. GM-3-s2 The transfer of development rights program shall include a means to identify or define areas where transfer of development rights will be used to protect important resources, called “sending areas”. GM-4 Larimer County shall continue to allow for urban development within cities and designated urban areas. GM-4-s2 Intergovernmental Agreements shall clearly define an annexation policy that is consistent with County and City growth management principles. In development not eligible for immediate annexation, the County will require applicants to meet city criteria, standards and fee structures adopted by the County, so that the areas may eventually be annexed as they become eligible without extensive capital improvements or costs. The County also will encourage annexation of land that is to be developed with urban uses or at urban densities so provision of urban level services by Larimer County is minimized. Binding annexation agreements also will continue to be required. GM-5 Larimer County, in cooperation with municipalities and after consultation with residents, landowners and other affected interests, shall establish Cooperative Planning Areas (CPAs) and Community Influence Areas (CIAs) adjacent to Growth Management Areas (GMAs), where appropriate, to provide for protection of future City or Town interests. Page 44 Appendix A Larimer County Master Plan ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 90 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan PF-7-s1 Larimer County shall work with School Districts to establish Intergovernmental Agreements to facilitate coordination of land use planning, development review and provision of new school facilities. PF-8-s1 Larimer County shall consider establishing Intergovernmental Agreements with service providers. TR-1 The Larimer County transportation planning process shall complement the development patterns and principles of the Master Plan. TR-1-s1 The Functional Road Classification Map shall be used as the official future roadway plan for the County. ER-1 Resources and environmental conditions potentially impacted by proposed development shall be identified in the initial stages of the project, to best design a development that protects the environment. ER-3 Larimer County shall endeavor to protect all identified wetland areas of the County, in recognition of their importance in maintaining water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection and other critical environmental functions. ER-4 Larimer County shall endeavor to protect all areas identified as highest priority on the Important Wildlife Habitat Map, which is adopted by reference as part of the Master Plan. ER-4-s3 A Wildlife Impact Mitigation Plan shall be developed for any development project which impacts an Important Habitat, or which presents concerns of detrimental human-wildlife interaction. Requirements and performance standards for the mitigation plan shall be clearly established in the Land Use Code and shall be the basis for approval of the plan. Appendix A Larimer County Master Plan Page 45 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 91 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan A.3. Fort Collins City Plan Principles and Policies Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priority for future subarea planning: • I-25 Corridor • Community Commercial District and Vicinity • Summit View/Mountain Vista • Campus West Community Commercial District • CSU Campus District – Foothills Campus • East Mulberry Corridor • Fossil Creek Reservoir Area • South College Corridor • Foothills • Poudre River Corridor • West Central Neighborhoods PRINCIPLE ENV-5: Natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced within the developed landscape of Fort Collins. Policy ENV-5.1 Protection and Enhancement. The City will seek to integrate wildlife habitat, riparian areas, wetlands and other important natural features into the developed landscape by directing development away from sensitive areas and using innovative planning, design, buffering, and management practices. The City’s regulatory powers will be used to preserve, protect, and enhance the resources and values of natural areas by directing development away from sensitive natural features -- such as wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife habitat. When it is not possible to direct development away from natural areas, these areas will be protected in the developed landscape. Policy GM-1.3 Cooperative Planning Area Boundary. The City will collaborate with Larimer County to explore establishing a Cooperative Planning Area boundary. The objective of the Cooperative Planning Area is to preserve opportunities to expand the supply of buildable land for urban purposes within the City, when the Community Growth Management Area boundary is filled in. The decision to expand or not expand into these areas shall be as part of a comprehensive update of City Plan. In the interim, new residential development in the Cooperative Planning Area should be permitted as clustered development, so that large parcels of land may remain for future urban development, as well as forming an edge to the community. “Future urbanized area development standards” will be prepared to apply to all new development within the Cooperative Planning Area in order to ease the transition of these areas from rural to urban in the future. Such standards may include street Page 46 Appendix A City Plan Principles & Policies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 92 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan pattern and connectivity, right-of-way dedication for public streets, drainage and utility easements, and engineering design standards. The precise boundaries, terms, conditions, and requirements of the Cooperative Planning Area will be defined and implemented through an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County, in collaboration with affected property owners. Policy GM-1.4 Community Growth Management Area Boundary Amendments. The City shall review the current Community Growth Management Area (formerly known as the Urban Growth Area) boundary, and shall consider amendments as necessary to expand or contract the boundary so as to bring it into conformance with City Plan. Areas to be reviewed shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • CSU Foothills Campus • Fossil Creek Reservoir Area • Areas West of Overland Trail • Area North of County Road 50 (Willox Lane) Policy GM-2.1 Annexation Policies. The City Council will weigh the following factors when considering the annexation of new land into the incorporated limits: • Statutory requirements. The property must meet all statutory requirements for annexation according to the laws of the State of Colorado. • Property to be annexed located within the Community Growth Management Area. The property must be currently located within the Community Growth Management Area boundary, or the boundary must be amended by actions of the City (and County, if necessary) before the City approves the proposed annexation. • Phasing of public services and facilities. Vacant/undeveloped land proposed for annexation must conform to the City’s phasing requirements for extension of public services and facilities before being annexed. • Annexation of county enclaves. Vacant/undeveloped land included in a county enclave (i.e., an area completely surrounded by property already in the City) will be annexed within one year after becoming eligible for involuntary annexation, but only if such land conforms to the City’s phasing requirements for the extension of public services. • Infrastructure standards. Developed land, or areas seeking voluntary annexation, must have their infrastructure improved (e.g., streets, utilities and storm drainage systems) to City standards, or must have a mechanism (e.g., a Appendix A City Plan Principles & Policies Page 47 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 93 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan special improvement district) in place to upgrade such services and facilities to City standards, before being annexed. • Properties with annexation agreements as conditions of approval. Developments approved by the County that have an annexation agreement as a condition of approval, or have an annexation agreement with the City as a result of receiving out-of-city utility service, will be considered for annexation when they meet all statutory requirements. Policy GM-5.1 Phasing of Development. The provision of public facilities and services will be utilized to direct development in desired directions, according to the following considerations: • Development will only be permitted where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and services such as water, sewer, police, transportation, schools, fire, stormwater management, and parks. • New roads and other City services shall not be extended to serve development which is inconsistent with City Plan or other regional plans as adopted by the City. Moreover, the City shall not enter into any agreements with other jurisdictions to jointly fund or construct infrastructure improvements or provide services that might foster growth which is inconsistent with these plans. These policies will not preclude the City from working with other jurisdictions to provide services and facilities which benefit the entire community such as water and wastewater facilities, regional trails, open space and parks. • Development which occurs within the Community Growth Management Area shall have at least one-sixth of its boundary area contiguous with existing urban development. • Preferential consideration will be given to the extension and augmentation of public services and facilities to accommodate infill and redevelopment before new growth areas are prepared for development. • The City will review applications for the creation of new special service agencies and the expansion of existing special service agencies for conformance with these City Plan Principles and Policies. • The City will work with Larimer County to develop plans and policies for public services and facilities required for new and existing development located in unincorporated areas of the City’s Community Growth Management Area, with special consideration to those subareas and neighborhoods where more detailed planning will follow the adoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies. Page 48 Appendix A City Plan Principles & Policies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 94 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan • The City should charge additional fees to non-city residents who utilize City services. PRINCIPLE LMN-2: The size, layout and design of a Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood should make it conducive to walking, with all the dwellings sharing the street and sidewalk system and a Neighborhood Center. Policy LMN-2.1 Size of Neighborhood. A typical neighborhood will be an area about one-half (½) mile across, subject to adjustment for site-specific or pre-existing conditions. Policy LMN-2.2 Neighborhood Center. A neighborhood should be planned to include other neighborhood-serving uses and features in addition to residential uses. At a minimum, each neighborhood will include a Neighborhood Center that serves as a year-round gathering place accessible to all residents. A Neighborhood Center will be no larger than 7 acres, and will include some of the following: recreation facility; school; children’s and adult’s day care; place of assembly and worship; small civic facility; neighborhood-serving market, shops, small professional offices, clinics, or other small businesses. Any such uses should have limited needs for signage and limited traffic attraction into or through the neighborhood. The inclusion of rooms or indoor space for meetings and neighborhood functions is encouraged, as is a square, plaza, pavilion, or other outdoor space accessible to all residents. Policy LMN-2.3 Neighborhood Center Location. A Neighborhood Center should be encouraged to locate near the center of the neighborhood, but will be permitted to be located elsewhere such as on an edge. Policy LMN-2.4 Neighborhood Center Design. A Neighborhood Center should either be designed in collaboration with the residents, or otherwise be custom- designed by its developer to reinforce the positive identity, character, comfort and convenience of its surrounding neighborhood. Policy LMN-2.5 Neighborhood Center Access. Access for pedestrians and bicyclists should be a priority. Policy LMN-2.6 Additional Services and Conveniences. In addition to Neighborhood Centers, non-retail development such as places of worship, day care, recreation facilities, schools, and small civic facilities, may be incorporated into a neighborhood in other locations. Policy LMN-2.7 Neighborhood Retail Uses. Retail uses will be permitted only in Neighborhood Centers. Retail centers will be separated by a least three-quarters (3/4) of a mile. Appendix A City Plan Principles & Policies Page 49 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 95 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Policy LMN-2.8 Access to Transit. Either the Neighborhood Center or another focal point for possible transit stop should be provided in a location that is logical, and has convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Policy LMN-2.9 Outdoor Spaces. Small neighborhood parks, squares and other common outdoor spaces will be included within new neighborhoods. These spaces should be attractive settings, highly visible and easily observed from public streets. Policy UGE-2.2 Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The physical and visual separation between Fort Collins and Loveland should be preserved and maintained as indicated in A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland (1995). Policy ROLE-1.1 Acquiring and Managing Open Lands. The City will continue to administer a program to acquire and manage important open lands and/or development rights that preserve wildlife habitat and native landscapes and form an edge, while providing opportunities for education, scientific research, nature interpretation, art, fishing, relaxation, wildlife observation, hiking, bicycling, and other appropriate activities. When acquisition is not possible, the City will apply other tools, including conservation easements. Page 50 Appendix A City Plan Principles & Policies ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 96 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Appendix B Utilities and Services Background Information Information on utilities and services that would be needed to serve development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area has been compiled through a series of interviews held with service providers and documents provided by Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Interviews were conducted with the following agency representatives: • Mike Ditullio, District Manager Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District • Guy Boyd, Director of Administrative Services Poudre Fire Authority • Fred Anderton, Airport Manager Fort Collins - Loveland Airport • Janet Meisel, Park Planner City of Fort Collins Park Planning and Development • Michael Spearnak, District Architect Poudre School District The utilities and services assessment assumes future annexation to Fort Collins of urban portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. This assumption is based on the County's policy that urban development, with accompanying urban levels of service, is to occur in cities. 1.1 Fort Collins Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District The Water and Sanitation Districts have anticipated the development of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and have considered the potential impact on the delivery of service in their master plans of 1994. The master plans project a total of approximately 2,500 units. Development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area at the proposed density of 3,400 units will result in changes to planned infrastructure for water service, aside from potential changes in the timing of essential water transmission line construction. In addition, the development projected in the preferred plan will have a significant impact on the treatment, collection, and transmission capabilities of each District. Presently, the water and sewer treatment capacity is more than sufficient to serve the anticipated development; however, since water and sewer lines are not constructed in Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 51 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 97 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan advance, service availability could be problematic if growth occurs too quickly and out paces the construction of necessary capital improvements. Sewer service is contingent upon the construction of a new collector line northeast of the treatment plant into the development area. There is concern that approval to construct this line may be difficult and/or lengthy because of the perceived environmental impacts to wetlands and wildlife. The environmental impacts and necessary mitigation measures for the line are yet to be determined. Conditional easements have already been secured from the North Poudre Irrigation Company, however, private easements still need to be obtained. The Master Plan for each district is scheduled to be updated in 1998. Service Provision Assumptions Water. The District assumes a water consumption rate of 1 acre-foot per three quarter inch tap, with a general rule of one tap per household. This translates to approximately 120 gallons of water per person per day, based on a standard of 3.5 persons per household. Sewer. Sewage generation is assumed to occur at 70 GPCD per capita for residences (dry weather) and 1,200 GPAD for commercial uses. The developer is responsible for construction and installation of all required water and sewer related facilities. The District is responsible for maintenance and repair of those facilities once they are accepted into the system. Planned Improvements Water. The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District is planning to add several water lines in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Study Area. Except for the CR 9 line (which is a Phase I project), all projected improvements are to occur during Phase II between 2000 and 2015. However, if development occurs in the area earlier, they will construct the water lines as needed. The projected cost is listed in Table A-1 on the following page. Page 52 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 98 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Table A-1: Projected Water Line Expansion Cost Water Line Projected Cost County Road 9 Line (Homestead Ridge to Paragon Meadows) $691,150 Duck Lake Line (County Road 11 to I-25 and 14" CR 9 line) $831,450 McCloughan Hill Line to County Road 32 $737,150 Timberline Line (Harmony to County Road 32) $745,200 County Road 36 Line (County Road 9 to County Road 7) $273,700 Total $3,278,650 Source: Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Water Distribution System Master Plan Update 1994 (adjusted January 1, 1997). Sewer There is currently a sanitary sewer line on the south side of Fossil Creek Reservoir and no sanitary sewer service north of the reservoir. Even if the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area were to develop at the current allowable density of one unit per 2.29 acres, the South Fort Collins Sanitation District would recommend installation of a sewer line to avoid increasing wastewater leaching into the reservoir. However, the District is assuming development at urban densities north of the reservoir. The District has determined that a 30-inch diameter gravity sewer pipe would be required to serve development of 2,500 homes in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area at a density of 4 units per acre. Approximately 4,450 linear feet of pipe would be required, at a total installation cost of $600,000. The District has also determined that a lead time of 12 to 18 months will be needed before the sewer line can be installed in order to address environmental concerns and coordinate with the North Poudre Irrigation Company and other private landowners, and obtain approval from the Colorado Health Department and other government agencies. The northeast area of the study area south of Harmony Road will require a "lift" station in order to receive sanitary sewer service, for which the estimated cost is $125,000. Fees Water: The District requires 1 acre-foot of raw water per ¾ inch tap. This translates to a yield of approximately 120 gallons of water per person per day, based on a standard of 3.5 persons per household. The amount of raw water required increases with the size of the water tap. As of January 1, 1997, the raw water fee is $2,500.00 per acre foot. In all probability, this fee will increase significantly during the life of this development. Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 53 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 99 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan The developer has the option of providing CBT water stock in lieu of paying the raw water fee. The District charges a plant investment fee for all taps. The amount of the fee is based on the size of the tap. The current fee as of January 1, 1997, for a ¾ inch tap is $2,500. The plant investment fee for a 1 inch tap is $6,250.00. The plant investment fees are used to install water lines or make treatment plant improvements. The District may charge an additional growth impact fee of $1,100.00 per tap on all taps in the development area if the densities projected in their master plan are exceeded. The developer is responsible for the construction and installation of all required water related facilities. The District is responsible for the maintenance and repair of those facilities once they are accepted into the system. Sewer: The District uses 70 GPCD per capita for residences (dry weather) and 1,200 GPAD for commercial uses in calculating sewage generation. The District charges a tap fee which is based on the size of the water tap. As of January 1, 1997, the current fee based on a ¾ inch tap is $1,975.00. The cost of a one inch tap is $4,938.00. The District may charge an additional growth impact fee of $1,100.00 per tap on all taps in the development area if the densities projected in their master plan are exceeded. The developer is responsible for the construction and installation of all required sewer related facilities. The District is responsible for the maintenance and repair of those facilities once they are accepted into the system. Impacts of Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Development Development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area would not result in significant changes to planned water service, aside from potential changes in the timing of water line construction. Sanitary sewer service is potentially more problematic. The calculations for sewer pipeline assume full development of 2,500 units in the area. The Districts might reimburse developers paying for the sewage line and collect impact fees from future developers at higher tap rates as compensation. It is likely, however, that sanitary sewer calculations may need to be reconsidered once an overall development plan for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area is approved. The primary obstacle to sewer service is the location of the pipeline. The pipeline as planned would cross the wetlands west of the reservoir. The environmental impacts and necessary mitigation measures for the line are yet to be determined. Easements Page 54 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 100 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan have already been granted by the North Poudre Irrigation Company. The District has calculated that an additional 2,000 linear feet of larger diameter pipeline would be needed to avoid the wetlands. 1.2 Poudre Fire Authority Although Station 10 was recently constructed at 2067 Vermont in the southeast portion of the city, it would not be able to serve development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area to Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) standards. Services are also provided to the area from Fire Station 5 at 4615 Hogan Drive. In its 1995 Draft Strategic Plan, PFA identified the need for two additional fire stations in the southern portion of the city to be constructed within the next 10 to 12 years. The timing and location of construction for these stations will be determined by patterns of future development. Primary issues of concern for the Fire Authority are access, water supply, and funding. Service Provision Assumptions The PFA uses a system of "benchmarks" to evaluate the effectiveness of service provision. These benchmarks are quantitative objectives related to various factors such as injuries, property loss, numbers of fires, and response time. Benchmarks govern PFA's estimates regarding where new fire stations are needed and what type of personnel and equipment are needed. Based on PFA's primary goal of minimizing death and injuries due to fire, medical emergencies and related emergency situations, response time is the primary benchmark used to determine the need for a new fire station. The PFA maintains a benchmark of an average total response time of six minutes. However, the Authority uses a more complicated system of percentiles and frequency distributions to determine appropriate response times in different portions of the service area, given the needs articulated in other benchmarks. Due to a greater potential for property loss and fire spread, the response time standard in urban areas is four minutes. With an assumed speed of 30 miles per hour for emergency vehicles, the desired response radius for fire stations in urban areas is two miles. Station 10 is located approximately four miles away from Fossil Creek Reservoir. Given this situation, PFA feels that an additional fire station would be needed to serve development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Study Area, especially if commercial or higher density subdivision development were to occur. PFA anticipates the need of a south station sometime within 7 to 10 years. This need for new service delivery points is based on the assumption of the area being about 50 percent built up and a call load of approximately 400 responses per year at that time. Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 55 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 101 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Station Location and Access Actual station location is determined by internal analysis. The current assumption is that a southeastern fire station will be developed in the intermediate term (5 to 10 years) in either the Harmony Road or Trilby Road corridors. Location criteria include density, adjacent land uses, access, joint use, and future system integration. Depending on future development patterns in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, the new station could be constructed closer to the north side of the reservoir. However, current access patterns are problematic. While County Road 9 might be the most desirable location to serve development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, such a location might not have sufficient access without improved connections to Trilby and Timberline Roads. Water Supply PFA requires fire hydrants with 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) pressure to be located at 800 foot intervals in residential areas and 600 foot intervals in commercial areas. This infrastructure is funded by developers. While the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area currently does not have the water supply capacity to achieve this standard, the required infrastructure would accompany urban development. One potential approach supported by PFA is the provision of fire sprinklers in all structures. Sprinklers reduce water supply requirements by approximately 75 percent and decrease the required response time needed to prevent property loss, injury and fire spread. Currently, fire sprinklers are only required in structures that are more than 900 feet from the entrance to a cul-de-sac. However, the City of Loveland is now requiring sprinklers in a much larger proportion of new structures. Funding Using an implementation time of 2000, the capital cost of a new fire station would be $1.7 million and the annual operations and maintenance cost would be between $660,000 and $880,000. PFA currently estimates that adequate funds will be generated by new development to fund the new station, assuming annexation of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area to the City of Fort Collins. PFA has two primary revenue sources. Within the City, development impact fees are levied for fire protection. Throughout the District, a mil levy is used to generate annual fire protection funding. Like other infrastructure providers, PFA has the dual challenge of funding services for new development and correcting service deficiencies in older parts of the Fort Collins. Often, capital improvements are spread over a period of several years because revenue is not available for land purchase, construction and hiring over a short time frame. Page 56 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 102 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan The revenue issue seems to be one of timing, the pace of development and annexation in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area will determine the ability of PFA to fund needed services. Based on historical revenue contributions and the projected rate of growth in the south from which that revenue is derived, PFA continues to believe that it can provide services in a timely fashion. 1.3 Fort Collins - Loveland Airport According to the Airport Manager, the long-range airport strategy is to: • Attract more commuter flights. • Serve general aviation, particularly through flights that may find Fort Collins-Loveland more attractive than DIA. For further details, please refer to the Airport Master Plan. Noise Contours The noise impact map is a "single-event" noise contour, based on noise from a Saber Liner – a Stage One Jet Aircraft (that is quite noisy). As such, these contours should be viewed as a "worst case" scenario, they are not the same as the contours required for an FAA Part 150 Airport Environs Noise Impact Study. The Airport Manager doubts that the 65 dBa contour line would be very far from the airport boundaries using FAA noise assessment guidelines, even if the commuter operations increased substantially. This worst case noise contour should be reevaluated in year 2003 when Stage One and Two aircraft are no longer permitted to operate. As currently conceived, the airport environs zoning regulations would include restrictions on use in each of the identified types of zones. The FAA has no land use recommendations outside the 65 dBa contour line if a Part 150 Noise Impact Study is not required. Airport Land Acquisition There is one industrial park on the east side of the airport, with access to runway facilities for private planes parked outside the airport; it has room for expansion. There also is substantial land for industrial and airport related development on the airport property itself. As a consequence, the Airport Manager does not envision that the airport will require any additional land, although the 1993 Master Plan did indicate one or two acquisition sites; one site has been acquired, but no more acquisition is intended. 1.4 City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 57 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 103 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan When development occurs in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, the Parks and Recreation Department will have dual objectives. The first is provision of neighborhood and community parks to the standard established for urban densities; this objective is particularly salient if the area is annexed to the City. The second is a longer term goal, that of developing a regional park on the southern side of County Road 32. Service Provision Assumptions The City's per capita standard for park provision is 7 acres per 1,000 residents, with 2.5 acres allocated to neighborhood parks and 4.5 acres allocated to community parks. Neighborhood parks are distributed at a standard of one or more neighborhood parks per square mile section, and are to be located within ¼ to of a mile of the residences they are meant to serve. In addition, location of parks adjacent to schools or creek or drainage corridors is encouraged. While neighborhood parks are now constructed as single parks of appropriate size to serve the population of the square mile section, the new Parks and Recreation Plan advocates a scattering of smaller park sites in the future, with one park of approximately 8 acres containing sports fields and the remaining acreage provided by smaller "pocket" parks. Currently, the City has a severe shortage of community parkland. According to the draft Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, the current level of service is 3.1 acres of community park and 2.3 acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 residents. In particular, a shortage of unprogrammed park space has been identified; existing parks are often dominated by sports fields and developed recreation areas. Existing and Planned Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Parks There are no existing parks near the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area; however, several locations in the southeastern portion of the City have been identified for future park development. The City currently owns land slated for a neighborhood park adjacent to the undeveloped school site southeast of the intersection of Harmony and Timberline Roads. Land acquisition and park development are recommended south of Harmony Road between County Road 9 and I-25, north of County Road 32 and east of College Avenue, and southwest of Harmony and Timberline Roads. However, no land acquisition or park development is recommended within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Study Area because it is currently outside the City's urban growth boundary. Two neighborhood parks are proposed in addition to the Regional Park that is recommended south of Fossil Creek Reservoir. The area South of County Road 32 and the Fossil Creek Reservoir has been identified as a potential location for a regional park. The Parks and Recreation Department Page 58 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 104 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan envisions a 200 acre facility that includes cultural, environmental education, and recreational activities. The park would serve as a possible location for fairgrounds and could serve future cultural or civic needs. The maintenance of the southern portion of the reservoir for open space or passive recreation is consistent with open space provision priorities. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation hopes to work with Loveland and Larimer County in acquiring and developing this regional parkland. School District Cooperation The City's Parks and Recreation Department works closely with the Poudre School District in service provision. Because all of the sports programs are school-based, and for economies of scale in service provision, neighborhood parks are generally located adjacent to school sites. Therefore, park provision in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area is likely to be closely connected to school location if this area is to be annexed to the City of Fort Collins. While adjacent development is in many ways advantageous to Parks and Recreation, there are some issues in the location and siting of facilities that staff feels could be resolved differently. Currently, schools are located on their sites in such a way that their fields must be located on the parks; often when sports fields are planned on park-owned land, the School District does not fund full development or maintenance. In addition, the School District has some concerns about increased liability resulting from public use of school fields. These unresolved issues indicate some potential for increased efficiency in future Parks and Recreation-Poudre School District cooperative efforts. In many cases, developers want parks to be in place prior to development of housing units to create a visible amenity for potential buyers. In such cases, the Parks and Recreation Department uses a land dedication policy in which impact fees are used to reimburse developers for land dedication, roads, and utility costs generally borne by the Department. 1.5 Poudre School District The District owns a site adjacent to Preston Junior High School and is in the process of constructing an elementary school there. Construction is expected to be completed by November 1998. This school is not particularly well located to serve as an accessible neighborhood school for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. While development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area would clearly generate the need for an additional elementary school, the means of providing funding for the school is currently unclear. Service Provision Assumptions Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 59 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 105 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan School need is determined based on population, not density. Elementary schools generally have a capacity of 550 students, based on a model of 18 classrooms plus two kindergarten classrooms. Timnath Elementary, which currently serves the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, has reached capacity. Therefore, new development will create a need for a new elementary school, but not a new junior high or high school. The District uses population projections to evaluate future school need created by population growth or "bubbles" of large age groups. Schools are located based on need. The District prefers to purchase adjacent sites for multiple schools and parks, when possible. The new elementary school southeast of Harmony and Timberline Roads is fairly far from the proposed development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. School Construction and Operations Funding Recent school construction was funded through a $100 million bond issue. The 5-year bond issue buildout was recently completed, and no additional funds will be available for school construction for several years. The availability of funds for construction of an additional school in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area is therefore uncertain. School operations are funded through mil levies and taxes. Existing school facilities. The described area falls roughly in the attendance areas of Timnath or Kruse Elementary schools, Preston Junior High, and Fort Collins High School. The Poudre School District is in the process of constructing an elementary school on a ten acre site adjacent to Preston Junior High School on Corbett Drive. School service standards. Elementary enrollment capacities are based upon full room utilization and average class size of 26 students. The capacity of Timnath Elementary is 546 and Kruse Elementary is 568. Secondary school capacities are based upon full room utilization. The capacity of Preston Junior High School is 900. The capacity of Fort Collins High School is 1,800. Planned school facilities in Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. Currently, there are no new facilities planned for this area, but, additional school needs will be monitored as development occurs in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. Additional sources of funding will be necessary to build any new schools. Preliminary district enrollment estimates indicate 22,390 students in the year 2000 (up 227 from 1997). These same projections indicate a small decrease through the year 2004. Although these projections have been quite accurate in the past, there is no guarantee what impact a multitude of new developments will cause. No specific projections of students in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area have been made, pending completion of the subarea plan and approval by the County and the City. Page 60 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 106 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 1.6 Police Currently, the City's Police Services Department provides a full range of police services to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area within the City limits. The services include requests for assistance from citizens, crime related calls and internally generated activity. Citizens request assistance with problems that are not crime-related ranging from stalled cars to neighbor and family problems. Crime related calls include incidents such as domestic violence, thefts and assaults. Internally generated activity includes not only traffic stops but also activities that require officers' time such as court, training, and meetings. Historically, the number of calls for service will continue to increase at rates faster than the increase in population. Besides the increase in population, sociological and economic trends and changes in expectations within the community contribute to additional demands on police service. Standards Police service standards of the City of Fort Collins recommend that an officer's hour be divided equally with 20 minutes spent on calls for service, 20 minutes spent on non calls for service and 20 minutes available for uncommitted time. With respect to Fort Collins Police Services, this division of labor is markedly different, spending 42 minutes on calls for service, 12 minutes on non calls for service, and 6 minutes is left available for uncommitted time. The City of Fort Collins Police Services Department has significant concerns about the amount of time officers are committed to calls for service and the lack of available time for officers to participate in problem solving efforts and serve the community in a proactive manner due to the exceedingly low levels of non calls for service time and uncommitted time. Impacts of Fossil Creek Reservoir Development Currently there is no planned service expansion for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. However, as the area develops and the population increases and the geographical area expands, calls for service will increase proportionally. Additionally, Fort Collins provides various recreational opportunities and methods of travel. Each presents its own set of challenges (problems) and opportunities. Examples include: Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 61 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 107 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan • Streets and Highways • Bicycles • Railroad Location • Parks • Water This location's recreational opportunities and managed growth will attract new residents. The City of Fort Collins typically experiences the same crime trends as seen on the national level. Specifically, the Police Services Department is concerned with service demands associated with: • Traffic • Firearms related calls • Violent crime • Property crime • The overall numbers in calls for service • Juvenile related/gang incidents 1.7 Solid and Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Services Solid waste and recycling collection services are provided by private businesses in For Collins and surrounding areas of Larimer County. Neither the City nor Larimer County provides direct collection of solid waste. There also is no collection of household hazardous wastes at local residences. Larimer County operates a free household hazardous waste collection site located at the Larimer County landfill. 1.8. Fossil Creek and McClellands / Mail Creek Master Drainage Plan Requirements. The Fossil Creek Master Drainage Plan, which governs drainage requirements for most of this area, does not specify a set release rate for development within the area. The Master Plan assumes that the creek itself can carry developed runoff from all areas within this watershed. Therefore in general no detention is required unless site or downstream conditions require it. A portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan also drains to the McClellands outfall channel so is in the McClellands / Mail Creek drainage basin. This master plan does require detention and has specified release rates of 0.2 cfs/ac for the 10-year and 0.5 cfs/ac for the 100-year storm runoff. Both of the basins do have new development fees that are due at the time a building permit is requested if the property is annexed to the City. Often release rates are constrained by limited downstream capacity as may be the case in several parts of the Fossil Creek basin within the proposed Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. There is a significant amount of area in the Fossil Creek Area Plan, which will require on-site detention due to offsite drainage restrictions. The major drainage Page 62 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 108 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan improvements for this area that are proposed by the master plan are the crossings of existing arterial streets. The cost of these improvements are to be shared by the developer(s), street oversizing, the Stormwater Utility, and sometimes the Parks Department. It is important to note that many of the newly designated arterial streets by the City’s Transportation Plan were not designated as arterial streets at the time of the original master plan preparation and thus those improvements will not be funded by any drainage fees, so street oversizing and the developer(s) would be the usual participants. There are some low lying areas such as the area south of the Mail Creek Ditch and west of Timberline Road that do not have a natural positive drainage outfall. These areas may need to be filled or development within them may be limited due to the lack of a drainage system. The intent of the master plan itself is not to detail how drainage from that area is to be handled, that is part of the development plans. As development occurs the developer may be required to update the master plan to show that proposed improvements are acceptable. One additional improvement already shown in an update to the McClellands / Mail Creek master plan is a required spillway to be built on the existing pond which is presently owned by Loui Swift. Our current basin master plan does allow modification to the channel to carry the developed flow, however, any modifications must incorporate considerations for natural stream features such as: stream stability, habitat, wetlands, and water quality. 1.9 Streets The existing street network within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area was developed under Larimer County road standards. Segments of County Roads 9 and 7 are unpaved and County Roads 11, 32, and 36 are paved, two-lane roads. The Fort Collins Master Street Plan illustrates future street improvements to the county roads stated above, along with identifying proposed local streets north of the Fossil Creek Reservoir, which would be required to meet urban street standards for design and connectivity. County Road 7, the lower portion of County Roads 9 and 11 are shown as future minor arterial streets. The upper segments of County Roads 11 and 9 are future arterial status, including County Road 32. As development occurs within the Fossil Creek Reservoir area, streets will be developed under agreed upon design and construction standards between Larimer County and Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information Page 63 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 109 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan the City of Fort Collins, according to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Page 64 Appendix B Utilities & Services Background Information ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 110 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Appendix C Implementation Action Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Action Plan Reference Documents Lead Entity Actions & Partners Area Plan Time Line 6 mos 12 mos 1-5 yrs Larimer County/City of Fort Collins Amendments to Existing IGA: Annexation Policy •City Plan: GM-2.1, p 136 •LCMP: TH5; GM-4-s2, p 2 -13 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Larimer County Planning X Done 1/6 Contiguity/Any Contiguity •City Plan: GM-5.1, p 139 •LCMP: TH5 1 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Larimer County Planning Done Extension of Growth Management Area Boundary (GMAB) and Overlay Zoning District •City Plan: GM-1.4, p 135 •LCMP: TH5; TH2; TH8; TH11; TH12; GM1; GM4; GM4-32; GM7-52 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Larimer County Planning X Done Establish Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area (South of Reservoir) •City Plan: GM-1.3, p 133 •LCMP: GM-5 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Larimer County Planning Done Adopt Natural Areas Standards for Resource Management Area (outside of GMAB) •City Plan, ENV-5, p 123 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Action Plan Reference Documents Lead Entity Actions & Partners Area Plan Time Line 6 mos 12 mos 1-5 yrs City/County Open Lands acquisition •City Plan: ROLE-1.1, p 233 •LCMP: LC Open Land Goal City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Larimer County Parks, Natural Resources Colorado Division of Wildlife X X X X I-25 Corridor Plan •City Plan: LU-4.5, pp 91, 205 •LCMP: GM-6 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Larimer County Planning X Continued Implementation: Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland •City Plan: UGE-2.2, p 229 •LCMP: 3.3.2, p 3-4 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Larimer County Planning City of Loveland Planning X X Urban Development Standards •City Plan: LU-3; GM-1.5, p 139 •LCMP: GM-4s; 2PF-1s; PF1 X Done Plan Amendment: Respond to condition at adoption for amending the Plan to include Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Land Use designations (MMN) - Hansen Property. •City Plan: MMN1-3 City of Fort Collins Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Action Plan Reference Documents Lead Entity Actions & Partners Area Plan Time Line 6 mos 12 mos 1-5 yrs Larimer County Transfer of Density Units Program (TDU) •City Plan: GM-1.6, p 135 •LCMP: LU-2-s3, p 3-7; GM-3; GM 3s1; GM-3-52 Larimer County City of Fort Collins, Property Owners, Developers Done TDU Overlay Zoning District •LCMP: GM-3 Larimer County X Done Amend Transportation Master Plan •LCMP: TR-1; TR-1s1 Larimer County City of Fort Collins X Done Develop Resource Management Area Plan •LCMP: ER-4; ER-1; ER4-s3 Larimer County Parks and Open Lands City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department, Colorado Division of Wildlife X Amend County Land Use Regulations for Development Standards and TDU Program •LCMP: PF-1-s1, p 4-9 GM-3; GM-3s1; M3s2 Larimer County City of Fort Collins X X Appendix C Implementation Action Plan Page 67 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 113 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Action Plan Reference Documents Lead Entity Actions & Partners Area Plan Time Line 6 mos 12 mos 1-5 yrs Fort Collins Amend City Structure Plan •City Plan: LU-3.2, p 90 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning X Done Amend Fort Collins Master Streets Plan City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning X Done Develop Stormwater Master Plan •City Plan: ENV-7.6 •LCMP: ER-15, p 6-14 City of Fort Collins Stormwater X X Amend Transit Development Plan •City Plan: T-21, p 94 •LCMP: TR-4-s1, p 5-6 City of Fort Collins Transportation Larimer County, City of Loveland X Fort Collins: Provide Branch Library In Fossil Creek Reservoir Area •Library Development Plan City of Fort Collins Library X South Fort Collins Sanitation District: Extend service within established District •SFCSD: Master Plan for Wastewater Collection & Treatment SRCSD City of Fort Collins Larimer County X Fort Collins Water Utilities: Extend service south within established District City of Fort Collins Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Action Plan Reference Documents Lead Entity Actions & Partners Area Plan Time Line 6 mos 12 mos 1-5 yrs Coordinate Fort Collins Light & Power facility needs with Poudre Valley REA Fort Collins Light & Power and Poudre Valley REA City of Fort Collins and Larimer County X Special Districts South Fort Collins Sanitation District: Extension of treatment facilities to north side of Fossil Creek Reservoir SFCSD: Master Plan for Wastewater Collection & Treatment PF-85-1; PF4; PF-1-s1 SRCSD City of Fort Collins Larimer County X Fort Collins Loveland Water District: Provide service to Fossil Creek development •City Plan: GM-3.3, GM-4, GM-5, pp 138-139 •LCMP: PF-1-s1, p 4-9; PF-4, p 4-10; PF-8-s1, p 4-11 •Fort Collins Loveland Water District Master Plan South Fort Collins /Loveland Water District City of Fort Collins X Poudre Fire Authority: Provide new station (Station #5) in Fossil Creek Reservoir Area •City Plan: GM-3.3, GM-4, GM-5, pp 138-139 •LCMP: PF-2-s5, p 4-10 •PFA Strategic Plan (1987): pp 60-62 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Action Plan Reference Documents Lead Entity Actions & Partners Area Plan Time Line 6 mos 12 mos 1-5 yrs Poudre School District: Provide new elementary school(s) in Fossil Creek Reservoir Area •City Plan: GM-3.2, p 137; RD-4, p 170 •LCMP: PF-7-s1, p 4-11 Poudre School District Thompson School District, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County X Page 70 Appendix C Implementation Action Plan ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 116 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Appendix D Legal Description UGA Boundary Adjustment Page 71 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 117 . . . ' INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this d ii<- day of JU11e.. , 2008, nunc pro tune October 17, 2006, by and between LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, a body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City" . RECITALS WHEREAS, continued growth in the Fort Collins area suggests that coordination between the county and City can result in better management of development; and WHEREAS, maintaining and enhancing areas of urban development in a thoughtful and deliberate way involves cooperation in land use and transportation planning, implementation of growth management policies, and the identification and preservation of open space and natural areas; and WHEREAS, concentrating urban development in areas designated for such development affords greater efficiency in the delivery of such services as water, storm water, and sanitary sewage disposal systems, transportation, fire and police protection and other services, and also affords a measure of predictability to landowners and residents concerning where future services will be provided and urban development will be permitted; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has found and declared that in order to provide for planned and orderly development within Colorado and a balancing of the basic human needs of a changing population with legitimate environmental concerns, the policy of the State of Colorado is to clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has designated certain powers to local governments, among them the power to regulate the location of activities and developments which may result in significant changes in population density, the power to provide for phased development of services and facilities, the power to regulate the use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on the community or surrounding areas, and the power to otherwise plan for and regulate the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional rights; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has authorized and encouraged local governments to cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning / Note: Subsequently amended in 2017 to adjust GMA, Amendment Recorded at 20170007580 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 118 I ~ I ' and regulating the development of land, including but not limited to the joint exercise of planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins for the County and the City to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purposes of implementing their respective master plans, establishing effective means of joint planning and management of urbanization within their jurisdictions, assuring that urban development occurs only as urban level facilities and services are able to be provided, assuring that urban development that occurs in the unincorporated portion of Larimer County in the vicinity of the City of Fort Collins is annexed to the City as soon as possible, providing effective means for the appropriate maintenance of public improvements intended to serve urban development, and assuring that urban development in the vicinity of the City of Fort Collins does not negatively impact road and storm drainage systems in unincorporated Larimer County, or appropriately mitigates those negative impacts; and WHEREAS, the agreements and understandings set forth below will promote increased coordination between the City and County and result in better management and control of urban level development in the Fort Collins area. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations herein expressed, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Growth Management Area Established. The parties agree that the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) is contained within the boundaries identified in Exhibit "1" attached hereto. The parties acknowledge that the County has adopted the GMA as an overlay zoning district pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The GMA, and the areas inside the city limits of the City represent the areas that the County and City agree are appropriate for urban development with urban levels of public services and facilities. Except for areas that are contained within the incorporated limits of the City itself, areas outside the GMA are not appropriate for urban development and will not be provided public services and facilities at urban levels. 2. Final Authority. The City agrees that after review of development proposals by the Larimer County Planning Commission and the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval is forwarded to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, the final authority regarding approval or disapproval of development proposals shall rest with the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Comprehensive Plans for the GMA. The County agrees to use the City's Comprehensive Plan as a guideline for development inside the GMA. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes any plans for land use, parks, transportation, drainage, natural resources or other elements deemed necessary by the City to act as a guideline for development inside the GMA. The City agrees to make its Comprehensive Plan specific enough to give clear guidance through maps and text to the County and property owners and developers as to the types, densities and intensities of land use acceptable to the City on any given parcel of land in the GMA. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 119 The City shall forward to the County for recommendations any proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan for areas within the GMA at least thirty-five (35) days prior to final action by the City. The City shall notify the County of any revisions it ultimately adopts within ten (10) days of adoption. 4. Development Regulations. The City acknowledges that the County has adopted certain land use regulations to implement the prior Intergovernmental Agreement for the GMA entered into between the parties on May 5, 1998. These regulations are contained in the Larimer County Land Use Code at Section 4.2.1 (Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District), Section 8.9.11 (Large Retail Establishments), and the Technical Supplement (Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins GMA and Definitions) (hereinafter "the GMA regulations"). The City acknowledges and agrees that the County through exercise of its legislative authority and discretion may amend these GMA regulations from time to time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the County acknowledges that its adoption of the above referenced GMA regulations in their current form was a substantial inducement and consideration for the City's entering into this Agreement and the prior May 5, 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement. The County agrees, therefore, that it shall not legislatively amend or fail to follow the GMA regulations and any subsequently adopted agreed upon GMA regulations until it has first referred such proposed amendment or action to the City for its recommendation. The City shall provide its written recommendation to the County within ninety (90) days of receipt of the referral for legislative amendments and within thirty (30) days of receipt of the referral for other actions, unless the parties mutually agree upon a longer or shorter time period. In determining whether or not to adopt the proposed amendment or action, the Board of County Commissioners shall give great weight to the recommendation of the City and the extent to which the proposed amendment or action promotes or impairs the purposes of this Agreement, and the various components (elements) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the event the County legislatively amends or fails to follow the current or subsequently adopted agreed upon GMA regulations without the City's approval, the City Council may elect to exercise any or all of the following remedies: A. Terminate this Intergovernmental Agreement upon giving sixty (60) days advance notice to the County. B. Refuse to annex any lands or specific parcels of land into the City. C. Cease to maintain any public infrastructure improvements which the City has theretofore agreed to maintain under Section 9 of this Agreement. D. Cease to enforce or attempt to enforce reimbursement agreements for the benefit of the County. E. Cease to collect (and remit to the County) funds as may be levied by the City for county-wide/regional improvements, including, without limitation, regional impact fees. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 120 These remedies shall not apply to those occasions when the County modifies such GMA regulations under the provisions and criteria for "Modification of Standards" as contained in the Land Use Code. 5. Applications for Development Within the GMA Zoning District. A. Except as provided in Section 6(B) of this Agreement, the County agrees it will not accept any development application, as defined in Section 4.2.l(B) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, for property which has any contiguity to the City limits and, thus, can be made eligible for voluntary annexation to the City whether through a series of annexations or otherwise. The owner of such property shall instead be required, prior to development, to seek annexation to the City. The County also will not accept a development application for any property in the GMA which was part of a parcel eligible for annexation as of December 18, 2000, but which is no longer eligible because of subsequent land divisions resulting in a break in contiguity, except land divisions created by court order from probate, dissolution of marriage or eminent domain proceedings. B. The County may accept development applications for lands located within any area that is part of a "receiving area" established through an adopted subarea plan for any Larimer County Transferable Density Units Program. At such time as the County requires a landowner in a receiving area to request annexation to the City, the City will process the annexation petition such that the annexation, if approved by the City, will be completed within thirty-five (35) days following the County's approval of the final plat. C. If the City denies an annexation petition required to be submitted to it pursuant to Section 6(A), the County may accept the application and process and rule on it in accordance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, unless the City has denied the annexation petition because it contained conditions deemed by the City to be unacceptable, in which case the County will not accept the application. If a property owner whose annexation petition was denied by the City because of unacceptable conditions contained in the annexation petition contends that the resulting inability to develop his or her property in either the City or the County constitutes an unlawful taking, the City and County shall make available to such property owner the takings determination process contained in the City's Land Use Code, which process shall be administered by the City but shall be modified to include both the County Manager and City Manager (or their designees) as the decision makers. If a review of the property owner's claim under the takings determination process results in a determination by either the City Manager or the County Manager that denial of the annexation petition, coupled with the inability to develop the property under the County's jurisdiction, would constitute an unlawful taking of the property owner's property, the County shall thereafter accept the application and process and rule on it in accordance with the Larimer County land use regulations. D. The County and City agree that appeals, interpretations and variances from zoning provisions of the GMA District which are applied at the building permit stage shall be forwarded to the Larimer County Board of Adjustment as provided for in the Larimer County Land Use Code. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 121 E. The County agrees that it shall refer to the City for review and comment all development applications, as defined in Section 6(A), for properties located within the GMA. The City shall advise the County whether or not the proposed development complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regulations in the Larimer County Land Use Code. The City shall provide its comments to the County in writing within the time required for county referrals established by State Law. Except to the extent that the City notifies the County through its written comments that the development does not comply with the standards, the County may assume that the proposed development complies with all applicable standards and the County shall have no responsibility to further review the proposed development for compliance with the standards. 6. Development Outside of the GMA. The County agrees to use the Larimer County Master Plan as a guideline for development outside the GMA. The County shall forward subsequent revisions to the Master Plan to the City for recommendations at least thirty-five (35) days prior to final action by the County. The County shall notify the City of any such revisions that it ultimately adopts within ten (10) days of adoption. 7. Annexations. A. It is the City s intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 8(B), the City agrees to consider the annexation of any parcel or parcels of land located within the GMA which are eligible for voluntary annexation pursuant to the provisions of Title 31, Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes. B. To the extent permitted by law, and except for properties located within the GMA boundary lying south of County Road 32, the City agrees it will not annex property south of County Road 32 (also known as the "Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor") or any property within the portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan which is located east of County Road 11 (Timberline Road) and South of County Road 36 unless the County either requires the landowner to petition for annexation or requests that the City consider annexation. The foregoing limitations on annexation shall not apply to the annexation of publicly owned open space, trails or parklands. C. The City agrees to annex all County Road rights-of-way, easements, etc., adjacent to a voluntary annexation in accordance with Title 31 , Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes; provided, however, that the City may decline to annex such County roads and rights-of-way if annexation of such roads and rights-of-way would impede future annexations anticipated by the City to be accomplished by the use of a "flagpole" configuration or if such County road is primarily used by County development. In the event the City declines to annex any such roads or rights-of-way, it shall provide a written explanation in the annexation impact reports provided to the County outlining the City's reasons for not annexing such roads or rights-of-way. D. The City agrees to pursue involuntary annexation of any parcel that becomes eligible for involuntary annexation. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 122 E. The City agrees to pursue annexation of any parcel whose owner has signed an annexation agreement. F. The County agrees that the City, in its sole discretion, (except as provided in Section 8(B) of this agreement) may annex outside the Fort Collins GMA. The City agrees that proposed annexations outside the GMA will be sent by certified mail to the Board of County Commissioners for review and comment at least thirty-five (35) days prior to the scheduled public hearing on the annexation before the City Council. G. The County agrees to require a binding agreement for future annexation in the form attached as Exhibit 2 as a condition of approval of any development application requiring approval by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, which is located within the GMA but is not, at the time of development approval, eligible for voluntary annexation to the City. 8. Improvements to and Maintenance of Public Facilities. The County agrees to require development proposals within the GMA to make improvements to County roads consistent with the Larimer County Urban Road Standards for the GMA which, to the extent reasonably feasible (as this term is defined in the Fort Collins Land Use Code), will be consistent with the multi- modal and level of service standards for road improvements required by the City inside the City limits. The City agrees to provide routine maintenance and inspection of such public infrastructure improvements (whether on or off the development site) which, but for the design requirements established in the Larimer County Land Use Code for large retail establishments and for the Fossil Creek Area, would not otherwise have been required by Larimer County Urban Standards. (Examples of such improvements may include transit facilities, bicycle lanes, or parkway/median landscaping.) The City agrees to apply its Off-Site Street Improvements Policy to any development within the City limits which has an identifiable impact on the County road system which may require the developer to make certain improvements to County roads outside the City limits. If improvements are to be made to County roads outside the City limits, the City agrees to send plans of said improvements to the Larimer County Planning Department and Larimer County Public Works Department for review and comment. The City also agrees to provide routine maintenance and inspection of all such public infrastructure improvements (whether on or off the development site) which, but for the design requirements established in the Larimer County Land Use Code for large retail establishments and for the Fossil Creek Area, would not have been required by Larimer County Urban Standards. (Examples of such improvements may include transit facilities, bicycle lanes, or parkway/median landscaping.) 9. Collection of a Park Fee for the GMA Zoning District. The County shall collect a community and neighborhood park fee-in-lieu-of-land dedication from all residential development located within the GMA at the time of issuance of applicable building permits. The County shall remit this fee to the City to be used to benefit residents of the area where it is collected. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 123 10. Collection of a Drainage Basin Fee for the GMA Zoning District. Pursuant to Title 30, Article 28, Section 133 (11), Colorado Revised Statutes and Section 9.2.4 (Imposition of Drainage/Storm Water Facility Fees, of the Larimer County Land Use Code), the County shall collect a drainage fee at the time of issuance of applicable building permits for improvements on lands located within the GMA in the same amount as the basin fee collected by the City of Fort Collins within the City limits. Such fee shall be used for Drainage Capital Improvements within the basin from which the fee was collected. Drainage improvements shall be consistent with the current Drainage Basin Master Plans and project scheduling shall be mutually agreed upon by the City and County. The drainage fee shall be reviewed annually by the County and any needed modifications shall be made to Section 9.2.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 11. Amendments to the GMA Boundary. The City and County agree that any amendments to the GMA Boundary shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties. The County shall implement such amendments in accordance with the procedures and requirements for amendments to zoning district boundaries outlined in the Larimer County Land Use Code. 12. Enforcement. Both the City and County intend that this Agreement be binding upon them. Either party hereto shall be permitted to specifically enforce any provision of this agreement in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 13. Term. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for a period of ten years from the date of its execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five year terms unless, at least six (6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either party notifies the other party, in writing, of its decision that the Agreement not be renewed. 14. Severability. In the event either party is prevented by court order from performing or enforcing any provision of this agreement, or enforcing any regulations, both parties shall have the option of terminating this agreement upon mutual consent. 15. Prior Agreements. A. This Agreement supersedes all prior Intergovernmental Agreements entitled "Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development" between the parties to this Agreement. B. The Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 31 , 1999, entitled "Regarding Development in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area Adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir" is hereby terminated. LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO By: ,~;d-dc~- Chair, Board of County Commissioners ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 124 ,,,•'' \ '''''"~ cou """' ,,,, ........ ~~ ... ············· c'~~ ~QS/ ·· •• ~-;. : ~-... \\A\ 4:; :'-I: ··~'! = \._ SEAL) J ~ .., ..,,, '•,··., ao .. •••• tCJR.···· ····· A'iJ •••• o . .. ,·· ,, .. , ...... :l i APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,,,,,,,, ............. . Deputy City Attorney ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 125 EXHIBIT "2" ANNEXATION AGREEMENT TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO: The undersigned owner (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER") of the property, more particularly described on Attachment "A", attached hereto, has filed an application with Larimer County under the terms of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). It is expressly understood and agreed by the undersigned OWNER that, if granted, the development approval shall be in consideration of and upon the following terms and conditions, to-wit: 1. If the property shall ever be included within the boundaries of a territory which is sought to be annexed to the CITY itself, then and in that event, the undersigned OWNER specifically agrees to consent to and join in the annexation of such territory by the CITY; and that the undersigned OWNER will comply with all of the legal requirements and conditions pertaining to the annexation of territory to the CITY. It is understood by the undersigned OWNER that the primary consideration for granting of development approval according to the terms of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA is the undersigned OWNER'S covenant and the promise to consent to the annexation of said territory to the CITY, comply with all requirements and conditions as aforesaid and sign all petitions and maps pertaining thereto. Futhermore, the undersigned does hereby empower and irrevocably authorize and appoint the City Clerk of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as lawful attorney-in-fact, on behalf of the undersigned, to sign any such annexation petitions and maps thereby binding the undersigned, to all of the terms and provisions of said petitions and maps for all intents and purposes as if the undersigned had signed said petitions and maps. This power of attorney shall not be affected by the disability of the principal. This appointment shall not preclude the City from undertaking any other available action, which may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the limitation set forth in Section 31-12-107(8) C.R.S. 1973, OWNER hereby waives the five (5) year limitation of such power of attorney as contained therein and agrees that this power of attorney shall be valid for a term of 20 years from the date of this Agreement, unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(8) C.R.S. 1973 cannot be waived or modified by the OWNER, in which event this power of attorney shall be valid for a term of five (5) years from the date of this Agreement. 2. That all terms and conditions herein set forth shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, assigns or successors in interest of the undersigned OWNER and be considered as a covenant running with the land described in Attachment "A". Further, it is agreed that, in accepting title to the property described in Attachment "A", or any part thereof, any grantee, heir, assignee or successor in interest to the undersigned OWNER expressly agrees to be bound by the terms hereof, including, but not limited to, the appointment of the City Clerk as attorney-in-fact for the purposes set forth in Paragraph (1) above. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 126 ' ·. 3. That this agreement shall be recorded pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Statutes; and that the CITY may undertake any action legally available to enforce the provisions hereof. In the event the CITY is required to undertake any action to enforce the terms hereof, the undersigned OWNER and his heirs, successors and assigns agree that the CITY may recover from the owner of said property its reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred with respect to such action. 4. That, if any section, sections or provisions of this agreement is declared invalid for any reason whatsoever by any competent court, such invalidity shall not affect any other sections or provisions of this agreement if they can be given effect without the invalid section, sections or provisions. 5. That the following grammatical rules shall apply to this agreement: any gender includes the other genders; the singular number includes the plural and vice versa; words used in the present tense include the past and future tenses and vice versa, unless manifestly inapplicable; and the words shall be constructed according to context and approved usage of language. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the applicant has hereunto set his hand and seal this __ day of , 20_ OWNER OWNER STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of ______ , 20_, by . WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Notary Public ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 127 . . . _·-_ .... . _· , r·· ___! I __ _ ·-·- i : Fort Collins s Legend .--·-·- i .i I: •' I : I .......... ~---· ·-L _-_-_ -J · Growth Management Boundary D Growth Management Area r-L ··-__-_-_ ..._, j City Limits -- Poudre River. Updated: October 2, 2008 I, "'----y--· . l . I ...... ,"..:} i r··-..... ..1· ........ r··-l .. Fort Collins Windsor Growth Management Area (GMA) kt City of Collins "' Advan~ Planning ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 128 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 PROJECT NAME VOA Senior Residences, PDP190005 STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan (PDP) to construct a three-story, affordable, senior housing project at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive, one block west of Timberline Road. Four modifications of standards are proposed to the LMN zone district standards for density, number of units in a building, maximum building square footage, and required off-street parking spaces. APPLICANT: Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 e. klara@ripleydesigninc.com OWNER: Volunteers of America 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Modifications of Standards and Project Development Plan. STAFF REPORT Planning and Zoning Board May 16, 2019 Packet Pg. 129 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE INTRODUCTION 1. Project Description • Three-story, affordable, senior housing project. • 2.3-acre site at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive. • 39 one-bedroom dwelling units and 16 two-bedroom dwelling units available to seniors 62 years and older with incomes that range from $9,570 - $54,480 (20-80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). One-third of the units (18) are proposed at 20-30% of the AMI. • Three daytime employees are anticipated. • 47 parking spaces. • The northern portion of the site is an existing drainage detention pond that serves the proposed project and the existing single-family subdivision to the north. The PDP would reshape the pond, which would provide a landscaped buffer area between the parking lot and the back yards of existing houses on the north. This separation distance varies between 50 and 90 feet as proposed. • Four modifications of standards are proposed: three LMN zone district standards for dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre), maximum number of units in a building, and maximum building floor area; and a general standard for required number of parking spaces in multi-family developments. The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as a part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase Three in December 2009. Historically the land has never been developed and has been used by the property owner for agricultural uses. 2. Site Characteristics A. DEVELOPMENT STATUS The site has been anticipated for development as the last remaining development parcel in Spring Creek Farms North Overall Development Plan, approved in 2011. It is shown as an Outlot in the Fourth Filing PDP approved in 2014. All utility infrastructure is readily available and a complete street network is in place. The zoning on the site was part of the citywide rezoning that accompanied the 1997 Comprehensive Plan known as City Plan. The attached Modification Requests document from the applicant includes an explanation and illustration of the characteristics of the site, as they are particularly relevant to the PDP. B. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Single-family detached residential (Spring Creek Farms subdivision) South Low Density Residential (R-L) Single-family detached residential East Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) Multi-family residential (Trails at Timberline) West Low Density Residential (R-L) Union Pacific Railroad; Power Trail; Single-family detached residential Packet Pg. 130 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 OVERVIEW OF MAIN ISSUES The first issue requiring a finding of support has been the set of four interrelated modifications required: Modification Requested Standard Requirement Proposed Plan Residential Density 12 d.u./acre 24 d.u./acre Maximum Number of Units in a Dwelling 12 units 55 units Maximum Floor Area in a Dwelling 14,000 s.f. 54,000 s.f. Required Number of Parking Spaces 87 spaces 47 spaces Early in the review process, staff found that a unique set of circumstances warrants support of these major modifications. Circumstances include: • The magnitude of the defined community need for affordable housing for special populations, which includes seniors. • The location across the street from the large Trails at Timberline apartment complex. • The separation from the closest houses in the neighborhood by a landscape detention pond, which serves as a significant buffer between the uses. • The building acts a buffer to Drake Road and the Union Pacific Railroad to offset the effect of the long building and create a buffer for adjacent development. The main site planning issue requiring multiple iterations to get to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been the layout of the building, parking lot and walkways to orient the building to a street and sidewalk and to convey a more residential, rather than institutional, character. The building is placed with a doorway and porch roof oriented to the street corner, and walkways directly connect building entrances to the two streets, Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive, with no intervening parking lots. Iterative design led to the turnaround and drop-off area, which provide multiple benefits. Other key issues that have been explored and addressed include: modulation of the building mass in architectural design, grading and reshaping the existing detention pond on the north side, and emergency access. Staff has evaluated the request under the applicable sections of the Land Use and staff finds that all issues have been addressed in compliance with the code, including the four modifications of standards. Packet Pg. 131 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 LAND USE CODE ARTICLE 4 – LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Urban Estate (U-E), Division 4.2: Article 4 of the Land Use Code contains standards for the various zoning districts throughout the City. The subject property is zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), Division 4.5 of the Land Use Code. Staff evaluation of applicable zoning standards below follows the order of the LMN zone in Article 4. Three modifications of standards are requested to LMN standards. They involve the ways in which the 55-unit apartment building exceeds limits in the LMN zone. Staff supports the modification requests. With the modifications in mind, staff finds that the PDP otherwise complies with the applicable zoning district standards. Full evaluation of the modifications is in section 5 of this report. Section 4.2(B)(3)(d) – Permitted Uses A. PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE LMN ZONE – CODE SECTION 4.5 (A) Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district: “Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended 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.” The project adds a housing choice and is designed with characteristics that are in harmony with the neighborhood, including modulation of the mass of the large building into smaller modules, entrances with porch roofs facing walkways leading to sidewalks, shingled pitched roofs, brick and lap siding with trim, and grassy areas with trees on all sides. B. PERMITTED USES IN THE LMN ZONE – CODE SECTION 4.5 (B) The proposed ‘multi-family dwelling containing more than eight units’ use is permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. C. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE LMN ZONE – CODE SUBSECTION 4.5 (D)(1) MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED. This project proposes 24 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds the 12-dwelling unit per acre maximum. The modification request is based on the whole approach to providing affordable senior housing which depends on the efficiencies of the proposed program of 55 units in a single building. Staff supports the modification request, and full evaluation of the modification is in section 5 of this report. D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS CONTAINING MORE THAN EIGHT DWELLING UNITS – CODE SUBSECTION 4.5 (E)(4) This subsection requires the proposed building to feature a variety of massing proportions, wall plane proportions, roof forms and other characteristics similar in scale to those of single-family detached dwelling units, so that such larger buildings can be aesthetically integrated into the low-density neighborhood. It comprises multiple specific standards that also apply to such multi-family dwellings, as follows: (a) Maximum Number. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be twelve (12). MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED. The project proposes 55 dwelling units in the building, exceeding the standard of 12 units per building. The modification request is based on the whole approach to providing affordable senior housing, which depends on the efficiencies of the proposed program of 55 units in a single building. Staff supports the modification request. Full evaluation of the modification is in section 5 later in this report. Packet Pg. 132 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 (b) Orientation and Setbacks. Setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single- and two- family dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet. The detention pond in the northern portion of the site provides setbacks ranging from 124 to 168 feet, with the parking lot set back 50 to 90 feet. (c) Variation Among Repeated Buildings. Not applicable to just one building. (d) Building Height. The maximum height of a multi-family building shall be three (3) stories. Buildings with a setback of less than fifty (50) feet facing a street or single- or two-family dwellings shall minimize the impact on the adjacent single- or two-family dwelling property by reducing the number of stories and terracing the roof lines over the occupied space. The three-story building complies. (e) Entrances. Entrances shall be clearly identifiable and visible from the streets and public areas by incorporating use of architectural elements and landscaping. The building design provides three entrances oriented to street sidewalks. Entrances on the south and east sides of the building are designed through multiple iterations to provide a highly visible relationship to streets with walkways and porch roofs. (f) Roofs. Roof lines can be either sloped, flat or curved, but must include at least two (2) of the following elements: 1. The primary roof line shall be articulated through a variation or terracing in height, detailing and/or change in massing. 2. Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances, porches, garages, dormers, towers or other architectural projections. 3. Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in the vertical plane. 4. Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be articulated by design details and/or changes in materials and color. 5. Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by incorporating equipment screens of compatible design and materials. (g) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single- or two-family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, monotonous undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be articulated with horizontal and/or vertical elements that break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Facade articulation can be accomplished by offsetting the floor plan, recessing or projection of design elements, change in materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections shall fall within setback requirements. (h) Colors and Materials. Colors of non-masonry materials shall be varied from structure to structure to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality. Colors and materials shall be integrated to visually reduce the scale of the buildings by contrasting trim, by contrasting shades or by distinguishing one (1) section or architectural element from another. Bright colors, if used, shall be reserved for accent and trim. The building architecture provides extensive modulation comprising all of these features. (i) Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area (excluding garages) shall be fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED. The project proposes 55,000 square feet in the building, exceeding the standard of 14,000 square feet in a single building. The modification request is based on a whole approach to providing affordable senior housing which depends on the proposed program of 55 units in a single building. Staff supports the modification request. Full evaluation of the modification is in section 5 of this report, below. Packet Pg. 133 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 LAND USE CODE ARTICLE 3 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Article 3 of the Land Use Code contains standards for all development citywide to be used in conjunction with zoning district standards. Staff finds that the project complies with all applicable General Development Standards, with one Modification. Staff evaluation below follows the order of Article 3. A. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – CODE SECTION 3.2.1 This Code Section requires a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the circulation system and parking, the building, abutting properties, and users of the site in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. The plan provides the following main components: • A landscaped buffer yard of 50-90 feet where single family houses abut the project on the north. Evergreen trees, a large shrub bed, and fences are designed to screen the parking lot from the back yards of adjacent houses, which also have their own fences. • Street trees where possible given pre-existing utility lines, and full tree stocking on all sides. • Parking lot landscaping, including perimeter screening augmented by screen fences. • 1.25 acres of landscaping, totaling 41% of the site. There is no code requirement for this percentage, but in this case, it helps mitigate the large building and the parking lot. B. ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND PARKING STANDARDS – CODE SECTION 3.2.2 This Code Section requires secure, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. The plan provides on-site walkways, curbcuts, sidewalk ramps, and a clearly delineated parking lot layout in compliance with standards. Additional salient points in staff’s evaluation under Section 3.2.2 follow. C. BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS – CODE SUBSECTION 3.2.2(C)(4) - BICYCLE FACILITIES: This subsection requires a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces based on bedroom counts. Bicycle Parking Required Proposed Total Spaces 1 space per bedroom = 71 total 71 total Enclosed At least 43 55 enclosed within units 8 enclosed in a bike storage room Fixed Racks Remainder of non-enclosed spaces 16 in fixed racks All units have closet storage specifically designed to accommodate a bicycle. The elevator and hallway flooring are designed to accommodate residents bringing bicycles into their units. Staff finds that the bicycle parking meets the purposes of safe and convenient bike parking and encourages bicycling appropriate to the expected demand from the older demographic. Note that the site plan has ample space near the main entrance for additional bike racks if warranted by residents’ actual usage. Packet Pg. 134 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 D. PARKING STANDARDS – REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET SPACES – CODE SUBSECTION 3.2.2(K): This subsection requires a minimum number of parking spaces based on bedroom and unit counts. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED. The project proposes 47 total parking spaces and 4 handicap spaces, which does not meet the requirement for 87 total parking spaces and 4 handicap spaces. The modification request is based on data indicating much lower vehicle ownership in senior apartment developments than in apartment developments generally, which is described further in section 5 of this report. Parking Type Required Proposed One-bedroom units 1.5 spaces per unit x 39 units = 58.5 spaces 47 spaces Two-bedroom units 1.75 spaces per unit x 16 units = 28 spaces Total 87 spaces 47 spaces Handicap parking 4 spaces 4 spaces E. SITE LIGHTING STANDARDS - CODE SECTION 3.2.4 Code Section 3.2.4 requires all lighting to be down-directional with sharp cutoff fixtures to ensure that the functional and security needs of a project are met in a way that does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Staff finds that the plan complies. Lighting fixtures in the plan are down-directional sharp cutoff fixtures and light is contained within the site. F. TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURE STANDARDS - CODE SECTION 3.2.5 This Section requires trash and recycling enclosures to be adequate, convenient, and accessible as appropriate for the proposed use. A trash and recycling room is located within the building with easy access to the parking lot for pickup services. Staff finds that the plan complies. Packet Pg. 135 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 G. BUILDING AND PROJECT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS - CODE SECTION 3.5.1 This Section requires the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses to be compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. Several subsections apply: (B) – General Standard. This subsection requires developments to be compatible with the established architectural character of the area by using a design that is complementary. Staff finds that the most important consideration is the single-family subdivision to the north across the detention pond, which shares LMN zoning with the site. The design breaks down the overall building scale using deep, dark-colored recesses to create multiple distinct building forms to create a sense of multiple smaller buildings, while still forming a cohesive overall design. Low pitched shingle roofs have a residential character and the roof is modulated to reduce overall scale. Doorways with porch roofs face the streets with a particular orientation to the corner at the entry to the neighborhood. The only other potential consideration would be compatibility with the Trails at Timberline apartment complex across the street on the east side of Joseph Allen Drive. The building is similar in proportions and scale and has a greater proportion of landscape area around its perimeter than the existing apartments. (C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. This subsection requires that buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures adjacent to the property. Staff finds that the most important consideration is the single-family subdivision to the north across the detention pond which shares LMN zoning with the site. The size, height, scale and massing are proportioned and mitigated by the features noted under (B) above. The proposed 3-story building is heavily modulated and proportioned with projections and recesses, using material changes in conjunction with massing. The 3-story height is mitigated by topography with the adjacent two-story houses on higher ground than the proposed project and the distances across the landscaped detention pond. (D) Privacy Considerations. This subsection requires that elements of the development plan be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. Again, staff finds that the key consideration is the houses to the north. The combination of topography, distances, and tree plantings minimize any infringement on privacy. (E) Building Materials. This subsection requires that building materials either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. Staff finds that the project provides quality materials such as brick, lap siding, architectural cementitious panels, and trim details relate to the neighborhood context. H. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS - CODE SECTION 3.5.2 One subsection is applicable: (D) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. This subsection requires that dwellings be placed in direct relation to street sidewalks without intervening parking lots or drives. The building and its entrances are deliberately designed for relationship to the street sidewalks without intervening vehicle use areas. Packet Pg. 136 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 9 I. TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CODE SECTION 3.6.4 A Traffic Impact Analysis Memorandum was completed, reviewed by City staff, and used as a basis for evaluation related to all modes of transportation. The following conclusions are drawn: • Total new vehicular traffic for the proposal is estimated to be about 196 daily trip ends, with 11 trip ends in the morning peak hour and 15 trip ends in the afternoon peak hour. • Joseph Allen Drive can easily accommodate the additional vehicular traffic, and area intersections meet levels of service standards. The impact from this proposal is nominal. • Acceptable levels of service are achieved for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. The memo notes that during peak hours, there may be some delay in the ability to make a left turn from Joseph Allen Drive to Drake Road. This is typical across the City, the intersection does not warrant improvements, and an alternate route that results in right turns is available. J. EMERGENCY ACCESS - CODE SECTION 3.6.6 This Section requires that emergency vehicles can gain access to, and maneuver within, the project so that emergency personnel can provide fire protection and emergency services. The plan reflects multiple design iterations leading to the current site plan with the turnaround and ‘Alternative Means and Methods’ techniques, including standpipes and two access ways to the roof. K. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - CODE SECTION 3.8.30 This Section requires visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. One subsection is applicable: (C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place. This subsection requires the PDP to provide sufficient outdoor gathering areas or site amenities to sustain the activities associated with apartment development to adequately serve the occupants. Such outdoor gathering areas may include, without limitation, small parks, playgrounds, pools, sports courts, picnic facilities, passive open space, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, or naturalistic features. A variety of site amenities are provided on the west side of the building including a small turf area, a community garden, benches and a quiet patio seating area located outside of a community room in the building. Also, a small park serving the neighborhood exists to the north along Joseph Allen Drive. Packet Pg. 137 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 10 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant requests four modifications of standards as noted previously in this report. When the Land Use Code was initially adopted it envisioned that there would be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan, but for various reasons did not meet the specific standards of the Land Use Code as stated. The modification process and criteria in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of these instances on a case-by-case basis, as follows: 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 (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). Packet Pg. 138 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 11 1. THREE INTERRELATED REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO LMN ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS The three requests for modifications of LMN zone district standards are evaluated as a group because the issues, justifications and findings are the same for all three and involve a larger multi-family dwelling than standards would otherwise allow in the LMN zone. The following modifications are requested: 1. LUC 4.5(D)(1) Maximum Residential Density The standard limits the density of any development plan for affordable housing projects containing 10 acres or less to a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. The plan proposes 24 dwelling units per acre. 2. LUC 4.5 (E)(4)(a) Maximum Number of Dwelling Units in a Building The standard limits number of dwelling units to twelve. The plan proposes 55 dwelling units in the building. 3. LUC 4.5 (E)(4)(i) Maximum Floor Area The standard limits floor area of dwellings to 14,000 square feet. The plan proposes 54,000 square feet. Applicant Justification The applicant’s request provides justification based upon numbered criteria 2.8.2H(1), (2) and (3) on the previous page along with lack of detriment to the public good. The request is attached. Pages 5-11 thoroughly explain the proposed justifications. • The applicant suggests that the plan contributes to the neighborhood and will function in harmony equally or better than a plan which complies with the standards; • The applicant explains that the plan will substantially alleviate an important community need for affordable senior housing; and • The applicant contends that the size of the buildable portion of the property (about 1.5 acres) results in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties to developing typical LMN uses. Staff Findings Staff finds that the granting of the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and that the request satisfies criteria (2) in subsection 2.8.2(H). As evaluated for detriment to the public good, staff finds that the unique circumstances of the site enable it to accommodate the proposed building, which exceeds size and density limits in the LMN zone, without detriment to the public good. Circumstances include: • The transitional location at the edge of the neighborhood along a high-volume arterial street and across the street local street from a large apartment complex; • The separation from houses in the neighborhood by a landscaped drainage detention area, which serves as a generous buffer yard; • The effect of the long building as a buffer from the traffic volumes and speeds on Drake Road. Essentially, the building is a longer mass than standards would allow and to the extent it forms a long wall in relation to the houses in the LMN neighborhood, that wall will serve as a buffer from Drake Road and a backdrop for trees in the detention pond in the view from the houses. • Architectural modulation of the larger building and extensive landscape areas (41% of the property, 1-1/4 acres) lend neighborhood character and mitigate detrimental effects of the larger building on the public good in the neighborhood and community. • The infill parcel close to services with access to alternate modes of transportation is particularly well-suited to the proposed use for reasons explained throughout the hearing materials. Packet Pg. 139 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 12 As evaluated under Criteria 2.8.2(H)(2), staff finds that the project would alleviate the well-defined and described need for affordable housing with an emphasis on special needs populations, which include seniors; and that the modifications are necessary to enable the project to proceed. City Plan describes the community need with the following principles and policies (2011 edition at the time of VOA’s application): • Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing • Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. • Principle LIV 8 - The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. • Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing • Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of affordable units in isolated areas. The 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan contains the following objectives, and builds upon guidance from the 2010 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: • Produce as many new rental units affordable to households earning 50% of less of AMI as possible. • Incentivize new rental units affordable to households earning 60-80% of AMI. • Incentivize the production of affordable housing. • Increase Housing and Associated Supportive Services for People with special needs – this category includes seniors, among others. • 2015-2017 Actions: Support projects producing affordable units to serve cost-burdened senior citizens. The 2015-2016 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan states: Neighborhood Livability & Social Health 1.1. Improve access to a broad range of quality housing that is safe, accessible and affordable. In addition, Fort Collins residents have identified housing affordability as one of the two top concerns in the last 5 years of citywide Community Surveys. Staff recommends approval of these three interrelated Modifications of Standards. Packet Pg. 140 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 13 2. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PARKING STANDARD FOR NUMBER OF SPACES This request is for a modification of subsection 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces. This subsection requires a minimum number of parking spaces based on bedroom and unit counts. The standard would require 87 parking lot spaces, and the plan provides 47 spaces. Applicant Justification The applicant’s request provides justification based upon lack of detriment to the public good and numbered criteria 2.8.2H(1) and (2) on page 14 above. The request is attached and thoroughly explains the proposed justification. The justification is based on data indicating much lower vehicle ownership in affordable senior apartment developments than in apartment developments generally. • The applicant explains that the plan as submitted will achieve the purposes equally or better than a plan that complies with standards because the proposed parking is consistent with the data. • The applicant explains that the proposed parking is key to alleviating the defined community need for the affordable senior housing because the parking is a crucial part of the whole approach of the project – a larger parking lot and corresponding smaller building would be financially infeasible in addition to being counter to efficient use of land by providing more paving than needed. Staff Findings for the Modification Staff finds that the granting of the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and that the request satisfies criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) and (2). As evaluated under Criteria 2.8.2(H)(1), staff finds parking demand based on project demographics can be met at the reduced rate equally well or better than a compliant plan, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. As evaluated under Criteria 2.8.2(H)(2), the development of 55 senior affordable units will help to substantially alleviate defined community needs to increase and distribute the supply of affordable housing for special populations throughout the community, as described for the three modifications above. Staff findings are based on the following considerations: • Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board thoroughly evaluated this issue in a 2016 development plan known as Oakridge Crossing on McMurry Drive. Oakridge Crossing is a similar age-restricted project (age 62 +) with similar affordability parameters (for incomes between 30% and 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI)). Oakridge Crossing made a similar request to provide fewer parking spaces than standard. Staff did an extensive analysis of existing senior housing projects in Fort Collins, as well as some located in other cities, and discussed the analysis in detail with the P&Z Board. That analysis is highly revealing and relevant to this VOA PDP and is attached. Here is a comparison of the two projects’ parking ratios. Note that the VOA plan is weighted more to a lower income cohort than Oakridge Crossing. Packet Pg. 141 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 14 VOA Senior Residences Oakridge Crossing 55 units 110 units 47 spaces/87 standard = 54% of standard 80 spaces/172 standard = 46% of standard 71 bedrooms 135 bedrooms 0.85/unit 0.73/unit 0.66/bedroom 0.6/bedroom 20-80% AMI w/ 1/3 of units 20-30% AMI 30-60-% AMI Oakridge Crossing is built and occupied. Staff has visited on several occasions including a winter evening at 8 p.m. and consistently finds about 10 of the 80 spaces unoccupied. • A Parking Demand Analysis by Delich Associates Traffic and Transportation Engineering is attached which evaluates the proposed parking under the professional reference document Parking Generation, 5th Edition by the Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE). It concludes that based on data, there will be adequate parking at the VOA site. If increased demand were to occasionally occur as can happen with any land use, parking is allowed on Joseph Allen Drive adjacent to the property. As evaluated for detriment to the public good, staff finds that the proposed parking is appropriate for the plan for the reasons stated above and therefore finds no detriment to the public good. Packet Pg. 142 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 15 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was held January 31, 2019. Approximately 40 community members attended in addition to the full applicant team. Notes and a related questionnaire by the applicants are attached. The Applicant’s Narrative addresses the main issues discussed at the meeting. Wide-ranging conversation at the meeting included a range of questions, concerns, and support for the project. FINDINGS OF FACT / CONCLUSION In evaluating the request for the VOA Senior Residences with four modifications of standard, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The PDP complies with the process outlined in Article 2, Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications. 2. The PDP complies with applicable standards in Article 3 – General Development Standards, with one modification of a standard to subsection 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) as explained below. 3. The modification of a standard to subsection 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) to provide 47 parking spaces rather than 87 per standard would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (2). This is because data and observations indicate lower car ownership in affordable age- restricted senior apartment development and the proposed parking in the plan is appropriate for the use based the data and observations. 4. The PDP complies with applicable standards located in Article 4, Division 4.2, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district with three interrelated modifications of standards to subsections 4.5(D)(1), 4.5 (E)(4)(a), and 4.5 (E)(4)(i) as explained below. 5. The three modifications of standard to subsections 4.5(D)(1), 4.5 (E)(4)(a), 4.5 (E)(4)(i) would not be detrimental to the public good and meet the applicable requirements of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2). This is because the proposed 55 units of affordable senior housing would substantially alleviate the well-defined and described important community need for such housing and the strict application of the standards would render the project practically infeasible; and because the unique circumstances of the site combined with the design of the PDP enable the site to accommodate the larger building that exceeds size and density limits in the LMN zone without detriment to the public good. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve the Modifications of Standards to Land Use Code subsections 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 4.5(D)(1), 4.5 (E)(4)(a), and 4.5 (E)(4)(i); and approve VOA Senior Residences PDP#190005 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site and Landscape Plans 2. Building Architecture 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Modification Requests from Applicant 5. Parking Demand Analysis 6. Staff Parking Analysis Oakridge Crossing Example 7. Traffic Impact Study Memo 8. Neighborhood Meeting Notes Packet Pg. 143 SPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH FILING 4 RAILROAD TRACKS UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2ND ANNEXATION 47 PARKING SPACES TOTAL DETENTION 3-STORY SENIOR RESIDENCES JOSEPH ALLEN DRIVE DRAKE ROAD ENTRY PLAZA POWER TRAIL LOADING/DROP- OFF ZONE COMMUNITY GARDENS LAWN GATHERING SPACE & BBQ RAMP TO DRAKE ROAD ROW TRASH AND RECYCLING CONTEMPLATIVE SPACE WEST BOUND BUS STOP EAST BOUND BUS STOP WESTBOUND BUS STOP 400 FT TRAILS AT TIMBERLINE WOOD SCREENING FENCE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 144 DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT LAND PLANNER SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 303.433.4094 MV CONSULTING 4640 PECOS Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 303.325.3271 OWNER MISC ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 COVER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 3REVISIONS P & Z 2019/4/29 22 PDP 2019/4/3 1 PDP 2019/2/27 FORT COLLINS, CO KR CA R18-062 1 OF 9 NORTH JOSEPH ALLEN DR W W SSSSSSSS W W W W W W SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD 6 6 4 7 10 14 NORTH/ MAIN ENTRANCE SOUTH ENTRANCE 17'-0" 26'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 17'-0" 17'-0" *TYPE (PROPOSED & EXISTING TO REMAIN) COUNT 60+ TREES > 15% Acer saccharum `Green Mountain` 3 4 Acer tataricum 4 6 Celtis occidentalis 4 6 Cercis canadensis `Forest Pansy` 1 1 Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso` 2 3 Koelreuteria paniculata 1 1 Quercus buckleyi 3 4 Quercus muehlenbergii 2 3 Sophora japonica 1 1 Ulmus x accolade 5 7 Zelkova serrata `Green Vase` 3 4 Juniperus chinensis 'Blue Point' 9 13 Picea pungens 3 4 Picea pungens 'Iseli Fastigiate' 7 10 Pinus nigra 1 1 Pinus strobiformis 4 6 Crataegus crus-galli inermis `Crusader` 5 7 Prunus cerasifera `Newport` 5 7 Prunus virginiana 3 4 Pyrus calleryana `Autumn Blaze` 3 4 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' 3 4 TOTAL TREES 72 100% *CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SECTION 3.2.1(D)3 MINIMUM SPECIES DIVERSITY PER CITY OF FORT COLLINS 3.2.1(D)3 PROPOSED PLAN MUST HAVE A SPECIES DIVERSITY OF (10-19 TREES > 50%, 20-39 TREES > 33%, 40-59 TREES > 25%, 60+ TREES > 15%). OF THE 71 TOTAL TREES SURVEYED AND PROPOSED ON SITE, NO SPECIES MAY HAVE MORE THAN 11 QUANTITY. DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT W W SSSSSSSS W W W W W W SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 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 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S S SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 2 - PCC PCN - 2 CC - 3 1 - JB 1 - CF 3 - ZG 1 - SJ KP - 1 1 - PN 2 - GD 1 - PS 1 - QB QB - 1 1 - QMU PS - 3 2 - UMA QB - 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 2 1 10 12 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWN FOR REFERENCE 8 7 6 3 4 5 # TYPE DBH CONDITION ASSIGNED MITIGATION NOTES REMOVAL 1 SPRUCE 3" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING NO 2 SPRUCE 5" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING NO 3 SOUTHWEST WHITE PINE 3" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING TRANSPLANT 4 AUSTRIAN PINE 3" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING TRANSPLANT 5 AUSTRIAN PINE 2" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING TRANSPLANT 6 SOUTHWEST WHITE PINE 4" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING TRANSPLANT 7 SOUTHWEST WHITE PINE 4" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING TRANSPLANT 8 AUSTRIAN PINE 2.5" GOOD 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING TRANSPLANT 9 COTTONWOOD 4" FAIR 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING DEER DAMAGE YES (17,7/(0(17 '5$:,1*6 127)25 &216758&7,21 PROJECT No.: DRAWN: DRAWING NUMBER: REVIEWED: OF 9 LAND PLANNER RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 OWNER VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 p. 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W. 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 SEAL: 0 05 10 20 NORTH SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, CO PREPARED BY: ELECTRICAL ENGINEER MV CONSULTING 4640 Pecos Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 p. 303.325.3271 1 PDP 2019/2/27 2PDP 2 2019/4/3 Author AERIAL 3D 1 Approver 17033 VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 6287+:(67$(5,$/ 6287+($67$(5,$/ ('5$.(5G ('5$.(5G (17,7/(0(17 '5$:,1*6 127)25 &216758&7,21 PROJECT No.: DRAWN: DRAWING NUMBER: REVIEWED: OF 9 LAND PLANNER RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 OWNER VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 p. 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W. 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 SEAL: 0 05 10 20 NORTH SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, CO PREPARED BY: ELECTRICAL ENGINEER MV CONSULTING 4640 Pecos Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 p. 303.325.3271 1 PDP 2019/2/27 2PDP 2 2019/4/3 Author AERIAL 3D 2 Approver 17033 VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 1257+($67$(5,$/ 1257+:(67$(5,$/ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 151 3 P & Z REVISION 2019/5/16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 152 3 P& Z REVISIONS 2019/5/16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 153 3 P & Z REVISIONS 2019/5/16 26 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 154 3 P & Z REVISIONS 2019/5/16 26 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 155 3 P & Z REVISION 2019/5/16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 156 5() %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' %(' 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( (175< '5232)) 7 0 ): ($67 (175< $0(1,7< 3$7,2 PROJ. DATE: NO. 17033 4/29/19 VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES East Drake Rd / HYHO) ORRU3ODQ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 157 5() ),/(6 2)),&( 2)),&( 6725 /($6,1* /2%%< 07* 0$,/ 55 /,9,1* -&0( 55 .,7&+(1 ',1,1* PROJ. DATE: NO. 17033 4/26/19 VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES East Drake Rd / (9( / (1/$5*('$0(1,7< ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 158 75$6+ 0$,17(1$1&( ),5(:$7(5 (175< %(' ,7 %('5220 /,9,1*5220 .,7&+(1 &2/25$'2 &/26(7 +$1*,1* %,.(5$&. ' : 2'-6" /,9,1*5220 %('5220 .,7&+(1 &2/25$'2 &/26(7 %('5220 +$1*,1* %,.(5$&. : ' 3'-0" PROJ. DATE: NO. 17033 4/26/19 VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 1 1 3/16" BEDROOM = 1'-0" UNIT 2 2 3/16" BEDROOM = 1'-0" UNIT ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 160 land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com February 27th , 2019 VOA Senior Residences Project Information and Design Narrative 1) Project title: VOA Senior Residences Project Development Plan (PDP) (formerly Drake Senior Housing) 2) Past Meeting Dates: Conceptual Review October 18, 2018 Neighborhood Meeting January 31, 2019 3) General Information: VOA Senior Residences is proposed to be a three-story, affordable, senior housing project, located on a 2.3 acre at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive. A significant portion (.74 acres) of the site is encumbered with a drainage easement that serves the proposed project and the existing single family subdivision to the north. A total of 46 parking spaces are being proposed. The existing zoning is Low Density Mixed-use Neighborhood (LMN). The proposed project would have 39 one-bedroom dwelling units and 16 two-bedroom dwelling units to be made available to seniors 62 years and older with incomes that range from $9,570 - $54,480 (20-80% AMI). Eighteen or one third of the units are being proposed at 20-30% AMI. Three daytime employees are anticipated. Three modifications are proposed to the LMN zone district standards for density, maximum number of units and maximum square footage [LUC 4.5(D)(1)(b), 4.5(E)(4)(a), and 4.5(E)(4)(i)] and one modification is being proposed to the General Development Standards for the minimum number of off-street parking spaces. [LUC 3.2.2(K)(l)] Detailed Modification Requests have been submitted with this proposal. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 161 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 4) Proposed Owners: Volunteers of America will form a single purpose Limited Liability Company (LLC) to develop and own the subject property. The Managing Member of the LLC will be controlled by Volunteers of America National Services (VOANS). See attached list of officers and directors of VOANS. 5) Existing Owners: Steve Maguire St. Charles Investment Company 6300 S. Syracuse Way, #430 Centennial, CO 80111 6) Transportation Improvements: The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Delich Associates indicates that the traffic generated by the VOA Senior Residences will have minimal impact in the area and acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrians, bicycles and transit modes based upon the multi-modal transportation guidelines. No transportation related improvements are anticipated. 7) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting: Comments received at the neighborhood meeting were mixed. Many people understood the need for affordable senior housing in our community and were supportive of the proposed project (see Volunteers of America surveys with neighborhood meeting notes). The main concerns that were noted are listed below with a short narrative following each. • Density and building height. The number of units developed on the site is crucial to the success of the proposed project by Volunteers of America (VOA). VOA is proposing to use 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) financing for this project. Many 9% LIHTC projects fall in the +/- 50 unit project size range. CHFA looks very closely at Total Development Costs (including the cost of the land), per unit. Therefore a 55-unit project will be viewed much more favorably than say a 24-unit project on this particular site. The larger building will be more efficient to finance (secure a LIHTC allocation and other sources), construct (lower construction costs psf) in the short term and to operate in the long term (spread staffing and operating costs over more units). Three story buildings are allowed in the LMN zone district and this one would not be out of place in the neighborhood. The Trails at Timberline, a 16-acre multi- family housing project with eleven 3-story buildings and a density of 19 du/ac has been constructed adjacent to the site directly across Joseph Allen Drive to the east. The building and parking will be buffered from adjacent single family residential development by an 87-foot wide shared detention facility and ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 162 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com enhanced landscaping. The 3-story building would buffer the single-family neighborhood from traffic noise associated with Drake Road, an arterial street. Additional discussion regarding the building’s architectural character is provided in number 11. • Detention pond maintenance Pursuant to the recorded Detention Pond “Reciprocal Easement Agreement” north of the subject site and south of the single-family homes, Volunteers of America (VOA) will pay its pro-rata share of all routine maintenance expenses of the detention pond. • Park use and maintenance Neighbors were concerned that residents at VOA would use the small park developed in their neighborhood. The park is open to the public and VOA residents may use it, however, given the elderly population and the amenities proposed on the project site it is doubtful that there would be heavy use. Amenities proposed for the VOA site include a small grass turf area, a community garden, reflective quiet zone, benches, pet station and walking paths. • Increased traffic The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Delich Associates indicates that the traffic generated by the VOA Senior Residences will have minimal impact in the area and acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrians, bicycles and transit modes based upon the multi-modal transportation guidelines. We are anticipating hosting a follow-up meeting at VOA’s senior property in Fort Collins, The Sanctuary Apartments, with the neighborhood to provide additional information on how VOA operates its properties, show a progress update of the design and the changes that we are able to accommodate. 8) Narrative description of the site design including building placement, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, landscaping, proposed open space and treatments of wetlands, natural habitats and features on site and in the general vicinity of the project. Factors that influenced the site plan include access, fire protection, street/curb appeal, the setback from Drake Road and neighborhood buffering. The access to the site from Joseph Allen Drive needed to be as far from Drake Road as possible to allow for adequate stacking at the intersection of Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive. The additional drive lane and parking on the east side of the building along with emergency access drive paths on the west side allows the project to meet fire access requirements. The building is setback from Drake Road (28 to 45 feet) substantially further than the minimum 15-foot requirement. This allows for additional landscaping in front of the building that will enhance the architecture of the building and create an attractive streetscape along Drake Road. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 163 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com The existing detention pond is located along the north side of the property adjacent to the existing single family subdivision. An enhanced landscape bed treatment is proposed along the parking lot adjacent to the detention pond effectively screening headlights from the adjacent neighborhood. The parking lot will have cut-off type fixtures focusing light on the parking area and not on the adjacent property. Evergreen and deciduous trees are proposed on the north to buffer the visual impact of the 3-story building. The trash and recycling facility is located inside the building for the convenience of the residents and the overall curb appeal of the property. A variety of site amenities are provided on the west side of the building including a small turf area, a community garden, benches and a quiet patio seating area. Street trees are provided along both Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive with ornamental and evergreen trees added for seasonal interest. 9) Narrative description of how disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and/or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible. There are no wetlands or natural habitats on or adjacent to the project site. 10) Narrative description of transition techniques, associated buffering and how conflicts between existing and proposed land uses are mitigated. See number 8. 11) Narrative description of the architectural design including general description of how Building Standards are met (Sections 3.5.1 and other applicable Sections in 3.5). The building’s exterior architecture centers around three story massing with deep reveals which break down the apartment building’s overall size. These reveals create three distinct building forms; a western facing amenity core, a central building form and building end caps. These forms are articulated so each has its own characteristics while still being part of the greater whole. Floor heights will be kept under the maximum dimension allowed to create a residential scale and minimize the building’s impact on the surrounding neighbors. Low pitched asphalt shingle hip roofs also reduce the overall height, while standing seam metal roof dormers help breakup the main roof form. Varying roof overhangs and bearing heights will add to the articulation of the building forms and create a rich architecture. Quality materials such as brick veneer, cement board panel and cement board siding will enhance the existing neighborhood context, while care in detailing these materials will add to the pedestrian experience off East Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive. There will be 3 residential entries to the building with the main tenant entrance off the northern parking lot. This entrance will be defined by a low standing seam canopy roof that wraps around the entry and adjacent units. This entrance will be the center piece for the building’s amenity program, management / leasing offices and will connect to the western facing great room. The great room will be surrounded by large windows and a covered porch with columns. The great room will provide a direct connection to the ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 164 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com outside landscaped patio area and be a hub of activity for the building. On the third floor of the western amenity core, there will be a resident lounge, this area includes large expanses of windows with wood detailing and increased ceiling height which is expressed into a raised roof form with standing seam metal roof. The remaining portion of the building will be comprised of one- and two-bedroom units served by two elevators. There will also be indoor bike storage, maintenance rooms and trash facilities served by trash chute within the building. All of the buildings amenities and units will meet local and national accessibility requirements. 12) Development Phasing Schedule: If successful in receiving an allocation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in the first attempt from Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) in September 2020, the development schedule would be as follows; • July, 2020 – Close on the Financing/Ground Breaking • September, 2021 – Construction Completion (14 month duration) The project will be built all in one phase. Given the site has existing infrastructure around it, it is anticipated that public improvements will only include tapping into utility lines and perhaps minor modifications to the adjacent detention pond. It is anticipated that this work would be done in the first 6 months of the building construction. 13) City Plan Principles and Policies: The project is supported by the following City Plan Principles and Policies: Principal LIV 2: Promote Infill and redevelopment. Urban Mixed-Use Districts. Policy LIV 2.3 Transit-Oriented Development Require infill higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by BRT and/or high frequency transit in the future. Policy LIV 5.5 Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of affordable units in isolated areas Policy LIV 6.4 Permanent Supply of Affordable Housing Create an inventory of affordable housing consistent with the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Policy LIV 6.5 Aging in Place Retain attainable housing options in existing neighborhoods so that long-term residents can “age in place.” Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 165 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing Encourage public and private for- profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. Policy LIV 8.3 – Offer Incentives Support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives, such as special assistance to offset the costs of the City’s impact fees and development requirements, air rights, energy saving features, and reducing local government barriers to the construction of and the rehabilitation of affordable housing units. Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of affordable units in isolated areas. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 166 Volunteers of America National Services Board of Directors and Officers July 2018 Mr. Michael King (ex-officio) President President/CEO, Volunteers of America, Inc. 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 341-5000 (o); (703) 341-7002 (f) mking@voa.org Ms. Jane W. Burks Board Chair (07/01/17 – 06/30/20) 2nd Term Retired 3930 ½ Old Brownsboro Road Louisville, KY 40207 (502) 541-9848 (c) janeb0330@outlook.com Mr. C. David Kikumoto (07/01/17 – 06/30/20) 3rd Term Board Vice Chair President – Product Development & Risk Division MEDNAX Health Solutions Partner 5445 DTC Parkway Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303) 784-9000 x7328 (o); (303) 817-8987 (c) david_kikumoto@mednax.com Assistant: Michelle Rivoira Office: (303) 784-9000 x7311 Michelle_rivoira@mednax.com Ms. Edwina Carrington Board Secretary (07/01/18 – 06/30/21) 2nd Term President CHK Enterprises, LLC 404 Cedar Oak Drive Austin, TX 78746 (512) 797-4493 (c) carrington.edwina@gmail.com Ms. Patti Andreini Arnold Board Treasurer (07/01/16 – 06/30/19) 1st Term Retired 214 Rio Vista White Salmon, WA 98672 (612) 242-9935 (c) parnold535@gmail.com Mr. Michael Sullivan Director (07/01/16 – 06/30/19) 3rd Term President Sullivan Consulting Services 12517 Avondale Ridge Drive Ft. Worth, TX 76179 (817) 750-1180 (h/o); (817) 798-9790 (c) (817) 750-1180 (f- *notify before submission) Sully1276@aol.com Ms. Karen M. Dale, R.N., MSN Director (7/01/18 – 06/30/21) 3rd Term Market Volunteers of America National Services Board of Directors and Officers July 2018 Mr. Andy Edeburn, MA Director (07/01/18 – 06/30/21) 2nd Term Principal - Performance Partners Premier, Inc. 4121 Maple Hurst Dr S Rockford MN 55373 (763) 777-9043 (0); (763) 479-9519 (c) andy_edeburn@premierinc.com Ms. Nancy Rase Director (07/01/16 – 06/30/19) 1st Term Retired 27 Acorn Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (410) 571-5401 (h); (410) 299-1569 (c) nancyrase@comcast.net Dr. Keith Knapp Director (07/01/16 – 06/30/19) 1st Term Associate Professor Bellarmine University 2001 Newburg Rd - M320 Louisville, KY 40205 (502) 272-8468 (o); (502) 435-4306 (c) kknapp@bellarmine.edu Assistant: Chris Ekstrom Office: (502) 272-7604 Cekstrom@bellarmine.edu Mr. Tom Dolan Director (07/01/17 – 06/30/20) 1st Term President Emeritus American College of Healthcare Executives ACHE 339 Cottage Hill Elmhurst, Illinois 60126-3332 (630) 530-0776 (o) dolanexco@gmail.com Mr. Shawn Bloom Director (07/01/17 – 06/30/20) 1st Term President/CEO National Pace Association 675 N. Washington St Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 535-1567 (o); (703) 535-1566 (f) shawnb@npaonline.org Assistant: Lani Cadow Office: (703) 535-1518 lanic@npaonline.org Ms. Jeanne Peterson Director (07/01/17 – 06/30/20) 1st Term President/CEO Peterson & Associates Affordable Housing Volunteers of America National Services Board of Directors and Officers July 2018 Ms. Robin Keller Assistant Secretary VP, Workforce Housing Development 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 283-4181 (c); (703) 341-7001 (f) rkeller@voa.org Ms. Nancy Gavin Assistant Secretary/ Treasurer VP, Financial Services Volunteers of America National Services 7530 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 983-4249 (o); (952) 941-0428 (f) ngavin@voa.org Mr. Joe Budzynski Assistant Secretary/ Treasurer EVP & CFO of Organizational Services Volunteers of America, Inc. 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 341-5021 (o); (703) 341-7002 (f) jbudzynski@voa.org Ms. Sharon Wilson Geno Assistant Secretary/Treasurer EVP, Chief Operating Officer, National Services Volunteers of America, Inc. 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 341-5041 (o); (703) 341-7010 (f) swilsongeno@voa.org Mr. Patrick Sheridan Assistant Secretary EVP, Housing Volunteers of America, Inc. 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 341-5095 (o); (703) 341-7001 (f) psheridan@voa.org Mr. Robert Gibson Assistant Secretary/ Treasurer EVP, Chief of Staff Volunteers of America, Inc. 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 341-5028 (o); (703) 341-7001(f) rgibson@voa.org Ms. Deborah Perry Assistant Secretary/ Treasurer Director, Standards & Policy Volunteers of America National Services 7530 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 983-4243 (o); (952) 941-0428 (f) dperry@voa.org ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 169 land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com February 27th , 2019 VOA Senior Residences PDP Modification Requests Project VOA Senior Residences is proposed to be a one building, 55-unit, affordable housing project for seniors on a 2.3 acre site in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district at the northwest corner of Joseph Allen Drive and Drake Road. The project would have 39 one-bedroom dwelling units and 16 two-bedroom dwelling units for seniors 62 years and older with incomes that range from $9,570 - $54,480 [20-80% of the area median income (AMI)]. Thirty percent (30% or 18) of the dwelling units will be for seniors in the lowest income range (20-30% AMI), making this project unique among affordable housing projects. The remaining 37 units would be for seniors with incomes in the 40-80% AMI. Volunteers of America The applicant, Volunteers of America (VOA), has understood the power of housing as a foundation for life since its beginnings in 1896. Over the years, VOA has grown into one of the largest and most effective nonprofit housing organizations in the United States and is one of the largest nonprofit providers of affordable senior housing. Its goal is to provide affordable, stable and safe homes for seniors. VOA is a member of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a national nonprofit group dedicated to helping make communities more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable through community planning and development. VOA is also a member of Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future (SAHF). SAHF's mission is to lead policy innovation and advance excellence in the delivery of affordable rental homes that expand opportunity and promote dignity for residents. SAHF’s membership is comprised of other industry leading non-profit affordable housing organizations such as Mercy Housing and Bridge Housing. Senior housing that is affordable, and in particular, housing that is affordable to the lower AMI ranges, is only feasible with financial incentives. VOA relies heavily on funding of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) from the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA). In order to qualify for these funds and to make a project ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 170 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 2 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com feasible, the site must meet certain locational criteria such as access transit, trails, open spaces and parks, food, and healthcare. VOA believes that the characteristics of this Property, as described below, make it an excellent fit for senior affordable housing, and that it will compete well with other proposals from across the State for CHFA funding. This is a key and distinguishing factor in VOA’s interest in the property. Site Characteristics • The property is located approximately 1/3 mile from the Rigden Farm neighborhood center which includes a King Soopers grocery store. Scotch Pines Shopping Center is located one mile to the west and is home to Sprouts Farmer’s Market. In addition to providing easy access to food, both of these centers include restaurants, health care, pharmacies and personal service shops. • The property is adjacent to the City’s Power Trail which provides safe and convenient pedestrian and bike access to other neighborhoods and recreational opportunities to the north and south. Stewart Case Park is located approximately one mile to the southeast. • There are three places of worship located within ½ to ¾ mile of the subject site. VOA is a church and faith based non-denominational organization. Therefore, having three places of worship nearby is beneficial to VOA. • The property is situated between two transit stops (one where the Power Trail crosses Drake Road and one at the Drake Road/Timberline Road intersection), providing direct access to the Fort Collins Senior Center as well as a variety of other destinations including CSU. This is very important to Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. • The project’s building and parking will be buffered from the Spring Creek Farms North single-family neighborhood directly to the north, by the existing 87-foot wide shared detention facility and additional landscaping. • Utilities and transportation infrastructure (including an interconnected system of accessible City sidewalks) are in place to serve the project. • The location of the Police Services building only a few blocks away will enhance the sense of safety and security for the senior residents. • The property’s characteristics align with the planning principles and policies for senior affordable housing as set forth in the City Plan. Please see the zoning map and aerial view on the next page for the location of the property and the zoning and land uses in the vicinity. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 171 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 3 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 172 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 4 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com The goals of VOA align with City goals to provide affordable housing for seniors and the property is well situated to serve a community of elderly residents without negatively impacting the adjacent neighborhoods. However, the project cannot move forward without modifications from the Land Use Code standards that would allow a higher density and thus lower per-unit development costs in order for it to qualify and successfully compete for the necessary financial support. When the Land Use Code was initially adopted it envisioned that there would be occasions where a project would be a good fit, but for various reasons did not meet the specific standards of the Land Use Code. The modification process and criteria in Land Use Code Division 2.8 provide for an evaluation of these instances on a case-by-case basis. Four alternate criteria [See LUC 2.8.2(H)(1) through (4)] were established so that decision-makers could understand under what circumstances modifications may be appropriate. VOA requests three modifications from the LMN zone district standards and one modification from a General Development Standard. Zone District Standards / Requests for Modification 1. LUC 4.5(D) Land Use Standards, (1) Density (b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, except that affordable housing projects (whether approved pursuant to overall development plans or project development plans) containing ten (10) acres or less may attain a maximum density, taken as a whole, of twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. Request: VOA Senior Residences proposes 18.1 dwelling units per gross acre. 2. LUC 4.5 (E) Development Standards (4) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight (8) Dwelling Units. . . . (a) Maximum Number. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be twelve (12). Request: VOA Senior Residences proposes 55 dwelling units in one building. 3. LUC 4.5 (E) Development Standards (4) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight (8) Dwelling Units. . . . (i) Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area (excluding garages) shall be fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 173 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 5 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com Request: VOA Senior Residences proposes one building with 54,000 square feet gross floor area. Justification for Approval of Zone District Modifications While the Land Use Code only requires that one of the four alternate criteria be met, VOA asserts that the three modifications outlined above meet three of the four approval criteria [LUC 2.8.2(H)(1), (2) and (3)] and that they would not be detrimental to the public good. Note that the text of the approval criteria are italicized. Equally Well or Better LUC 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 standards for which modifications are requested are intended to support the overall purpose of the LMN zone district: Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) (A) Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended 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. The project, if approved with the modifications sought, would add diversity and variety to the types of housing available in the immediate vicinity. The senior affordable housing will be integrated into and complement an area that currently consists of predominantly lower density single family and market-rate multi-family residential. A healthy mixed-use neighborhood includes age diversity and the addition of seniors into the area will enhance the area. While the height and size of this one building will be comparable to each of the 11 existing apartment buildings across Joseph Allen Boulevard at the Trails at Timberline, the overall impact of one building is significantly less than 11 buildings. The project will function in harmony with the existing residential characteristics of the neighborhood much like the VOA owned and managed Sanctuary Place Apartments at ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 174 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 6 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 3731 Kunz Court. VOA has a track record of maintaining the Sanctuary Place Apartments so that the visual curb appeal remains high, which ensures that the development is a good neighbor. The project would shield the Spring Creek Farms North neighborhood from the traffic noise associated with Drake Road, an arterial street. Traffic generated by the project will have traffic patterns similar to traffic from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Also, because the Property is an infill site surrounded with existing development, it is well served by the existing pattern of streets, sidewalks, trails and transit opportunities. In conclusion, VOA believes that the project, with the requested modifications of standards, will promote the purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with such standards. Alleviate Defined Problem / Address Community Need LUC 2.8.2(H)(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 The need to increase the amount of affordable housing in Fort Collins is widely recognized and fully documented in the Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis, the Housing Affordability Policy Study, the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, the Social Sustainability Strategic Plan and the Fort Collins City Plan/Plan Fort Collins. Please note the following data found in the City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2015-2019. According to the Highland Group’s report Need and Opportunities in Housing and Care: Next 25 Years, there is a significant unmet demand for more age- qualified affordable rentals. The demand for age-qualified, affordable rentals is reflected in the amount of cost-burdened seniors in Fort Collins. According to HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, there are approximately 2,474 cost-burdened elderly households (defined by HUD as households with a head, spouse or sole member that is at least 62 years old) earning less than 80% AMI. The number of cost-burdened seniors is likely to grow during the course of the next few years while the proposed project is under development. Larimer County will see a large growth in its senior population over the next 15 years. By 2030, the senior population in Larimer County will likely double according to the Fort Collins GAPS Analysis. Overall it is estimated that there will be 3,727 total age 62 and over renter households in the greater Fort Collins area in 2019 (see the Preliminary Demand Analysis, prepared by the Highland Group, February, 2019.) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 175 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 7 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com The City Plan Principles and Policies listed below make it clear that the City desires to encourage a variety of housing types and densities, as well as, make affordable housing available for residents with special needs, including the elderly. Policy LIV 5.5 Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of affordable units in isolated areas Policy LIV 6.4 Permanent Supply of Affordable Housing Create an inventory of affordable housing consistent with the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Policy LIV 6.5 Aging in Place Retain attainable housing options in existing neighborhoods so that long-term residents can “age in place.” Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing Encourage public and private for- profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. Policy LIV 8.3 – Offer Incentives Support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives, such as special assistance to offset the costs of the City’s impact fees and development requirements, air rights, energy saving features, and reducing local government barriers to the construction of and the rehabilitation of affordable housing units. Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of affordable units in isolated areas. The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2015-2019 states that affordable housing has a direct impact on the social, economic and environmental health of our community. The goal of the Plan is to have 6% of Fort Collins’ housing stock comprised of affordable housing by 2020. To reach this goal, the Plan calls for 188 units to be completed in ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 176 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 8 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com each year of the Plan’s five-year period, or a total of 940 affordable units. However, with 272 units built in the last three years and only 276 more in the development review pipeline, it is anticipated that the City will fall short of its goal by 392 units (or 41%). Although the City experienced a small surge in the production of new affordable rental housing from 2014-2018 after the awarding of State Division of Housing “Disaster Relief” funds for flood relief, those projects are now finished and the number of new affordable rental housing units in the pipeline is very limited. The goal of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2020-2024 is to have 10% of Fort Collins’ housing stock comprised of affordable housing built utilizing affordable housing programs by 2025. To achieve this goal, there would need to be 228 units completed each year of the Plan’s five-year period or a total of 1,140 additional units. With limited land and financing resources, this level of affordable housing production is going to be difficult to achieve. VOA knows firsthand of the desperate need for more affordable housing in Fort Collins. VOA developed its first affordable senior housing project in Fort Collins in 2004. Sanctuary Place Apartments, located at 3731 Kunz Court, has 60 one bedroom/one bathroom Independent Living Facility units for seniors aged 62 years and over. The rent is 30% of a resident's adjusted monthly income. Sanctuary Place has been consistently fully occupied with a wait listing since it opened, which support the case for additional affordable senior housing in Fort Collins. VOA will be able to pre-lease the new units at the proposed project from the Sanctuary. The project can substantially address the important community need described above by providing 55 units of affordable senior housing in a location where residents can feel safe and can readily access transit, food, health care, shopping and recreational opportunities. The 55 units represent approximately one third of the targeted annual goal of 188 units for 2019. As previously noted, eighteen of the Project’s 55 units will be restricted at 20-30% AMI. The Highland Group, in its Preliminary Demand Analysis for VOA, noted that units at these extremely low AMI levels are in great demand in Fort Collins: currently there are no Low Income Housing Tax Credit units restricted at the 20% AMI and only 53 units restricted at 30% AMI. Finally, at the City Council’s most recent work session devoted to gaining direction on potential incentives to promote the production of additional affordable housing, the top recommendations of the City’s Internal Housing Task Force were presented. These recommendations included, among others, decreasing development costs by (i) increasing opportunities for density bonus’s; (ii) relaxing parking standards; and (iii) relaxing certain design standards. Staff’s follow up memorandum outlining the City Council’s direction noted the Council’s support for the idea of flexible development standards that also protect quality of life, safety, and neighborhood character. Please note that the modifications being sought by VOA directly relate to the recommendations supported by City Council. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 177 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 9 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com Without the proposed modifications to density, number of dwelling units and building size, the project is not feasible. Because the CHFA funding program favors projects with more cost-efficient construction and operation, e.g. the development costs (including the cost of the land) can be spread out over more units, the ability to secure funding will be is drastically compromised. In VOA’s experience, a project without the modifications would certainly not be capable of development as affordable units for seniors because of the high per-unit development costs. Therefore, strict application of the three zone district standards from which modifications are requested would render the VOA Senior Residences financially infeasible. In further support of this criterion for approval, the proposed modifications to the Zone District Standards would not impair the purposes of the Land Use Code as set forth in Section 1.2.2 and would, in fact, improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal. (C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. (G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. (H) reducing energy consumption and demand. (I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (J) improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (O) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. Exceptional Conditions LUC 2.8.2(H)(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; The property is encumbered by a 0.74 acre permanent drainage easement for a detention pond that serves the Spring Creek Farms North single-family subdivision to ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 178 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 10 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com the north and this property. The existence of the detention pond, dedicated by a prior owner of both properties, permanently prevents any development in that area and resulting in a buildable area of just over 1.5 acres. A strict application of the three Zone District Standards for which modifications are sought would significantly increase development costs, making the affordable housing project financially infeasible. Other LMN uses would also be very difficult to develop on this small site that fronts on a major arterial street. Single-family residences along an arterial street generally have significant buffers and fencing and face away from the arterial street. Multi-family development along arterial streets is more acceptable, however, this site is much too small to accommodate a typical, market rate multi-family housing project and its associated parking requirements. Retail uses, while permitted in the LMN zone district, would need to be located in a neighborhood center. VOA believes that the small size of the buildable portion of the property (1.5 acres) along with its proximity to Drake Road result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties that make it difficult to develop typical LMN uses. It is unique property with limited development potential that happens to work very well for the senior housing that VOA is proposing. Public Good LUC 2.8.2(H) 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 …: The granting of the three modifications related to density, number of dwelling units and building size would not be detrimental to the public good. In fact, the ability to integrate safe, comfortable and affordable housing for the senior citizens of our community into existing neighborhoods is of great social benefit. The development of one larger building with a higher density on this property does not negatively impact the public good and continues to provide good transitions to surrounding development. The building in the project is similar in proportion to the Trails at Timberline buildings, and the surrounding single family neighborhoods are already effectively buffered from this property by large existing drainage facilities, a major arterial roadway, and intervening open spaces, trails and railroad tracks. See the maps on page 3 to see the property’s location in relation to the surrounding development and note the following: • The property is located at the south end of small and narrow (393 feet wide) area of LMN zoning. • To the east is the Trails at Timberline apartments in the MMN zone; this is a 16-acre multi-family housing project with eleven 3-story buildings and a gross density of 17.4 du/ac. • Meadows East neighborhood in RL zone is to the south; homes have privacy fences and ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 179 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 11 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com are separated from the Property by Drake Road (major arterial 80-104 feet wide with 4 travel lanes, left turn lane and median). • The Lake Sherwood neighborhood in RL zone to the southwest is buffered by a large open area at its entrance and mature landscaping. • The Parkwood East neighborhood in RL zone to the west is buffered from the property by a large open space/detention area, the Power Trail, the UPRR right-of-way and each home’s privacy fencing and mature landscaping. • Spring Creek Farms North is the closest neighbor located in LMN zone to the north; the five adjacent homes are separated from the project by an 87-foot wide shared detention facility. In conclusion, VOA believes that the project, with the requested modifications of standards, will not be detrimental to the public good and in fact enhance the neighborhood. General Development Standard / Request for Modification 4. LUC 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use. (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking spaces per dwelling unit One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Request: VOA proposes to provide 46 off-street parking spaces for 55 dwelling units, instead of 87 spaces required by this standard (see table below). Number of Bedrooms/ Dwelling Unit VOA Senior Residences Parking spaces per dwelling unit Parking spaces per dwelling unit-required One or less 39 1.5 59 Two 16 1.75 28 Total spaces required 87 Justification for Approval of General Development Standard Modification ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 180 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 12 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com VOA asserts that the modification to the parking standard meets two of the four approval criteria [LUC 2.8.2(H)(1) and (2)] and that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good Equally Well or Better LUC 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 overall purpose of the Land Use Code for Access, Circulation and Parking, found at LUC §3.2.2(A), is: This Section is intended to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. The parking standards of the LUC based on the bedroom to parking separations that apply to all multi-family developments regardless of the demographic of the residents; the same standard applies for all possible mixes of residents, e.g. singles, couples, students, families of any size, and senior citizens (with the exception of rent-by-the bedroom, which are subject to a higher standard). While it is appropriate to encourage a mix of occupants, a housing community that is age-restricted to individuals age 62 or older should be allowed to provide less off-street parking if the actual need is less. Research indicates that senior citizens require less parking than what the Land Use Code standard would require for other types of projects. Matt Delich, Delich Associates, performed a Parking Demand Analysis to determine the peak parking demand for the project. See attached. According to the Parking Generation, 5th Edition, ITE, the average peak parking demand for Senior Adult Housing (Code 252) is 0.61 vehicles (occupied spaces) per dwelling unit, and the 85th percentile parking demand, or the highest parking demand rate, is 0.67 vehicles per dwelling unit. Using the highest demand rate for the proposed 55 dwelling units, the peak parking demand would be 37 occupied spaces [(55)(0.67)] for the residents and day-to-day visitors. It is also recommended two parking spaces be provided for the on-site manager and the maintenance person, bringing the total peak parking demand to 39 parking spaces. Therefore, the 46 parking spaces that will be provided result in a ratio of .84 parking space per unit, which exceeds the calculated peak parking demand by 7 spaces. In 2016, in response to a similar request to provide fewer parking spaces than required (.73 parking spaces per unit) for the Oakridge Crossing affordable senior housing project, the City staff did an exhaustive study of existing senior housing projects in Fort Collins as well as some located in other cities. After conducting day time and night time ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 181 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 13 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com parking counts and observations at seven local projects and three in Denver, and examining national case studies, City staff made the following findings (paraphrased from the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board for the Oakridge Crossing PDP): • Case studies and national research increasingly supports reduced parking demand at senior apartment projects. Studies have discovered a strong link between lower parking demand and projects specifically catering to low income seniors. • A large majority of local senior apartment projects also feature a reduction in the number of parking spaces compared to what is required by the Land Use Code for market rate and mixed-age multifamily projects. • Staff counts and observations at local senior apartment projects, found a majority are able to meet their parking demands. Even when using the parking ratio proposed at Oakridge Crossing (.73 per unit) • One of the best local comparisons to Oakridge Crossing was Legacy Senior, which features a similar context to Oakridge Crossing and similar demographics, and was able to meet its parking demand with .71 spaces per unit. Even with the low ratio, Legacy experienced 20% vacant vehicle spaces in 2016. In order to promote viable alternatives to car ownership, the project was carefully evaluated by VOA for the safety, efficiency and convenience of alternative modes of transportation. As noted in the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Matt Delich on February 21, 2019, the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service at the site will all meet the City LUC requirements. In addition to pedestrian/bike networks and the transit system readily available to residents of the project, seniors will also have the opportunity to utilize SAINT (Senior Alternatives in Transportation) and PACE (Program for All- inclusive Care for the Elderly), both of which provide personal transportation services. With all of these alternatives available, the Project residents will not have to rely as much on car ownership as a typical multi-family development. Finally, in the unanticipated case where increased demand might occasionally occur, parking is allowed on Joseph Allen Drive adjacent to the property, ensuring that adjacent neighborhoods would not be impacted. In conclusion, the senior population that will be residing in the project will require less parking than required by the Land Use Code, and the number of spaces provided (46 or .84 per unit) will be sufficient for the residents, guests and staff, and will achieve the purpose of the standard to be safe, efficient and convenient equally well or better than a project with the required number of off-street parking spaces. Alleviate Defined Problem / Address Community Need ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 182 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 14 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com LUC 2.8.2(H)(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 Please refer to the justification for this section as written and compiled for the Justification for Approval of Zone District Modifications starting on page 6. The modifications to the zone district standards related to density, number of units and building size and this request for modification of the parking standards are all necessary and, as a package, will allow the development of much needed affordable housing for seniors on this property. Without the proposed modifications to density, number of dwelling units and building size, the project is completely financially infeasible, and the parking modification is unnecessary. If however, the prior modifications are granted and the parking standards are strictly applied, the project becomes practically infeasible, as there is not sufficient room on the property to provide 87 parking spaces. Finally, providing more parking than is needed does not promote the purpose of the Land Use Code, but is contrary to the fostering efficient and economic use of land. Approval of the modification to reduce the number of parking spaces for the project promote the following purposes of the Land Use Code, found in Section 1.2.2: (B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal. (C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. (G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. (H) reducing energy consumption and demand. (I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (J) improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (O) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. Public Good ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 183 VOA Senior Residences Modification Requests February 27. 2019 Page 15 of 15 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com LUC 2.8.2(H) 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. The research summarized above supports the number of parking spaces requested as adequate for the project’s residents, guests and staff. That fact, combined with a site design that does not connect the project’s parking area to the adjacent neighborhood, will prevent overflow parking in the neighborhood and avoid any detriment to the public good. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 184 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 185 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 186 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 187 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 188 OAKRIDGE CROSSING AFFORDABLE SENIOR APARTMENTS PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Excerpt for VOA Senior Residences PDP Review 3.16.2019 Staff Analysis & Findings: Staff finds that the requested Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) to reduce the minimum number of off-street parking spaces for the project’s residential units from 172 to 80 is justified by the applicable standards of Land Use Code Section 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. As stated in the purpose of the Access, Circulation and Parking Land Use Code section, the entirety of a project’s parking and circulation system should be designed with regard to safety, efficiency, and convenience for all travel modes. While the Land Use Code also speaks towards designing for the user needs of each project, the minimum parking requirements set a base level from which to judge whether a reduction in parking spaces has the potential to negatively impact project and neighborhood safety, efficiency, and convenience. A staff analysis of other local senior apartment projects, with an emphasis on senior apartments providing affordable units, was completed to offer a comparison of project parking rates: ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 189 The evaluation of approved parking rates for these 10 local affordable and market-rate senior apartment projects reveals 9 provide fewer spaces than what current Land Use Code standards require, ranging from a low of 25% of current standards at DMA Plaza to slightly over the required minimum (101%) at The Sanctuary. At these projects, the reduced parking rates result from a combination of previously-approved modification of standards, project approvals when parking standards were different, or due to reductions based on location factors, such as no minimum parking requirements in the first iteration of the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. In addition to a review of local project parking rates, other national case studies provide additional support to the applicant’s claims that senior apartments typically generate lower parking demand than what is customarily found at Senior Apartment Complex Studio / 1br 2 br 3 br Total Units Req. Parking* Parking Provided % of Req. Parking Parking Ratio (Unit) Chalet Apartments 121 Dartmouth Trail Fort Collins, CO 80525 14 21 3 38 64 57 89.4% 1.50 DMA Plaza 300 Remington Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 126 0 0 126 189 48 25.4% 0.38 Legacy Senior 413 N Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 32 40 0 72 118 51 43.2% 0.71 MacKenzie Place1 4750 Pleasant Oak Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 26 60 10 96 164 100 61.0% 1.04 Oakbrook I 3200 Stanford Rd Fort Collins, CO 80524 102 5 0 107 162 108 66.8% 1.01 Oakbrook II 3200 Stanford Rd Fort Collins, CO 80524 100 0 0 100 150 87 58.0% 0.87 Reflections Senior Apts 321 E Troutman Parkway Fort Collins, CO 80525 48 24 0 72 114 90 78.9% 1.25 The Sanctuary 3720 Kunz Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 60 0 0 60 90 91 101.1% 1.52 Rigden Farm Senior Living 2350 Limon Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 125 Min. 190 72 52.6% 0.57 Woodbridge Senior Apts 1508 W Elizabeth St Fort Collins, CO 80521 40 10 0 50 78 50 64.5% 1.00 Oakridge Crossing 85 25 0 110 172 80 46.5% 0.73 * Based on Current Land Use Code Parking Standards 1 Senior multifamily units only, excludes cottages & assisted living ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 other multifamily projects. Beyond the applicant’s Corcoran report, a study of affordable housing projects in San Diego highlighted the correlation between income and age of residents and a reduced need for parking. The San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study, completed in 2011, sought to examine the role of parking demand and availability at over 30 affordable housing developments in the City using data collected from over 2,700 household surveys, management surveys, and field observations. The parking study’s summarized findings include: ▪ Parking demand for affordable projects is about one half of typical rental units in San Diego; almost half the units surveyed had no vehicle. ▪ Parking demand varies with type of affordable housing (i.e., Family Housing versus SRO); higher demand is also associated with larger unit size and higher income. ▪ Household vehicle availability varies significantly with income; however, income may be correlated with other project characteristics, such as project type and size. ▪ Parking demand is less in areas with many walkable destinations and more transit service. ▪ In all of the projects studied, the amount of peak overnight parking used was less than the amount supplied. Such studies helped form the basis for recent legislative action in California that allows affordable housing developments to build less parking than what many local regulations require based on the age of residents and proximity to transit. Under California Assembly Bill 744, passed in 2015, the minimum amount of parking required for a 100% senior affordable development with nearby access to transit or paratransit is .5 spaces per unit. While a review of national studies and approved parking rates at local projects provides strong support to the applicant’s claim of reduced parking demand based on project demographics, a comparison of the proposed parking rate for Oakridge Crossing (.73 spaces / unit) to other local projects reveals the rate is still amongst the lowest of comparable local projects. In evaluating whether this level of parking proposed at Oakridge Crossing could meet project demand and was safe, convenient, and efficient for the project site and vicinity, staff also conducted daytime and nighttime parking counts and observations at seven local projects and three projects in Denver, two of which include previously- developed properties by the applicant team. In addition to the parking observations, the application of the Oakridge Crossing parking rate (.73 spaces / unit) was applied to each project to evaluate whether the observed parking demand at each project could be met at proportionally the same level as what is being proposed at Oakridge Crossing. Parking data and observational photos for each project are provided below: ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 191 Senior Community: DMA Plaza (126 units; 48 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 34 70.8% 34 70.8% Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 92 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes Senior Community: Legacy Senior (72 units; 51 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 40 78.4% 41 80.4% Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 53 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 192 Senior Community: Oakbrook I (107 units; 108 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 48 44.4% 51 47.2% Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 79 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes Senior Community: Oakbrook II (100 units; 87 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 44 50.6% 51 58.6% Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 73 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 193 Senior Community: Reflections Senior Apartments (72 units; 90 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 51 56.7% 56 62.2% Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 53 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Daytime: Yes; Night: No Senior Community: Rigden Farm Senior Living (125 units; 72 off-street parking spaces*) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 55 55% total, 76.3% on-site only 49 49% total, 68% on-site only Dedicated shuttle service provided? Yes Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 92 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes, accounting for both observed on-street and off street parking *Note: Rigden Farm Senior Living is a market-rate project with an approved parking modification for 72 off-street spaces, and the use of 28 additional on-street spaces. Parking counts include off-site and on-street parking observations. All cars parked on- street surrounding the project were counted and likely belong to visitors, staff, or residents, but cannot be confirmed. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 194 Senior Community: Woodbridge Senior Apartments (50 units; 50 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 26 52.0% 29 58.0% Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 37 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes Senior Community: Dahlia Square (Denver) (128 units; 83 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 58 69.9% n/a n/a n/a Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 94 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 195 Senior Community: Conter Estates (Commerce City) (114 units; 96 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 80 83.3% n/a n/a n/a Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 84 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? Yes Senior Community: Innovage (Thornton) (72 units; 77 parking spaces) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Day) Max. Observed Occupied Spaces (Night) 56 72.7% n/a n/a n/a Dedicated shuttle service provided? No Number of parking spaces if parked at Oakridge Crossing ratio (.73/unit): 53 Available parking at Oakridge Crossing ratio based on max. observed occupancy? No In addition to field observations and parking counts, staff also contacted several local senior apartment property managers. Responding property owners indicated they typically do not experience full parking lots or spillover parking, but that there is generally competition for vehicle spaces closest to building entrances. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 196 If the same parking ratio proposed for the Oakridge Crossing development were applied to the other senior developments observed, all would be able to meet their parking demand on-site with the exception of Reflections Senior Apartments and Innovage (Thornton); both projects would require an additional three spaces based on observed parking demand; however, characteristics of the Oakridge Crossing project may ameliorate parking demand in comparison to these projects as the project features a lower percentage of two-bedroom units and the minimum age for residents at Oakridge Crossing is higher than at the other projects. The San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study concluded project context was also an important factor in parking demand. Staff asked the applicant to complete a contextual analysis for the area around Oakridge Crossing and Legacy Senior Residences, which represents the best local project analog to Oakridge Crossing. Legacy Senior was recently constructed and provides slightly less parking proportionally than Oakridge Crossing is proposing (.71/unit versus .73/unit) and features similar demographics of seniors earning between 30% and 60% of area median income. The analysis compared nearby zoning, land-uses, and access to transit, and compared distances to nearby amenities: Distances to Services & Amenities Oakridge Crossing Legacy Grocery Store with Pharmacy 2,343ft 3,823ft TransFort Bus Stop 1,600ft / 1,931ft 10ft / 80ft Health Care Campus 3,832ft 8,261ft Bike Trail Adjacent Adjacent Hotel 900ft 2,900ft Bank 858ft 2,114ft Full Service Restaurant (breakfast) 575ft 1,769ft While the Oakridge Crossing vicinity has closer access to a grocery store and pharmacy, banks, and other healthcare facilities, Legacy Senior features a larger variety of nearby restaurants and has better transit access. Viewed comprehensively, both sites appear to offer a comparable level of services, although individual amenities and distance to amenities differ. Given a similar context, Legacy Senior is able to meet their project’s parking demand in a similar proportion of spaces as proposed at Oakridge Crossing, and still has approximately 20% of parking spaces left open. In addition, the applicants for Oakridge Crossing have also identified supplemental transportation services and measures available to project residents that reduce the need for vehicle ownership and support independent mobility: ▪ SAINT (Senior Alternatives in Transportation), provides personal transportation to seniors 60 years of age and older in Fort Collins and Loveland through a network of volunteers using their own vehicles to ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 197 help seniors get to doctor’s appointments, the grocery store, and social visits. The SAINT website claims over 26,000 rides were provided to seniors in 2014. ▪ InnovAge / PACE (Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly), is a comprehensive service providing personal in-home care and transportation to and from PACE centers for seniors with limited financial resources. PACE can also deliver meals and prescriptions and offers daytime social activities for members. ▪ Bikeshare: Oakridge Crossing will house two bicycles or tricycles with errand baskets and safety accessories for residents to check-out to complete nearby errands. ▪ Zipcar: The car-sharing company Zipcar has recently expanded in Fort Collins outside the CSU campus, placing car-share vehicles in and around downtown. Oakridge Crossing has joined Zipcar as an organizational member to allow residents access to the vehicle sharing service and plans to host some of the first Zipcar vehicles outside the CSU/Downtown core within the Oakridge Crossing parking lot for project residents and nearby neighbors and businesses. According to the Transportation Sustainability Research Center, the average carshare vehicle is responsible for a reduction in the need for 9 to 13 private vehicles. Summarizing staff’s observation, data, and findings: ▪ Case studies, national research, and legislative action increasingly support reduced parking demand at senior apartment projects. Studies have discovered a strong link between lower parking demand and projects specifically catering to low-income seniors. ▪ A large majority of local senior apartment projects also feature a reduction in the number of parking spaces compared to what is required by the Land Use Code for market rate and mixed-age multifamily projects. ▪ Staff parking counts and observations at local senior apartment projects found a majority are able to meet their parking demands, even when utilizing the parking ratio proposed at Oakridge Crossing. Of the projects that could not meet the demand, they were less by only a few spaces, and their individual project characteristics may account for their increased parking demand, such as a higher proportion of two-bedroom units and younger residents. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 198 ▪ One of the best local comparisons to Oakridge Crossing is Legacy Senior, which features a similar context to Oakridge Crossing and similar demographics, and is able to meet its parking demand at a parking rate slightly lower than what is proposed at Oakridge Crossing and still experiences approximately 20% vacant vehicle parking spaces. ▪ Oakridge Crossing features additional measures to improve resident mobility and reduce the need to own and operate a vehicle, including local volunteer transportation providers such as SAINT, on-site bikeshare, and planned on-site car share. Staff believes available data supports the modification request that 80 parking spaces can meet the parking demand for 110 affordable senior multifamily units. As the data has shown parking demand will not exceed parking supply, and the parking lot is being designed to Land Use Code standards, the parking provided at Oakridge Crossing should function in a safe, convenient, and efficient manner. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 199 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 200 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 201 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 202 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 203 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 204 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview VOA Senior Housing Joseph Allen Drive Neighborhood Meeting Notes January 31, 2019 Meeting Date These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript. Please contact staff at any time with any comments or questions: Clark Mapes, City Planner, ph 970.221.6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison, ph 970,.221.6076, statman-burruss@fcgov.com Agenda 1. Purpose of the Meeting and City Process Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City of Fort Collins Development Review Liaison Sylvia introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the City. The meeting purpose is to share information mainly between the prospective developer and interested community members, with staff supporting the discussion. It is early in the process, prior to any actual development plan application being submitted to the City for review. The meeting discussion is intended to be considered as a developer prepares a plan and application. Notes from the meeting would eventually be provided to the decision maker, which in this case would be the Planning and Zoning Board. Notes from the meeting are emailed to those who sign in. If a project proceeds to a decision hearing, another mailing would be sent to the same affected property owners who received the mailing for this neighborhood meeting. 2. Land Use Code and Zoning Clark Mapes, City Planner Clark explained the applicable zoning regulations for the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) zoning district. This includes permitted uses and standards for development. Standards for development include allowances for ‘Modifications’ of standards as written, and the proposal would require Modifications to standards for the number of dwelling units in a building; residential density; floor area of a multi-family building; and parking spaces per dwelling unit. The LMN zone allows 3-story buildings and the proposal is for 3 stories. Clark explained the criteria for considering Modifications that must be met in order to approve Modifications. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 205 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g Not e s - P a g e | 2 3. The Proposed Development Project Doug Snyder, Volunteers of America (VOA) Doug explained what Volunteers of America is, what they do, and who is involved in this proposal. He introduced a development team of architects, landscape architects, civil engineers, and VOA staff. VOA is a national non-profit with many projects and multiple office locations. He noted an existing VOA project in Fort Collins, The Sanctuary Apartments at West Horsetooth and Kunz Court which is an extension from Seneca Drive. That project has been in place for 15 years. It has had a waiting list for many years and the wait list has been closed due to its extent. VOA would develop, own and manage the proposed apartment project in perpetuity. This is an advantage to the neighbors and community in that; a) VOA will do everything and therefore is a sole point of accountability and b) VOA will own this building forever and will make thoughtful, good long term decisions regarding the project’s initial development and long term operations. The proposal is for a 55-unit building. The current plan is for approximately 75% 1 bedroom and 25% 2 bedroom units. Age will be restricted to 62+. No more than 2 occupants per bedroom are allowed. Very few units have more than 2 occupants. The project is planning to have a reduced parking ratio based on experience with other similar age-restricted apartments. This development proposal is prompted by the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) tax credit program which has a competitive financing program to fund affordable housing projects. This site is very good for the CHFA criteria due to proximity of the grocery store shopping center, trail, bus service, and direct bus link to the Fort Collins Senior Center. The project helps meet the goals of the City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Strategic Plan which calls for 188 new affordable units to be built each year. The proposed VOA project will only provide 30% (55/188) of the new units needed to reach this goal. 4. Questions About the Presentations Q: Once a 62-year old gets a unit, can they then bring in kids? Response (VOA): VOA can’t discriminate if a grandparent is a guardian. Out of 1,600 units in 23 projects in Colorado, VOA staff can recall perhaps one or two such situations over the past 10 years. It is possible but very unlikely. Q: Where did the 12 units per building limit come from -- what’s the idea for having that in the LMN zone? R: (City): The LMN zone was first created with a vision to include “missing middle housing” choices between single family houses and apartment complexes by encouraging neighborhood-scale dwellings such as 2,3,4,5, and 6-plexes. The zone has been amended to the point where it now allows 12-plexes. The reasoning for 12-plexes is the efficiency of stacking units in that type of building to allow increased affordability and less land used per unit. Q: What will be the effect on property values of single family houses? R: (City): That is not something that can be considered in the City’s review of development applications, and the City doesn’t have any standards, criteria or data for the effect that a given development project might have on various types of property values. The question often comes up in regard to houses already built near proposed multi-family housing development, but the City cannot legally consider it. Values of all kinds of property have risen steadily citywide through the years and with respect to housing prices, the main public concerns have been about affordability of housing for a complete spectrum of the population due to rising prices and rents. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 206 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g Not e s - P a g e | 3 5. Informal Group Discussion Sylvia concluded the presentation portion of the meeting and invited attendees to visit different stations around the room and discuss aspects of the project in smaller groups with members of the development team and City staff. General/Overall from meeting: o Concerned by height of building. You say the Police building is 3 stories but it’s way taller than that. o Why is the zoning less generous than along Timberline? Should be like development to the east. o This lot should be MMN zoning o Don’t push density to the limit o This will help buffer train noise/ Drake Rd o We need this! o Yes! o Can the development contribute to the park and pond maintenance? o What happens to the detention pond maintenance? o Residents will use public park to north, why do we have to pay? o Manage pets please! o Can’t think of a better use! o Why three stories? Two would be better o Following are notes from those discussions. o Why have plans and regulations for things like density and height if a developer can just propose anything regardless of the plans? Architecture: o Consider tapering height on north o What’s the height of a story? -Land Use Code limit is 12’-8” o Raised Toilets o Plugs/outlets o Lots of lighting o Medical alerts in units o I think it’s going to be great o No flat roofs. Pitched roofs add height but also add residential character o It could be worse o Check the floodplain. -There is no floodplain in the area Traffic: o 15-20 extra trip ends in the area at peak hour is not a lot of impact. ≈ 200 trip ends/day o I live near Sanctuary. The other VOA property. Fewer cars than I expected at the VOA property. Drivers don’t add to congestion at high traffic times. They stay home and the grounds are well kept. o The magnitude of traffic increment doesn’t look like a big deal. But seniors living here is being sold on the grocery store being close which requires a very dangerous left turn out onto Drake from Joseph Allen Drive. Residents could avoid this by going north to Charles Brockman and then turning right o There should be a requirement for a signaled intersection if you introduce a senior housing use with older drivers, because there is a higher density of people all trying to cross a high traffic intersection to go left to the grocery store using a stop sign, and because it is a main route for the police station highly used by Police. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 207 N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g Not e s - P a g e | 4 o There is already limited street capacity and putting an entry next to the detention would force any on- street parking next to the stop sign. This will create a more traffic buildup and impatient drivers if cars can't turn right while other cars are waiting to turn left onto Drake because the area where they could turn has a parked car. Site and Landscaping: o Trees on the north and west side could screen this from houses across detention ponds to the north and west 6. VOA Written questionnaire VOA invited responses to a written questionnaire. The 10 responses will be attached to these notes. 7. Comments received in a follow-up email from a neighbor: o This is like a rezoning and it shouldn’t be done now, after all the houses have been built and bought. It’s a switch at the last minute after what buyers were told. o The one big building has more mass than multiple smaller buildings, which is the point of the zoning. If there’s ways to mitigate that, it could be ok o I believe approving a zoning change to MMN on the 2.3 acre parcel for a 55 unit senior housing with limited parking is detrimental to the public good. I would support a 27 unit affordable senior housing project that is inline with the existing zoning requirements and had the city required parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. o The parking is inadequate based on how the developer/operator is already using an existing senior housing property in Fort Collins. The added parking on Joseph Allen Drive will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. o The density as approved would have less of a visual impact on the neighborhood and its privacy as the parking requirement of 1.5 parking spaces would space out the buildings and the buildings would be smaller in size. Adding this building will damage the value of my property and others based on a change in density. o It is not fair to the neighborhood to change the zoning to MMN after 2014 when the LMN property was developed and people started making home purchases with the plans and zoning in mind. as the use puts a greater burden on HOA resources and impacts the quality of life of the neighborhood with increased density. o The density would impact the HOA’s small park which is open to everyone. It should be a development requirement that if the density is increased, the developer should be responsible for 1/2 of the park cost if there is no reimbursement from the apartments and 1/3 of the park cost if there is reimbursement agreement from the apartments. Developer Team Follow-up Notes/Response The team will spend the next few weeks designing and studying the project to understand how we can address concerns and incorporate some of the ideas expressed. Pursuant to the recorded Detention Pond “Reciprocal Easement Agreement” north of the subject site and south of the single-family homes, Volunteers of America (VOA) will pay it’s pro-rata share of all routine maintenance expenses of the detention pond. A landscape buffer will be developed along the north property line of the subject site to help provide a visual buffer for the single-family owners. The scale and mass of the building will be addressed with articulation in the façade, variation in materials, and color. To help communicate this, the consultant team will develop graphic visuals, sections, and 3D views to articulate what the building will look like and how the project will appear and feel in the neighborhood. We are anticipating hosting a follow-up meeting at VOA’s senior property in Fort Collins, The Sanctuary Apartments, with the neighborhood to show a progress update and the comments that we are able to accommodate. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 208 Agenda Item 6 - A Item 6-A, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME Spring 2019 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code STAFF Ted Shepard PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in the Spring of 2018 and the Mid-Winter update in January of 2019. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are 19 proposed items that change, clarify or add to the Land Use Code. The revisions, by Article, are summarized as follows: • Article One – Organization – zero change; • Article Two – Administration – three changes; • Article Three - General Development Standards – 10 changes; • Article Four – Districts – five changes; • Article Five – Definitions – one change. ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Issues By Item Number 2. Summary of Issues By Item Number 3. Cross Reference of Issue Item Numbers to Ordinance Section Numbers 4. Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 209 Land Use Code Issues Thursday, May 09, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Issue ID# Issue Name 1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting. 1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. 1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review Checklist. 1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved. 1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units 1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to-floor allowance 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. 1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone. 1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to single family on platted lots. 1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency. 1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development Review and make other minor edits. 1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase the distance between street trees and traffic control signs from 20 to 50 feet. 1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision. 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. 1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1. 1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 210 Thursday, May 09, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Issue ID# Issue Name 1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. 1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height. 1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 211 Land Use Code Maintenance Process Annotated Issue List 1046 Placeholder for Formatting Reports and Ordinance Problem Statement N.A. Proposed Solution Overview N.A. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 1 N.A. N.A. 1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. Problem Statement This section covers all aspects of landscaping and has not been updated since initial adoption. There have been many changes over the years to best practices for landscaping design, installation, and mitigation. Issues related to mitigation for the Emerald Ash Borer, payment in lieu, tree cut-outs, tree protection and critical root zone are now addressed. Proposed Solution Overview The propose solution is a comprehensive update of the Landscaping section. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 6 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. 1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review Checklist. Problem Statement The problem is that the current Code explicitly details all the Stormwater features to be inspected with their inspections being at the point of installation. Adding new features, or points of inspection, would require a Code change. Instead, the proposed language will simply require inspections of specific private improvements and features at certain points of installation as called out in the Development Certification Checklist required to be submitted to Water Utilities Engineering. Any changes could then efficiently be made on the Development Certification Checklist as they arise. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 212 Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to delete the specific references to porous pavers, bioretention cells, rain gardens, sand filters, extended detention basins and underground treatment and replace with a broad reference to the Development Certification Checklist. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 9 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of improvements with a checklist. 1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved. Problem Statement The list of utilities and services for which compliance must be achieved does not include City’s newest utility - Broadband / Fiber Optic. Proposed Solution Overview Add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 10 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to the list. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 213 1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units Problem Statement A relatively recent development trend is to orient single family attached dwellings such that they do not front on public streets, private streets, or street-like private drives. Instead, these dwellings front on connecting walkways or major walkway spines and face common area open space often referred to as greenbelts, or greenways, or green courts. This results in the back of units facing a private alley and consisting only of the garage with no direct doors into the individual unit. Consequently, emergency responders and their equipment can only gain access to these dwellings and stage their equipment from these private alleys at the rear of the units. But in order to get into the unit, emergency responders must go around three sides of the building to the front. Such arrangements also require alleys to be named and that addresses be posted in the back. The standard requirement for building perimeter access for fire fighting in the Fire Code for the Poudre Fire Authority is 150 feet as measured from the designated fire lane around the building. While this standard is adequate for addressing the physical building perimeter, and may be slightly increased if there is an automatic fire sprinkler systems, it is silent with regard to doors that provide access into individual units for medical emergencies. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add a requirement that at least one door provide direct access for emergency responders into an individual single family attached unit and not be greater than 150 feet from where emergency responders and their equipment can stage and this access cannot be through the garage. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 13 3.5.2(D)(3) Requires at least one door into single family attached dwellings be within 150 feet of emergency access staging area. 1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to floor allowance Problem Statement This section allows the height of a residential structure to measured as a maximum of 25 feet from floor-to-floor. This standard contains two references: commercial and residential. The reference to residential was inadvertently not deleted at the time a newer standard was adopted which calls for the maximum vertical height of 12 feet, eight inches, for each residential story, which is now the prevailing standard. The two standards are in conflict. Also, at this time, adding a reference to industrial would provide further ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 214 explanation as industrial buildings are more likely to rely on greater distances between floors than commercial buildings such as offices, hotels, retail stores and the like. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to delete the reference to residential in the standard that allows commercial buildings to have a maximum height of 25 feet from floor-to-floor and add a reference to industrial buildings. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 14 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential, adds industrial to measuring maximum building height. 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. Problem Statement The creation of private sector wireless communication networks has evolved since the adoption of the federal Wireless Telecommunication Act of 1996. As originally implemented, monopoles, ranging in height from 40 to 100 feet, were deemed adequate to provide coverage over a specified geographic area. Now, with new technologies, and a higher concentration of users in urban areas, providers are building networks that use a combination of facilities (pole-mounted antennas) and equipment (building-mounted antennas) that are at lower heights but more frequently dispersed. Recently staff has processed two Requests for Additions of Permitted Use to allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the R-L zone. Both were located on nonresidential properties, mitigated by stealth installation and both were approved. With large areas of the City zoned R-L, and with the demand by consumers for coverage and market response to provide coverage, allowing Facilities in the R-L would be appropriate but restricted to non-residential properties. As mitigation, installations using stealth techniques, such as church steeples, bell towers or silos would be required. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type Two permitted accessory use in the R-L zone with standards restricting installations to nonresidential properties and using stealth technology as visual mitigation. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 15 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2 Accessory Use in R-L. 16 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L. 1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone. Problem Statement Storage units are a land use that is contrary to the vision for urban evolution of synergistic uses in the C-S-zoned portions of the North College Avenue corridor. The vision is explained in the adopted North College Corridor Plan. An Urban Renewal Plan, Market Analysis, and an Infrastructure Funding Plan are also in place to help implement the vision. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 215 The City and its Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) continually seek solutions to remedy problems of past ad hoc subdivision of land when the area was the outskirts of town along US Highway 287. Examples of such problems are defective and inadequate street layout and faulty lot layout in relation to accessibility, utility infrastructure, drainage, flooding, and overall functionality as part of the city. Retrofitting needed infrastructure and improving functionality generally depend upon cooperation and participation across various existing land parcels. Assembly of land or land pooling by owners of multiple parcels is needed in some cases to form more cohesive development. These issues are described in plan documents. The risk of a new storage unit development project creating a potentially new obstacle to achieving the vision and goals has been recognized by staff and the URA CAG for some time. There have been inquiries by owners where this would be the case. In discussions with staff, inquiries have so far not become actual development proposals. Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities are a relatively expedient use with minimal need for connectivity or public infrastructure, creating spots of low activity with no synergy with surrounding parcels. Storage uses exist and are appropriate in an Industrial zone portion of the area on the east side of North College Avenue. A significant amount of public investment has been expended in the corridor to implement the vision and remedy problems. Local, State and Federal funds have been used to construct major public improvements from Jefferson Street to State Highway 1 including street, railroad, drainage, and other utility infrastructure with associated beautification and pedestrian improvements. Staff’s latest estimate of public investment since adoption of the North College Corridor Plan in 1995 is in the range of $50-60 million. This investment has resulted in economic activity and real estate development projects such as the North College Marketplace, Lyric Cinema, Crowne Apartments at Old Town North, and Jax Expansion among others. Since the original 1995 North College Corridor Plan and its associated zoning, conditions have changed to the point where there is positive economic momentum resulting in urban evolution, but crucial improvements are still needed in key portions of the area where a storage unit development would be incompatible. Proposed Solution Overview Delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities from the North College Avenue corridor area in C-S, Service Commercial zone district. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 20 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from N. College in C-S zone. 1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to single family on platted lots. Problem Statement The Applicability Section at the beginning of Article 3 contains terminology and language that confuses applicability to single family houses. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the language to add clarity with regard to single family detached dwellings. Related Code Revisions ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 216 Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 5 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family detached dwellings. 1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency. Problem Statement The definition of ‘Neighborhood Center’ in the LMN zone does not match the standards for the LMN zoning district in Article 4. The difference: the LMN zone district includes mixed-use dwelling units as an option for one of two uses that must be combined in order to qualify a development as a Neighborhood Center; while the definition in Article 5 mentions “a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses…”. Thus the question is whether or not the inclusion of a dwelling unit above a nonresidential use qualifies a development as a Neighborhood Center. The LMN zone district list of Permitted Uses includes the following (note that mixed-use dwelling units are included): “Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores; convenience retail stores; personal and business service shops; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics; community facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; limited indoor recreation establishments; open-air farmers markets; and places of worship or assembly.” Likewise a Land Use Standard in the LMN zone district states: 4.5(D)(3)(c) “Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include two (2) or more of the following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly; convenience retail stores; retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics…” Contrary to those LMN standards, the definition of Neighborhood Center mentions two nonresidential uses: “Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses and an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place for a Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.” Proposed Solution Overview Amend 5.1.2, the definition of Neighborhood Center, to match the description in LMN zone district per 4.5(D)(3). Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 21 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for consistency with LMN permitted use. 1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development Review and make other minor edits. Problem Statement Since the adoption of the Code, projects that are not required to be subject to a public hearing, either Type One or Two, were referred to as Building Permit Review and then later renamed to Basic Development Review (BDR). Such projects include uses that are fundamentally considered compatible with the underlying zone district and are generally not complex. All relevant standards are applied to these projects. The original Code section that describes the overview of the development review procedures made no mention of this review ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 217 process because there was, at that time, no formal routing, commenting, project tracking and no requirement for a public hearing. Over time, however, BDR’s have become more formalized. Consequently, the Code would be more current and user-friendly if BDR’s were described in the overview. Proposed Solution Overview The solution is to add references to BDR’s in the overview section and make minor edits for clarity. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 2 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review. 1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase the distance between street trees and traffic control signs from 20 to 50 feet. Problem Statement This provision of code presently requires a 20-foot separation from shade and/or ornamental trees to traffic control sign and devises. Twenty feet of separation from a tree to a stop (or yield sign), as well as 20 feet of separation from a tree to a traffic signal has presented challenges in maintaining adequate sight distance to the traffic signage and signals. A greater separation of 50 feet would help ensure that line of sight to the traffic control device is adequately maintained throughout the maturity of the tree. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the standard from 20 feet to 50 feet. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 7 3.2.1(K)(2) Increases the distance between trees and traffic control signs. 1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision. Problem Statement We recently adopted a Code revision that removes the obligation to provide notice (sign posting, newspaper published notice and written letter to A.P.O.’s) for all B.D.R.’s that are not Minor Subdivisions that create new lots. Since all B.D.R.’s are appealable, there remains a burden to let the public know that a decision has been made. With the new revision, we have moved from providing an abundance of notice to providing a dearth of notice. If a B.D.R. decision is appealable, but there is no practical manner for an abutting property owner to become informed of such decision, then the appeal process lacks transparency. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to provide post-decision notice to abutting property owners. (Again, for Minor Subdivisions that yield a new lot, full notification is already required.) This notice would also include appeal information. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 4 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 218 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. Problem Statement City Council adopted Resolution 2016-074 expressing Council’s intent and General Policy Considerations Regarding Night Sky Objectives (September 20, 2016). The Resolution states that, “the City will incorporate dark sky policies and standards into Building Codes, Land Use Codes, and Streetscape standards when applicable and appropriate.” An interdisciplinary staff team continues to work with a consultant to comprehensively address lighting issues and promote dark sky policies both on a citywide basis, and out of the city in the case of natural areas. In the short term, however, staff has identified two quick fixes to acknowledge the advent of LED (light emitting diodes) technology and to implement a maximum correlated color temperature (CCT) to reduce glare. These two revisions have been identified as noncontroversial and are being practiced now but on a recommendation basis only. Codifying at this time allows for the implementation of dark sky policies in a timely manner. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to adopt the revisions identified by staff working on the dark sky policies. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 8 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees Kelvin. 8 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non- native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. Problem Statement Under (E)(1), the sentence that allows stated buffer zone dimensions to be adjusted based on performance standards is currently worded in a way that confuses the concept. General buffer zone dimensions are stated in a table, but those dimensions are accompanied by a proviso that the decision maker may reduce a dimension if listed performance standards are achieved. Current wording, however, suggests that the decision maker must reduce a stated dimension if necessary to achieve the listed performance standards. It would never be necessary to reduce a dimension to achieve the performance standards, that is simply incorrect wording. Rather, the performance standards are to allow a dimension to be reduced if the performance standards are met. This wording has caused awkward and confusing discussion in at least two development projects where a dimension was reduced based on achieving the performance standards, but it was not necessary to do so. Under (E)(1)(c), the current language states that only existing trees and vegetation that are deemed significant per 3.2.1 - Tree Protection Standards for Landscape Plans - are to be preserved. Staff has found, however, that existing non-significant trees and vegetation have habitat value and must be considered for preservation and accounted for in any evaluation by an Ecological Characterization Study. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 219 Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution to (E)(1) is to reword the language for clarity. The proposed solution to (E)(1)(c) is to revise and add language that states all non-native trees and vegetation must be considered for preservation even though some species may not be considered significant under the Tree Protection standards for Landscape Plans in 3.2.1(F). This would allow clusters of non-native species such as Siberian Elms and Russian Olive to be considered for habitat and ecological values. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 12 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are not significant to be evaluated for ecological value. 12 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended. 1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1. Problem Statement The current Code section is in need of updating and enhanced specificity. City Environmental Planning staff have encountered numerous development projects where trees proposed for removal do not meet tree mitigation criteria in 3.2.1 under Landscaping yet provide habitat value, as determined by Environmental staff during site visits and/or biologists in ecological characterization studies. While tree mitigation in 3.2.1 accounts for lost ecological and environmental value, habitat value is secondary to tree condition, caliper and species, thereby disqualifying trees with habitat value from mitigation. There is a need to allow environmental planners to mitigate for lost habitat value to better reflect the intent of section 3.4.1 of the Code, which strives to protect natural habitats and features on the site and in the vicinity of the site during development. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed Code revision allows mitigation for trees not covered under Section 3.2.1 of the Code on properties containing a habitat buffer zone. Mitigation plantings will occur within the natural habitat buffer zone to maintain the site’s habitat and ecological function. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 11 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat value of nonnative trees and vegetation. 1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. Problem Statement As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 220 It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height limitations. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 17 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. Problem Statement As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights. It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height limitations. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 18 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height. Problem Statement As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights. It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height limitations. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 221 19 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized. Problem Statement When the LUC was established, there was no formalized Basic Development Review procedure. These projects were considered minor in scope and permitted subject to simply applying for a building permit and the review process was informally managed by the zoning administrator as a building permit review. As time went on, however, these projects became more complex requiring a review process more comparable to a P.D.P. versus a building permit. The term Basic Development Review was initiated along with a more formal review process, which now includes an appeal procedure and contained within a relatively new section 2.18. Currently, under the Common Development Review Procedures – Step 12: Appeals, there is no reference to Basic Development Review. Proposed Solution Overview Add a reference to Basic Development Review under the common development review procedures. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 3 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 222 Land Use Code Revisions Annotated Ordinance Index Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 1 N.A. N.A. 1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting. 2 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review. 1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development Review and make other minor edits. 3 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR. 1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized. 4 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters. 1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision. 5 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family detached dwellings. 1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to single family on platted lots. 6 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. 1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 223 7 3.2.1(K)(2) Increases the distance between trees and traffic control signs. 1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase the distance between street trees and traffic control signs from 20 to 50 feet. Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 8 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees Kelvin. 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. 8 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references. 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. 9 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of improvements with a checklist. 1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review Checklist. 10 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to the list. 1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved. 11 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat value of nonnative trees and vegetation. 1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1. 12 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. 12 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are not significant to be evaluated for ecological value. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 224 13 3.5.2(D)(3) Requires at least one door into single family attached dwellings be within 150 feet of emergency access staging area. 1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units 14 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential, adds industrial to measuring maximum building height. 1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to-floor allowance Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 15 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2 Accessory Use in R-L. 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. 16 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L. 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. 17 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. 18 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. 19 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height. 20 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from N. College in C-S zone. 1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 225 21 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for consistency with LMN permitted use. 1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 226 ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2.1.2(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.2 Overview of Development Review Procedures . . . (C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type of development application should be selected and submitted. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved through the following development applications: first through a project development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development plans, PUD Overlays, basic development reviews, project development plans and final plans are the four (4) five (5) types of development applications for permitted ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 227 uses. Each successive development application for a development proposal must build upon the previously approved development application, as needed, by providing additional details (through the development application submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4). Overall development plans, basic development reviews and project development plans may be consolidated into one (1) application for concurrent processing and review when appropriate under the provisions of Section 2.2.3. The purpose, applicability and interrelationship of these types of development applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3. Section 3. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 of this Code. . . . Section 4. That Section 2.18.3(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures . . . Step 7(D)(1 and 2) : (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, after consideration of the development application, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8). The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant,and to any person who provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property owners, and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com. . . . Section 5. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.1.1 - Applicability All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with the applicable standards contained in divisions 3.1 through 3.11 except that with the following exceptions: ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 228 (A) sSingle-family detached dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses on platted lots that are subject only to building permit review.under article 4, as well as any (B) aAccessory buildings, structures and accessory uses associated with the such single-family dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses listed in (A) above,. Applications for the development noted in exceptions (A) and (B) above must need to comply only with: (a) the standards contained in article 4 for the zone district in which such uses are located; (b) the standards contained in division 3.8; and (c) with respect to extra occupancy rental houses, the additional standards contained in sSection 3.2.2(k)(1)(j). Existing Development. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall continue to apply to ongoing use of land in a completed developments to the extent that the provisions of this lLand uUse cCode can be reasonably and logically interpreted as having such ongoing application. Section 6. That Section 3.2.1(A) through (I) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection (A) Applicability. This Section shall apply to all development (except for development on existing lots for single-family detached dwellings) within the designated "limits of development" ("LOD") and natural habitatarea buffer zones established according to Section 3.4.1 (Natural Habitats and Features). (B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy cover is created, diversified and maintained shading so that all associated social and environmental benefits are maximized to the extent reasonably feasible. These benefits include reduced erosion and stormwater runoff, improved water conservation, air pollution mitigation, to reduced glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality increased aesthetics, and improved continuity within and between developments. Trees planted in appropriate spaces also, provide screening and may mitigateion of potential conflicts between activity areas and other site elements while, enhancinge outdoor spaces, all of which add to a more resilient urban forest., reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, encourage water conservation and mitigate air pollution. . . . (D) Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. The groves and belts may also be combined or interspersed with other landscape areas in remaining portions of the development to accommodate views and functions such as active recreation and storm drainage. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 229 (1) Minimum Plantings/Description. These tree standards require at least a minimum tree canopy but are not intended to limit additional tree plantings in any remaining portions of the development. Groves and belts of trees shall be required as follows: . . . (c) “full tree stocking” shall be required in all landscape areas within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure as further described below. Landscape areas shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations and dimensions to allow full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high visibility sides of any building or structure. Such landscape areas shall extend at least seven (7) feet from any building or structure wall and contain at least fifty-five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground area, except that any planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen thirty-two (1632) square feet. A minimum planting cutout of four (4) feet wide shall be provided and the recommended lengths are as follows: eight (8) feet, ten (10) feet or twelve (12) feet. Applicants are encouraged to investigate and implement, subject to City approval, alternative methods or subsurface technologies to promote tree root growth. Planting cutouts, planters or other landscape areas for tree planting shall be provided within any walkway that is twelve (12) feet or greater in width adjoining a vehicle use area that is not covered with an overhead fixture or canopy that would prevent growth and maturity. . . . (2) Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of-way, except as described in subparagraph (b) below, in connection with the development by one (1) or more of the methods described in subparagraphs (a) through (ce) below: . . . (b) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street in a manner that fails to comply with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, canopy shade trees shall be established in an area ranging from three four (34) to seven (7) feet behind the sidewalk at the spacing intervals as required in subsection (a) above. Planting shall occur on public right-of-way if it is wide enough, otherwise trees shall be planted on adjoining private property to comply with this subsection. (c) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street and is ten (10) feet or more in width, or extends from the curb to the property line, canopy shade trees shall be established in planting cutout areas of at least sixteen thirty-two (1632) square feet at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing. (d) Ornamental trees shall be planted in substitution for the canopy shade trees required in subsection (D)(2)(a) and (b) above where overhead lines and ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 230 fixtures prevent normal growth and maturity. Ornamental trees shall be placed at least fifteen (15) feet away from any streetlight. (e) Wherever existing ash trees (Fraxinus species) are in the adjoining street right-of-way, the applicant shall coordinate and obtain an onsite analysis with the City Forester to determine replacement canopy shade trees either through shadow planting or other emerald ash borer mitigation methods. (3) Minimum Species Diversity. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required, and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan. Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10—19 50% 20—39 33% 40—59 25% 60 or more 15% (4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes. The Director City Forester shall provide a recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the requirements for landscape plans, including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as street trees. The following minimum sizes shall be required (except as provided in subparagraph (5) below): Type Minimum Size Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent Evergreen Tree 6.0' height balled and burlapped or equivalent Ornamental Tree 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent Shrubs 5 gallon or adequate size consistent with design intent or 1 gallon may be permitted if planting within the Critical Root Zone of existing trees Canopy Shade Tree as a street tree on a 1.25" caliper container or equivalent ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 231 Residential Local Street Only Any tree plantings that are in addition to those that are made as part of the approved landscape plan are exempt from the foregoing size requirements. . . . (F) Tree Protection Preservation and Mitigation Replacement. Existing significant trees (6- inches and greater in diameter) within the LOD and within natural habitat area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (2) below. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. All required landscape plans shall accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each labeled showing the applicant's intent to either remove, transplant or protect. Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to the following schedule and requirements and shall. Replacement trees shall be used to satisfy the tree planting standards of this Section. To the extent reasonably feasible, Rreplacement trees shall be planted either on the development site or, if not reasonably feasible, in the closest available and suitable planting site on public or private property. The closest available and suitable planting site shall be selected within one-half (½) mile (2,640 feet) of the development site, subject to the following exceptions. If suitable planting sites for all of the replacementmitigation trees are not available within one-half (½) mile (2,640 feet) of the development, then the planting site shall be selected within one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the development site. If suitable planting sites are not available for all of the mitigation trees within one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the development site, then the City Forester shall determine the most suitable planting location within the City's boundaries as close to the development site as feasible. If locations for planting replacement trees cannot be located within one-half mile of the development site, the applicant may, instead of planting such replacement trees, submit a payment in lieu to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division to be used to plant replacement trees to plant replacement trees as close to the development site as possible. The payment in lieu mitigation fee per tree is determined by the City Forester and may be adjusted annually based on market rates. Payment must be submitted prior to the Development Construction Permit issuance or other required permits. (1) A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than one (1) or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of contribution and value of the removed significant tree(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, significant Siberian elm, and Russian-olive and ash trees located in a natural habitat buffer found to contain ecological value, as provided in paragraph 3.4.1(D)(1) of this Code, shall be mitigated in accordance with subparagraph 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of this Code. The applicant shall select either the coordinate with the City Forester or a ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 232 qualified landscape appraiser to determine such loss based upon an onsite tree assessment appraisal, including, but not limited to, shade, canopy, condition, size, aesthetic, environmental and ecological value of the tree(s) to be removed. and by using the species and location criteria in the most recent published Guide for Plant aAppraisal guide by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Replacement trees shall meet the following minimum size requirements unless otherwise determined by the City Forester: (a) Canopy Shade Trees: 32.00" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent. (b) Ornamental Trees: 2.50" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent. (c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent. (2) Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall be exempt from the requirements of this subsection unless they meet mitigation requirements provided in paragraph 3.4.1(E)(1) of this Code: . . . (c) Siberian elm less than eleven (11) inches DBH and Russian-olive or ash (Fraxinus species) less than eight (8) inches DBH; (d) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) of wild or volunteer origin, such as those that have sprouted from seed along fence lines, near structures or in other unsuitable locations; (e) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) determined by the City Forester to be in poor condition. . . . (G) Tree Protection Specifications. The following tree protection specifications shallould be followed to the maximum extent feasible for all projects with protected existing trees. Tree protection methods shall be delineated on the demolition plans and development plans. . . . (2) All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division standards. (3) Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected existing trees with such barriers to be of orange construction or chain link 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 (½) of the drip line, whichever is greater. Concrete blankets, or equivalent padding material, wrapped around the tree trunk(s) ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 233 is recommended and adequate for added protection during construction. There shall be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill within the fenced tree protection zone. A tree protection plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Forester prior to any development occurring on the development site. . . . (7) 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. Low pressure hydro excavation, air spading or hand digging are additional tools/practices that will help reduce impact to the tree(s) root system when excavating at depths of twenty-four (24) inches or less. Refer to the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) diagram, Figure 2, for root protection guidelines. The CRZ shall be incorporated into and shown on development plans for all existing trees to be preserved. Tree Diameter at Breast Height (inches) Auger Distance From Face of Tree (feet) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 Over 19 15 Figure 2 Critical Root Zone Diagram ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 234 (H) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements. In approving the required landscape plan, the decision maker shall have the authority to determine the optimum placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees, vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the following criteria: . . . (4) creating visual interest year-round; . . . (I) Landscape Materials, Maintenance and Replacement. . . . (8) Restricted Species. City Forestry Division shall provide a list of specified tree species that shall not be planted within the limits of development and adjoining street right-of-way. For example, no ash trees (Fraxinus species) shall be planted due to the anticipated impacts of the emerald ash borer. (9) Prohibited species. For prohibited species reference Chapter 27, Article II, Division 1, Sec. 27-18 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 235 . . . Section 7. That Section 3.2.1(K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (K) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility and traffic control device separations. Exceptions to these requirements may occur where utilities or traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated locations, as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees. (1) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 23.) Figure 23 Tree/Streetlight Separations (2) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devicesMinimum of fifty (50) feet between street trees and stop/yield signs and traffic signals. . . . Section 8. That Section 3.2.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.4 Site Lighting . . . (D) Design Standards. The lighting plan shall meet the following design standards: ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 236 . . . (5) Light sources must minimize contrast with the light produced by surrounding uses and must produce an unobtrusive degree of brightness in both illumination levels and color rendition. Incandescent and high- pressure sodium light sources all can provide adequate illumination with low contrast and brightness and are permitted light sources. (11) All lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature (CCT) of no greater than three thousand (3,000) degrees Kelvin. Section 9. That Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. . . . (e) Drainage. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities required by the approved Development Plan Documents must be consistent with the Stormwater Criteria Manual as it may be modified from time to time. Such stormwater drainage facility must be verified by an authorized City inspector at the appropriate phases of construction activities as specified in the Development Certification Checklist issued by Water Utilities Engineering and available on the City of Fort Collins website. from the Department, including but not limited to the following: (1) Porous Pavers: (a) Installation must be verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the outlet, underdrain, geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part in the design detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents, and sub-base course. (b) Installation of this facility must be verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pavers and joint fill material. (2) Bioretention Cells, Rain Gardens, and/or Sand Filters: (a) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the outlet, underdrain and geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part in the design detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents, and base course. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 237 (b) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pea gravel course and sand or growing media layer course. (3) Extended Detention Basins: Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the water quality control box(es). (4) Underground Treatment: Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point at which the feature is installed but not buried. In the event of non-compliance, the City shall have the option to withhold building permits and/or certificates of occupancy or use any other legal remedy that may be provided in the City Code, the Land Use Code and/or the Development Agreement, as determined appropriate to ensure that the Developer properly installs all privately owned stormwater improvements associated with the development as specified in the Development Plan Documents. In addition, a “Drainage Certification” prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Colorado must be provided. The “Certification” must confirm to the City that all stormwater drainage facilities required to serve the property have been constructed in conformance with the approved Development Plan Documents so as to protect downstream property and the quality of Stormwater runoff from the property to comply with the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. Such certification must be in the form required by the City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual and Construction Standards. . . . Section 10. That Section 3.3.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.3.5 - Engineering Design Standards The project must comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services as certified by the appropriate agency or variances must be granted by such agency: • water supply • sanitary sewer • mass transit • fire protection • flood hazard areas • telephone • walks/bikeways ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 238 • irrigation companies • electricity • natural gas • storm drainage • cable television • streets/pedestrians • broadband/fiber optic Section 11. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features . . . (D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map. (1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive ecological characterization study of the entire property must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the City already possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following: . . . (e) the pattern, species and location of all non-native trees and any significant non-native trees, including Siberian elm and Russian olive trees, as described in paragraph 3.2.1(F)(1) of this Code, and ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 239 non-native vegetation that contribute to the site's ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic and cooling value; . . . Section 12. That Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features . . . (E) Establishment of Buffer Zones. Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and features shall be shown on the project development plan for any development that is subject to this Division. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the ecological character of natural habitats and features from the impacts of the ongoing activity associated with the development. (1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall determine the buffer zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the project site. The buffer zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance is established according to the buffer zone table below, but the decision maker may shall reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance so long as the reduced buffer complies with, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance standards set forth below are achieved. To mitigate a reduced portion of the buffer area, the decision maker may also enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance if necessary to ensure that the buffer complies with the performance standards set forth below. The buffer zone performance standards are as follows: . . . (c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees and other significant existing vegetation on the site. that contribute to the site’s ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, habitat and cooling value. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 3.2.1(F), all trees and vegetation within the Limits of Development must be preserved or, if necessary, mitigated based on the values established by the Ecological Characterization Study or the City Environmental Planner. Such mitigation, if necessary, shall include trees, shrubs, grasses, or any combination thereof, and must be planted within the buffer zone. . . . ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 240 Section 13. That Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (3) which reads in its entirety as follows: (D) Relationship of Dwelling to Streets and Parking. . . . (3) At least one door providing direct access for emergency responders from the outside into each individual single family attached dwelling must be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest emergency access easement or designated fire lane as measured along paved walkways. Neither an exterior nor interior garage door shall satisfy this requirement. Section 14. That Section 3.8.17(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.17 Building Height . . . (2) Building Height Measured in Stories. In measuring the height of a building in stories the following measurement rules shall apply: (a) A balcony or mezzanine shall be counted as a full story when its floor area is in excess of one-third (1/3) of the total area of the nearest full floor directly below it. (b) No story of a commercial or industrial residential building shall have more than twenty-five (25) feet from floor to floor. (c) A maximum vertical height of twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches shall be permitted for each residential story. This maximum vertical height shall apply only in the following zone districts: U-E; R-F; R-L; L-M-N; M-M-N; N-C-L; N-C-M; N-C-B; R-C; C-C-N; N-C; and H-C. . . . Section 15. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (e) to read as follows: . . . (3) The following uses are permitted in the R-L District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: . . . (e) Accessory / Miscellaneous Uses: ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 241 1. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. . . . Section 16. That Section 4.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (4) which reads in its entirety as follows: (4) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities must be located on a non-residential parcel and installation must be mitigated by use of stealth techniques such as steeples, bell towers, grain silos, and the like. Section 17. That Section 4.7 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) (D) Land Use Standards. . . . (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: . . . 2. On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single- family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet for a detached accessory structure. . . . (5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 242 sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lotfor carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1½) stories. (F) Development Standards. . . . (2) Bulk and Massing (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 243 (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (feet) from the wall below and does not exceed 25% of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 244 . . . Section 18. That Section 4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District . . . (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall not be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: 1. On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot area. 224’ ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 245 2. On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single- family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a detached accessory structure. 3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet for a detached accessory building. 4. The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. . . . (5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 246 where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. . . . (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. (F) Development Standards. . . . (2) Bulk and Massing. (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 247 six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). . . . Section 19. That Section 4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B) . . . (D) Land Use Standards. . . . (3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (4) Accessory Building without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within ground floor plus that portion of floor area of any second story the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 248 exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. . . . (E) Development Standards. (1) Building Design. . . . (e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all single- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (2) Bulk and Massing. (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 249 six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). . . . Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: . . . 28. Enclosed mini-storage facilities, if located at least two hundred (200) feet from North College Avenue or one hundred fifty (150) feet from South College Avenue. . . . Section 21. That the definition “Neighborhood center” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidentialuses and an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place for a Low Density Mixed-Use Nneighborhood as listed in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of ____, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of _____, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this _____ day of ____, A.D. 2019. ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 250 __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ITEM 6-A, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 251 Agenda Item 6 - B Item 6-B, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME Land Use Code Revisions – Variances by Director STAFF Ted Shepard PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding revision to the Land Use Code. This revision would allow minor variances that are considered routine to be authorized by the Director. This revision is accompanied by the annual Spring package of revisions to the Land Use Code but is a separate Ordinance due to the new authorization. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UItem 1105 Amend 2.10 – Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals – to allow certain variances to be considered by the Director instead of the Z.B.A. Problem Statement: Due to the growth of the City and the volume of cases being required to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, there has been an increase in the Board’s workload as well as staff time. Further, staff finds that in the recent past, approximately 25% of the variances are minor in scope and routinely approved by the Board. In order to address the over-processing of minor cases, and to allow more time for consideration of more complex issues, staff recommends that the Director, or his delegee such as the Zoning Manager, be granted the authority to be the decision maker for minor, routine cases of a limited scope. Our peer communities have implemented this approach successfully. This process improvement will be more efficient for homeowner- applicants, builders, contractors, architects, land planners, staff and board members with no loss of quality control. In circumstances where the Director deems appropriate, eligible cases may be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Proposed Solution: The proposed solution is to amend the Variances procedures to grant the Director, or his delegee, the authority to be the decision maker in certain cases. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 252 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2.10 - VARIANCES (BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS) . . . 2.10.2 Variances By the Director (A) The Director shall be authorized to grant the following types of variances, subject to the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below: (1) Setback encroachment of up to ten (10) percent (2) Fence height increase of up to one (1) foot ITEM 6-B, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 253 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW (3) In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot increase of up to ten (10) percent, provided the increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire lot. (4) Building height increase of up to one (1) foot (B) The Director may refer any variance described in (A) above to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and decision. 2.10.3 Variances By the Zoning Board of Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be authorized to grant all variances not subject to the Director’s review in Section 2.10.2(A) and those referred by the Director. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall follow the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below. 2.10.24 Variance Review Procedures . . . (F) Step 6 (Notice): For variances reviewed by the Director and by the Zoning Board of Appeals Ssubsection 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that a variance reviewed by the Director shall mail written notice (14) days prior to the decision instead of the hearing/meeting date and for variances reviewed by both the Director and the Zoning Board of Appeals, “eight hundred (800) feet” shall be changed to “one hundred fifty (150) feet,” and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for variance requests for: . . . (G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable, and in substitution for Section 2.2.7(A), the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code, shall review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for variance based on its compliance with all of the standards contained in Step 8. Step 7(B)—(G)(1) Zoning Board of Appeals Review Only (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats, Filing with City Clerk): Applicable. Step 7(B)—(C) and (E)—(G)(1) Director Review Only (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings as Public Hearing): Not applicable. ITEM 6-B, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 254 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Step 7(D) Director Review Only (Decision and Findings): Applicable and in substitution thereof, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request. The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to the property owners to whom notice was originally mailed and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com. (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: . . . (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Any variance which applies to the issuance of a Building Permit shall expire six (6) months after the date that such variance was granted, unless all necessary permits have been applied for obtained; provided, however, that for good cause shown, the Director Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a longer term if such longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, but in no event shall the period of time for applying for obtaining all necessary permits under a variance exceed twelve (12) months in length. One (1) six-month extension may be granted by the Director Zoning Board of Appeals. (L) Step 12 (Appeals): (1) Applicable and in substitution thereof, variances decided by the Director are appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any such appeal must be initiated by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Director within 14 days after the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing. The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (2) Applicable to variances reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of ____, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of _____, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ITEM 6-B, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 255 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this _____ day of ____, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ITEM 6-B, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 256 From: Paul Patterson <plpatterson3@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 9:31 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: language for code revision item 1105 Hello Noah, Thanks to you and the other folks involved for working on this. I think this is a good solution. Regards, Paul From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:27 AM To: Paul Patterson; Ted Shepard Subject: RE: language for code revision item 1105 Hello Paul, It has been in the “legal shop”. We received the attachment this morning. We did adjust the Notice requirement requiring a 14 day notice prior to the decision. Let us know if you have more questions. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Paul Patterson <plpatterson3@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 9:12 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>; Ted Shepard <TSHEPARD@fcgov.com> Subject: language for code revision item 1105 Hi Noah and Ted, The agenda material on the code versions doesn't include the proposed language for the LUC. Are they still in the legal shop? What I am interested is whether the no notification in item 1105 is still being contemplated. Thanks, Paul ITEM 6, Correspondence Packet Pg. 257 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME CSU LAKE AND PROSPECT PARKING LOT SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW – SPA190001 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University to construct a new surface parking lot at 615 Lake Street and 634 & 626 Prospect Road (parcels #9714300018, 9714000002, and 9714300026). Approximately 120 parking stalls are proposed. Primary access is taken from West Lake Street to the north, with emergency service access provided to West Prospect Road to the south. The total project area is approximately 1.4 acres. The proposed project is within the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N) zone district. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Colorado State University Facilities Management 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 OWNER: Colorado State University 01 Administration Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with Land Use Code Section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. Information regarding the SPAR review process and the Planning and Zoning Board’s role in that process is provided with the staff comments below. Attachment 2 to this staff report provides a summary letter from CSU outlining their purpose for the parking lot and their design considerations. Packet Pg. 258 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. UBackground: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North CSU CSU main campus South R-L Existing Residential East H-M-N Existing Residential West H-M-N Existing Residential In 1957, the entire project was annexed into the city as a part of the West College Consolidated Annexation. The project consolidates three properties -- 615 Lake Street, 626 and 634 West Prospect Road. All three properties were formerly single-family detached dwellings. Two were converted to boarding houses and the structures were later demolished. The property currently remains unoccupied. 2. URight of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references that allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the applicant’s governing body. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado State University Board of Governors by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. 3. USite Plan Advisory Review Procedures: The processing and evaluation of Site Plan Advisory Review applications is governed by Division 2.16 of Article 2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The section further defines the evaluation criteria for the “location, character and extent” of Site Plan Advisory Review applications. Evaluation criteria: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of- way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, Packet Pg. 259 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 3 sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. UEvaluation A. Location (Criterion 1 of the Advisory Review) With the SPAR review, the location criterion is evaluated based on City Plan and the West Central Area Plan (WCAP). The proposed project meets the location requirement with a use that is consistent with the policies in these plans. City Plan: As an institutional use that serves university functions, the parking lot use is supported by the recently adopted 2019 City Plan, which designates the area as ‘Urban Mixed-Use’ on the City’s structure plan map. The Urban Mixed-Use designation allows both private and institutional uses as described on page 96 of 30TUCity PlanU30T. West Central Area Plan (WCAP): As a component of City Plan, the proposed parking lot is consistent with WCAP, which provides specific support for campus related uses in proximity to the university campus as described on page 23 of the WCAP. Land Use Background: The underlying zone district is High-Density Mixed Use (H-M-N) and is given this designation based on the policies in City Plan and the West Central Area Plan (WCAP). The recently adopted City Plan designates the area as ‘Urban Mixed-Use’ on the structure plan map. The previously adopted City Plan designates the H-M-N area as ‘Campus District’ Both designations are intended to support private development as well as university functions. B. Character (Criterion 2 of the Advisory Review) The proposed parking lot meets this requirement by conforming to the landscape and other design standards established by the Colorado State University Aesthetic Guideline and CSU Facilities Construction Standards Manual. The parking lot layout is similar to the City’s parking lot layout dimensional standards, providing stall widths of 9 feet, stall depths of 17 and18 feet and drive aisle widths of 25 feet. The parking lot’s perimeter and interior are adequately landscaped. Perimeter landscaping is enhanced, serving to soften views of the parking and provide a visual buffer to enhance privacy for the existing residences to the east and west. CSU Facilities staff is also coordinating with City staff to comply with City drainage requirements. Bioswales and water infiltration methods are provided within the perimeter landscape and detention area. C. Extent (Criterion 3 of the Advisory Review) In terms of overall project size and parking coverage, the extent of the proposed surface parking lot is similar in scale to existing surface parking lots nearby within the H-M-N corridor. Packet Pg. 260 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 4 The primary focus has been to mitigate the proposal’s functional and visual impacts to City infrastructure and abutting private property. The following measures are incorporated into the SPAR plan: 1) Parking access is taken from West Lake Street to the north. Access from West Prospect will be gated for emergency access only in order to avoid ingress/egress traffic issues. 2) The interior of the parking lot provides an access route that has been reviewed and accepted by Poudre Fire Authority. 3) Transition space is provided around the parking perimeter. Both landscaping and privacy fencing are provided to separate the parking from the existing residences to the east and west. Solid fencing, 4 feet in height, is intended to screen headlights in combination with the perimeter landscaping provided. 4) All parking lot lighting provided will be fully shielded and down-directional in conformance with CSU standards. 5) A new 10’ sidewalk will be constructed along the Prospect Road frontage. The plan accommodates bus stop improvements adjacent to the new sidewalk. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on January 8, 2019. The focus of the discussion centered on issues related to traffic flow, lighting, privacy impacts and the operational needs of the parking lot. Neighborhood meeting minutes are attached to this staff report (Attachment 5). 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the proposed CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review SPA190001, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot SPAR is subject to evaluation by the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. and Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.16. B. The location of the CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot is consistent with the policies in City Plan and the West Central Area Plan, which are part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. C. The character of the CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot conforms to the landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by CSU. D. The extent of the proposed CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot is integrated into the surrounding context though the use of onsite and perimeter landscaping, appropriately designed fencing and lighting, accommodation of existing transit routes and utilities, public sidewalk improvements and access control to mitigate traffic operations. Packet Pg. 261 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review SPA190001 based on the findings of fact included in this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1) Vicinity Map 2) CSU’s Project Narrative 3) Site Plan 4) Site Plan Details 5) Neighborhood Meeting Notes Packet Pg. 262 Colorado State University Colorado State University Bennett Elementary Lilac Park Spring Creek East Dr W Pitkin St Bay Rd Hughes Way Sheely Dr Birky Pl S Whitcomb St Meridian Ave Juniper Ln Hobbit St Balsam Ln Wallenberg Dr G il g alad Way H i l l P o n d R d Ellis Dr Bay Dr University Ave Waters Edge James Ct Prospect Ln Moby Dr Burton Ct Braiden Dr A St Amy Van Dyken Way Summer St Blevins Ct University Ave W Pitkin St W Lake St Centre Ave Center Ave S Shields St W Prospect Rd / CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Location Map 800 400 0 800 Feet Site ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 263 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 264 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 265 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 266 634/ 626 PROSPECT RD. - 615 LAKE ST. PARCELS Lake Street Surface Parking Lot Site Plan 1 0 8 16 32 FEET NORTH Lake Street Prospect Road Daily Entrance PARKING TOTALS: 5 ADA 115 Standard 120 TOTAL ADA Parking (5 total) Shade Tree Typ. Detention Pond (Water Quality infrastructure) Gated Entry (Emergency Access Only) Continuous 4’ Fence (both East & West property line) Landscape Buffer Typ. (Mix of: Shrubs, ornamental grasses, ornamental trees) Transit Stop 15’ (Covered in Future) 60’ 10.5’ 7’ 13’ 13’ 23’ 6.5’ 50’ 50’ APRIL 2019 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 267 634/ 626 PROSPECT RD. - 615 LAKE ST. PARCELS Lake Street Surface Parking Lot Site Plan 2 0 8 16 32 FEET NORTH Lake Street Prospect Road 4’ Fence Typ. (both East & West property line) No Fence (New adjacent fence by property owner) PFA turning movement Light Fixture Typ. 22’-6” Height, cutoff shield 15’ 60’ 50’ 50’ APRIL 2019 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 268 CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Neighborhood Meeting Summary Neighborhood Meeting Date: January 8, 2019 City Staff – Attendees: Jason Holland – City Planner Applicant Contact: Fred Haberecht ‐ Fred.Haberecht@ColoState.EDU Project Information Presented: City Planner Jason Holland provided an overview of the purpose of the neighborhood meeting, as well as information on the advisory review process, next steps after the meeting and ways to provide further input on the proposal. Mr. Haberecht presented information about the proposed parking lot plan. An overview was provided of the proposed site plan discussing access control, parking configuration, pedestrian circulation, landscape screening, stormwater detention, water quality treatment and adjacent street improvements. The parking lot is proposed to be used primary as a faculty and staff lot during daily use and for game day stadium parking. 21’ of right‐of‐way will be dedicated along Prospect Street to accommodate utility easements and a new 10’ detached sidewalk and tree lawn along the Prospect Street frontage. Questions/Comments and Answers (answers provided by the applicant group unless otherwise noted). Parking lots [as a primary use] are not listed as a permitted use in this zone district. How/why is the parking lot use allowed here? Jason – The use is allowed because the land is owned by Colorado State University and therefore the proposed parking lot would be a part of the university campus. With the SPAR process the proposed use is based on Colorado state law for advisory reviews. This considers the project’s location and its consistency with the city’s Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan). The zone district is High‐Density Mixed‐Use Neighborhood (H‐M‐N). The evaluation of the project’s use is not based on this zoning classification, in which the permitted uses described are more specific than the Structure Plan. The evaluation of the proposal as a location for the proposed use is based on the Structure Plan and City Plan, which are broader planning documents. The underlying 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 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 269 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Page 2 Structure Plan designation is Campus District, which is intended to support both private uses that may support the university campus and the institutional development of the university campus in areas where land in the Campus District is owned by the university. Added note: (see pages 71 and 90 of City Plan). Is stormwater detention provided? Yes, in the southeast corner of the site. Comment: It looks like the detention is in the 21’ right‐of‐way dedication area? It should be just outside of the dedicated right‐of‐way. Jason – Added note: detention and water quality are not allowed within the right‐of‐way. City staff will review this concern when more detailed plans are submitted. Car lights? How will headlights be screened? The houses I own have bedrooms adjacent to the parking lot. You’re raising the grade up to drain the parking lot; won’t this also make the headlight issue worse? We have a deeper landscape bed along the parking edge than the city’s minimum of five feet. We plan on a combination of landscape screening and fencing. It’s a valid comment and we can take a look at the design along these edges. I’d be concerned about taller fencing being too monotonous, can you look at ways to provide screening and also vary the fencing design? Yes, we can look at this with city staff. Will the parking lot be open after dark? No, not all night. Parking restrictions are not enforced after 4:30, so anyone could park in the lot after 4:30, but overnight parking is not allowed. Overnight parking will be ticketed. Comment: The lot is for faculty and staff, but students can park there after 4:30. This lot is going to be heavily used. I’m concerned with the added traffic that will bring. How many parking spaces are proposed? Approximately 115 spaces. Why more surface parking lots? This is an old‐fashioned idea. This is going to contribute to pollution and encourage driving and not alternative transportation. This is a bad idea. With these new parking lots, there’s an increase in paving. I’m concerned with how this will increase flooding in the area and also pollution downstream. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 270 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Page 3 Fred – The plan provides stormwater detention to address the added paved area. This drains to the stormwater detention pond near the CSU Horticultural Facility. Jason – In addition to the required detention, a water quality design on the site is required to help clean the stormwater, such as a sand infiltration system or bioswale, before the water goes into the storm drain system. The property is owned by CSU? For how long? Yes, it’s owned by CSU. Will the parking lot have curb & gutter? Yes. Is this a permanent parking lot? It could be used as a parking lot for 15 to 20 years, but we don’t know for sure. Comment: We like that the main access is from Lake Street. We’d like to see access from Prospect Street be as limited as possible. Will access from Prospect Street be allowed on game day? Don’t know the answer to this yet. We will need to discuss this with city staff and we’d also like to discuss the project with the Stadium Advisory Group (SAG). Comment: The parking lot layout shown in the site plan seems like an odd shape and not the best design configuration. It’s too bad there isn’t land available to make a better parking layout. Is parcel to west available? The land was purchased by CSURF and is now owned by CSU. The north portion was purchased about 4 to 5 years ago; the south portion about 3 years ago. Can we get a copy of the map that shows the Campus District that was mentioned? Yes, see pages 71 and 90 of City Plan. The map is on page 71, and there is more information for the Campus District on page 90. Will there be parking lot lighting? What are the lighting standards? Jason ‐‐ The light source is required to be down directional and shielded to reduce glare. We sometimes call this fully‐shielded or sharp cut‐off lighting. We encourage the light poles in parking lots to be lower (20 feet instead 30 feet), so that there is less glare when looking up at the downward facing lights at the top of the poles. The other requirement is that 20 feet beyond the property line, the light level must fade off and cannot exceed 0.1 footcandles. I own the property adjacent to the east. I have concerns with new lighting shining into the bedrooms on my property. Where are the light poles going in the parking lot? ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 271 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Page 4 We’re at the conceptual sketch level and we haven’t looked at the light pole locations yet. We appreciate the comment and can look at the light locations and screening of the lighting. A resident asked to address the neighborhood meeting group and read a statement to the group. The letter is attached to the end of these meeting notes. Comment: CSU should pursue alternative uses for the property such as a pocket park, community garden or open space. We should be incentivizing transit alternatives such as shuttling students to campus. Mr. Haberecht discussed CSU’s parking policies and transit incentives. Two student lots were discussed, including the Moby lot and the Center Avenue parking lot near the south campus tennis courts. Both lots are ½ price and provide a shuttle service. Mr. Haberecht explained that the parking lot proposed is a smaller lot intended to meet parking needs in close proximity to campus. Comment: This is an unfortunate location because it’s the front door to the stadium. This is a missed opportunity because it could have been a front lawn for the stadium that would provide a stronger visual presence for the stadium. A resident asked the attendees to raise their hands if anyone supported the proposed parking lot. One resident confirmed support for the proposal, explaining that construction staging and material storage in the area is seemingly perpetual. Now that the property is vacant, the site is a dirt lot that could be used for construction staging. The parking lot is at least a better alternative than a dirt lot which would be an eyesore. No other residents confirmed support for the proposal in response to the question. Comment: I think fencing and landscaping will be key. You should look at the transitions and ways to screen the parking lot without creating a monotonous wall. You should find ways to vary the fencing design and provide modulation by varying the height or adding articulation depending on the screening needs along the length of the fence. There was agreement that the proposal should address this transition area and look at ways to make the fencing and landscape screening both effective and visually interesting. Can you tell us when the Stadium Advisory Group (SAG) meets? The next meeting is Monday 14 at 5:30 p.m. at the Lory Student Center room 304 ‐ 306. More information on the SAG, including contacts, meeting dates and agendas: https://source.colostate.edu/stadium‐advisory‐group/ Have you thought about the sidewalk layout in the parking lot? Would this need to go all the way through? The sidewalk starts at the center of the site as the collection point, along the parallel parking spaces and the entrance drive aisle. This seemed like a practical layout based on pedestrian flow. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 272 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – CSU Lake and Prospect Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Page 5 Will game day tailgating be allowed in this parking lot? We don’t know at this point, but it is a good question. This would be a good topic for the Stadium Advisory Group. How will littering/trash be handled? This would be handled through CSU campus staff and sweeping crews. Comment: bathrooms such as temporary porta‐potties in the parking lot would be helpful. Comment: I’m concerned about wildlife diminishment in the area, we see deer and fox in the area. With no more questions, the meeting adjourned at about 7:45 pm. Approximately 16 residents attended the meeting. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 273 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 274 Packet Pg. 190 Connections 1152 Silver Lake Drive Sacramento, CA 95831 (916) 799-6927 (c); (916) 395-7456 petersonaffordablehousing@gmail.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 168 President AmeriHealth Caritas District of Columbia 1120 Vermont Ave. 2nd floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326.8741 (o); (202) 408-0166 (f) kdale@amerihealthcaritasdc.com Assistant: Tenisha Watson Office: (202) 408-2019 twatson@amerihealthcaritasdc.com Mr. Steve Wakefield Director (07/01/16 – 06/30/19) 2nd Term Buckner International 700 N. Pearl Street Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 758-8040 (o); (214) 758-8154 (f) swakefield@buckner.org Assistant: Chris S. Allert Office: (214) 758-8041 CAllert@buckner.org Mr. James LeBlanc Director (07/01/16 – 06/30/19) 2nd Term President/CEO VOA Greater New Orleans 4152 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 905-3463 (o); (504) 482-1922 (f) (504) 905-3463 (c) jleblanc@voagno.org Assistant: Vickie Laurato Office: (504) 486.8662 VLaurato@voagno.org ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 167 %,.(6 <$5' '80367(56 '2256 :$//%803(56 :,//%(3529,'(' $5281'75$6+5220 &85%&87$1'5$03 723$5.,1*/(9(/ '5,9($,6/( 6,'(:$/. 75$6+ 75$6+ 5(&<&/,1* 5(&<&/,1* PROJ. DATE: NO. 17033 4/29/19 VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES East Drake Rd / (9( / (1/$5*('($67:,1*6(59,&($5($ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 159 -26(3+$//(1'5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 150 10 CRAB APPLE X 3 2" FAIR + 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING ADJACENT PROPERTY NO 11 COTTONWOOD 4" FAIR + 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING NO 12 HACKBERRY 2.5" FAIR 1 FOR 1 WITH NO UPSIZING ADJACENT PROPERTY NO REQUIRED MITIGATION TREES (EXCLUDES TREES TO REMAIN AND THOSE OFF SITE) TYPE COUNT REQUIRED MITIGATION TREES TREES PRESERVED 5 0 TREES TO BE MITIGATED 1 1 TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED 6 0 TOTAL 12 1 EXISTING TREES TO SAVE IN PLACE LOCATION OF TRANSPLANTED TREES EXISTING TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED ON SITE DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT LAND PLANNER SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 303.433.4094 MV CONSULTING 4640 PECOS Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 303.325.3271 OWNER MISC ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 TREE MITIGATION PLAN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 3REVISIONS P & Z 2019/4/29 22 PDP 2019/4/3 1 PDP 2019/2/27 FORT COLLINS, CO KR CA R18-062 5 OF 9 NORTH 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" TREE PROTECTION NOTES TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 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 DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING 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 OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION 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 AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (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: 9. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY. 10. A QUALIFIED ARBORIST SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM AN AERIAL AND GROUND EVALUATION ON ALL TREES THAT ARE IN POOR OR DEAD CONDITION AND SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT ON THE SUITABILITY OF RETAINING THESE TREES. TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TRANSPLANTING TREE #3 THROUGH #8, (THREE AUSTRIAN PINES AND THREE SOUTHWEST WHITE SHALL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A QUALIFIED TREE TRANSPLANTING ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 149 CO - 2 2 - CO PCN - 3 2 - AM JB - 2 PCA - 3 AM - 1 JB - 1 3 - PC2 1 - AS2 PN2 - 3 AS2 - 3 PP4 - 2 2 - JB 3 - PP4 PP4 - 2 JB - 3 4 - PCC AH - 4 EAST DRAKE ROAD JOSEPH ALLEN DRIVE 3-STORY BUILDING DETENTION SPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH FILING 4 EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2ND ANNEXATION EXISTING RETAINING WALLS, TYP RIGHT-OF-WAY 9' UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE, TYP. MONUMENT SIGN PROPERTY BOUNDARY 6' DETACHED SIDEWALK, EXISTING 6' PARKWAY, EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 6' DETACHED SIDEWALK, EXISTING 6' PARKWAY, EXISTING TRACT C LOADING ZONE AMENITY AREA TO BE DESIGNED AT FINAL APPROX. 4,300 S.F. UTILITY EASEMENT TRANSPLANTED EXISTING TREE SHRUBS TO BE MIN OF 3' TALL IN THIS AREA CANOPY TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE AM 3 ACER SACCHARUM `GREEN MOUNTAIN` TM B & B 1" CO 4 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS B & B 1" CF 1 CERCIS CANADENSIS `FOREST PANSY` TM B & B 1" GD 2 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA `ESPRESSO` B & B 1" KP 1 KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA B & B 1" QB 3 QUERCUS BUCKLEYI B & B 1" QMU 1 QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII B & B 1" SJ 1 SOPHORA JAPONICA B & B 1" UMA 2 ULMUS X `ACCOLADE` B & B 2" ZG 3 ZELKOVA SERRATA `GREEN VASE` B & B 1" EVERGREEN TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE JB 9 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `BLUE POINT` B & B 4` HT PN2 3 PICEA GLAUCA `NORTH STAR` B & B 4` HT PC2 3 PICEA PUNGENS B & B 4` HT PP4 7 PICEA PUNGENS GLAUCA `ISELI FASTIGIATE` B & B 4` HT PS 4 PINUS STROBIFORMIS B & B 4` HT MITIGATION TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE PN 1 PINUS NIGRA B & B 6` HT. ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE AH 4 ACER TATARICUM 'HOT WINGS' B & B 1" AS2 4 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA B & B 1" CC 3 CRATAEGUS CRUS-GALLI INERMIS `CRUSADER` B & B 1" PCN 5 PRUNUS CERASIFERA `NEWPORT` B & B 1" PCA 3 PYRUS CALLERYANA `AUTUMN BLAZE` B & B 1" PCC 6 PYRUS CALLERYANA `CHANTICLEER` B & B 1" PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION IRRIGATED TURF (HIGH HYDROZONE) EXISTING NATIVE SEED (LOW HYDROZONE) SHRUB AREA (MEDIUM HYDROZONE) CRUSHER FINES LEGEND CANOPY TREE EVERGREEN TREE ORNAMENTAL TREE EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE TO AS TRANSPLANTED SS SS SD SD W W SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN WATER LINE LEGEND DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT LAND PLANNER SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 303.433.4094 MV CONSULTING 4640 PECOS Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 303.325.3271 OWNER MISC ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 3REVISIONS P & Z 2019/4/29 22 PDP 2019/4/3 1 PDP 2019/2/27 FORT COLLINS, CO KR CA R18-062 4 OF 9 0 10 20 40 NORTH SCALE: 1"=20'-0" * PLANTED AREAS WILL INCLUDE APPROPRIATE SHRUBS AND ANNUALS/PERENNIALS FROM THE SCHEDULE SHOWN ON THIS PAGE. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS IN PLANTED AREAS WOULD INCLUDE WOOD MULCH OR ROCK MULCH. WOOD MULCH WOULD NOT BE USED IN LOCATIONS WHERE IT COULD POTENTIALLY INTERFERE WITH STORM WATER INLETS FINAL LOCATIONS OF STREET TREES ALONG DRAKE ROAD WILL BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES TO MEET SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS * FINAL LOCATIONS OF TREES ALONG THE DETENTION AREA WILL BE COORDINATED WITH NEIGHBORS AT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DURING THE FINAL PLAN PHASE OR FIELD LOCATED DURING CONSTRUCTION ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 148 LAND PLANNER SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 303.433.4094 MV CONSULTING 4640 PECOS Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 303.325.3271 OWNER MISC ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND DETAILS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 3REVISIONS P & Z 2019/4/29 22 PDP 2019/4/3 1 PDP 2019/2/27 FORT COLLINS, CO KR CA R18-062 3 OF 9 HYDROZONE AREA (SF) WATER NEEDED (GALLONS/SF) ANNUAL WATER USE (GALLONS) HIGH 18545.00 18 333,810.00 MODERATE 11678.00 10 116,780.00 LOW 31758.00 3 95274.00 VERY LOW 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL 61,981 8.8070 545,864 ANNUAL WATER USE NOT TO EXCEED 15 GAL./SF. AVERAGE OVER THE SITE WATER USE TABLE TREE SPECIES DIVERSITY 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 DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (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 ISSUANCE 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 THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS 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 (1,000) 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 PLANTED, 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, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6. MAINTENANCE: 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 REPAIRED 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 SEPARATIONS 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 WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED 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 EASEMENTS 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. 11.THE DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN IS 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 SPECIES 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 APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. 14.IRRIGATED TURF SHALL BE TEXAS BLUEGRASS/KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS HYBRID VORTEXT BY KORBY SOD LLC OR APPROVED EQUAL. 15.EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 18" X 4" ROLLED TOP STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD OR APPROVED EQUAL. 16.NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY. 17.MAINTENANCE: REGARDING TREES ADJACENT TO THE EMERGENCY ACCESS FIRE LANE, PLEASE MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH & 14 FOOT MINIMUM OVERHEAD CLEARANCE. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 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 INCLUDES 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 AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 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 INCLUDES 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 AND 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 POLICIES. 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 STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE 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 ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN 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 SEPARATION STANDARDS. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SEEDS/LB PERCENT SUB-PERCENT PLS OF SEEDS NUMBER / SF LBS/PLS/ ACRE BEEPLANT CLEOME SERRULATA 113,000 40.00% 10.00% 3 1.08 HAIRY GOLDENASTER HETEROTHECA VILLOSA 336,000 10.00% 3 0.04 PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA PURPUREA 300,000 10.00% 3 0.41 WALLFLOWER ERYSIMUM ASPERUM 1,085,504 10.00% 3 0.11 ANNUAL SUNFLOWER HELIANTHUS ANNUUS 59,000 10.00% 3 2.07 DOTTED GAYFEATHER LIASTRIS PUNCTATA 168,000 10.00% 3 0.73 BLUE FLAX LINUM LEWSII 295,000 10.00% 3 0.41 PRAIRIE ASTER MACHAERANTHERA TANACETIFOLIA 496,000 10.00% 3 0.25 MEXICAN HAT RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA 1,200,000 10.00% 3 0.10 AMERICAN VETCH VICIA AMERICANA 20,000 10.00% 3 6.10 FORB TOTAL** 28 11.61 SIDEOATS GRAMA BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA 190,000 60.00% 10.00% 4 0.96 BUFFALOGRASS BOUTELOUA DACTYLOIDES 56,000 10.00% 4 3.27 BLUE GRAMA BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 825,000 10.00% 4 0.22 PRAIRIE SANDREED CALAMOVILFA LONGIFOLIA 273,000 10.00% 4 0.67 NEEDLEANDTHREAD HESPEROTIPA COMATA 115,000 10.00% 4 1.59 PRAIRIE JUNEGRASS KOELERIA MACRANTHA 2,300,000 10.00% 4 0.08 SWITCHGRASS PANICUM VIRGATUM 389,000 10.00% 4 0.47 WESTERN WHEATGRASS PASCOPYRUM SMITHII 110,000 10.00% 4 1.66 SAN DROPSEED SPOROBOLUS CRYPTANDRUS 5,200,000 10.00% 4 0.04 SIX WEEKS FESCUE VULPIA OCTOFLORA 965,000 10.00% 4 0.19 GRASSES TOTAL** 42 9.15 MIX TOTAL 70 20.76 * THIS MIX IS BASED ON 70 SEEDS/ SQUARE FOOT AND IS ONLY CALCULATED FOR ONE ACRE. THIS MIX IS BASED ON CONTRACTOR USING A DRILL SEED APPLICATION. SEEDS SHOULD BE DRILLED BETWEEN 1 4 AND 1 2 INCH DEEP. MIX SHOULD BE DOUBLED IF HAND BROADCASTED. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALCULATING THE APPROPRIATE SEED AMOUNTS TO PURCHASE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE POUNDS PER ACRE ARE IN PLS (PURE LIVE SEED) AND MUST BE ORDERED THAT WAY. ALL MATERIALS FURNISHED SHALL BE FREE OF COLORADO STATE NOXIOUS WEEDS AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 21-40 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. *ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR FORBS INCLUDE: GAILLARDIA ARISTATA, 0.92LBS/PLS; ASCLEPIAS SPECIOSA, 2.10 LBS/PLS; ASTRAGALUS DRUMMONDII, 0.555 LBS/PLS; COREOPSIS TINCTORIA, 0.09 LBS,PLS; SPHAERALCEA COCCINEA, 0.30 LBS/PLS; AND/OR PENSTEMON ANGUSTIFOLIUS, 0.39 LBS/PLS. (ALL SUBSTITUTIONS CALCULATED AT 10% SUB-PERCENT). *ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR GRASSES INCLUDE: ELYMUS CANADENSIS, 1.59 LBS/PLS; ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES, 1.30 LBS/PLS; AND/OR NASSELLA VIRIDULA, 1.01 LBS/PLS. (ALL SUBSTITUTIONS CALCULATED AT 10% SUB-PERCENT). NATIVE SEED MIX SEED MIX IS TO BE USED WHERE EXISTING NATIVE SEED IS DISTURBED. STAKING NOTES: STAKE TREES PER FOLLOWING SCHEDULE, THEN REMOVE AT END OF FIRST GROWING SEASON AS FOLLOWS: 1 1/2" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 1 STAKE ON SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND. (GENERALLY N.W. SIDE) 1 1/2" - 3" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 2 STAKES - ONE ON N.W. SIDE, ONE ON S.W. SIDE 3" CALIPER SIZE AND LARGER - 3 STAKES PER DIAGRAM WIRE OR CABLE SHALL BE MIN. 12 GAUGE, TIGHTEN ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. NYLON STRAPS SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1 1/2" OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM WIRE GUYING PLAN PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS GALVANIZED WIRE TWIST TO TIGHTEN 6' STEEL T-POSTS (SEE SCHEDULE) DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL W/ FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SHIFT. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE TREE. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN 3 X BALL DIA. PREVAILING WIND 3" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK ROUND-TOPPED SOIL BERM 4" HIGH X 8" WIDE ABOVE ROOT BALL SURFACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE ROOT BALL. BERM SHALL BEGIN AT ROOT BALL PERIPHERY. (OMIT IN TURF AREAS) CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL - STEEL POSTS SCALE: NTS REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK 1 L-PL2-PLA-01 PREVAILING WIND PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES TREE PLANTING DETAIL - STEEL POSTS SCALE: NTS ROUND TOPPED SOIL BERM 4" HIGH X 8" WIDE ABOVE ROOT BALL SURFACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE ROOT BALL. BERM SHALL BEGIN AT ROOT BALL PERIPHERY. (OMIT IN TURF AREAS) NOTES: SET S0 THAT TOP OF ROOT 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE MARK NORTH SIDE OF TREE IN NURSERY AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE 2 STRAND 12 GAUGE GAL. WIRE (TWIST TO TIGHTEN) & GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS STEEL T-POSTS DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE OF PLANTING HOLE BEFORE BACKFILLING STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL PLACE FIRMLY BUT DON'T TAMP OR COMPACT AROUND ROOT BALL. WATER WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE TREE. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK 3" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. 1" MULCH OVER ROOT BALL. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK 3 X BALL DIA. BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL RESTS ON EXISTING OR RECOMPACTED SOIL SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE 2 L-PL2-PLA-12 PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE SHRUB AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. IF FORM IS COMPROMISED BY PRUNING, REPLACE SHRUB PLACEMENT NOTES: SET SHRUB PLUMB. SPACE PLANTS, AND PLACE FOR BEST EFFECT SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" HIGHER THAN ADJACENT GRADE SCARIFY SIDES AND USE 1:1 SLOPE 3" DEEP MULCH RING 3' IN DIA. PLACE ON GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER. 1" OF MULCH ON TOP OF ROOT BALL REMOVE CONTAINER (INCLUDING FIBER CONTAINERS), BASKETS, WIRE, ETC. FROM THE ROOT BALL. BREAK UP ENCIRCLING ROOTS WITH SHARP KNIFE OR SPADE. SPLIT BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL. PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE SHRUB. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAX. 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS 2 X BALL DIA. 4" HIGH WATER SAUCER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 3 SCALE: NTS L-PL2-PLA-14 NOTE: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUESTED ALL WOOD TO BE EITHER STAINED RED CEDAR 2. ALL FASTENERS & GLUES TO BE WEATHER PROOF TOP OF FENCE TO BE LEVEL BOTTOM OF FENCE TO STEP WITH GRADE AS NEEDED FENCE MAY STEP DOWN AT POSTS IN 6" INCREMENTS IF NECESSARY 4X4 CEDAR POSTS EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION - FRONT 1X4 PICKETS 2x6 TOP CAP SCREEN FENCE 1/2" = 1'-0" EXAMPLE PERSPECTIVE OF SCREEN FENCE 3'-7" 4 OP-NO-05 STANDARD BIKE RACK 5 1/2" = 1'-0" L-PL2-OFF-LONG-04 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 147 26'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 17'-0" 9'-0" TYP. 9'-0" TYP. EAST DRAKE ROAD JOSEPH ALLEN DRIVE 3-STORY BUILDING DETENTION SPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH FILING 4 EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2ND ANNEXATION EXISTING RETAINING WALLS, TYP RIGHT-OF-WAY 9' UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE, TYP. MONUMENT SIGN PROPERTY BOUNDARY 6' DETACHED SIDEWALK, EXISTING 6' PARKWAY, EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 6' DETACHED SIDEWALK, EXISTING 6' PARKWAY, EXISTING TRACT C LOADING ZONE AMENITY AREA TO BE DESIGNED AT FINAL APPROX. 4,300 S.F. UTILITY EASEMENT 7'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 44'-0" 28'-6" 44'-1" 55'-4" 43'-8" 124'-2" 3'-0" 9'-7" 60'-0" 91'-0" 60'-0" ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP TO ACCESS DRAKE ROW 5'-6" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" AMENITY AREA TO BE DESIGNED AT FINAL APPROX. 4,300 S.F. EAST ENTRANCE TRASH & RECYCLING ROOM ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP EXISTING STREET LIGHT, TYP SCORING PATTERN RELOCATED EXISTING TREES, TYP. RELOCATED EXISTING TREES, TYP. 16'-5" 21'-10" UTILITY EASEMENT 15'-0" 28'-1" TRANSFORMER CURB CUT AND RAMP DOWN TO PARKING LEVEL ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING AREA (8 SPACES) FIRE LANE SIGNAGE, TYP. EXISTING TREES SEE TREE MITIGATION PLAN LEGEND BIKE PARKING EXISTING STREET LIGHTS x x PARKING COUNTS VAN ACCESSIBLE ADA PARKING STALL SITE LIGHTING CONCRETE LEGEND SCREENING FENCE, SEE DETAIL 2 SHEET 3 BIKE RACKS (2 BIKES, TYP.) DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2660 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303.297.0408 ARCHITECT LAND PLANNER SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 W 45th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 303.433.4094 MV CONSULTING 4640 PECOS Street, Unit F Denver, CO 80211 303.325.3271 OWNER MISC ENGINEER JVA INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213 Linden Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.225.9099 SITE PLAN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES 3REVISIONS P & Z 2019/4/29 22 PDP 2019/4/3 1 PDP 2019/2/27 FORT COLLINS, CO KR CA R18-062 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" GROSS GROSS AREA 3.04 AC TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 55 GROSS DENSITY 18 DU/AC EXISTING ZONING LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD (L-M-N) GROSS AREA (SF) % BUILDING COVERAGE 17,841 13.46 DRIVES AND PARKING (EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW) 21,806 16.45 OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE (EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW) 54,498 41.12 HARDSCAPE (EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW) 6,415 4.84 **PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 31,989.00 24.13 HARDSCAPE 3,364 DRIVES AND PARKING 23,668 LANDSCAPE 4,957 TOTAL GROSS COVERAGE 132,549.00 SF (3.04 AC) 100.00 NET NET AREA 2.31 AC TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 55 NET DENSITY 23.8 DU/AC DENSITY AREA COVERAGE NET AREA (SF) % BUILDING COVERAGE 17,841.00 17.74 DRIVES AND PARKING 21,806.00 21.68 OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE 54,498.00 54.19 HARDSCAPE (WALKS & PLAZAS) 6,415.00 6.38 PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.00 0.00 TOTAL NET COVERAGE 100,560.00 SF (2.31 AC) 100.00 DWELLING UNIT BREAKDOWN UNIT TYPE: DWELLING UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMS % (DU) 1 BEDROOM 39 39 71 2 BEDROOM 16 32 29 TOTAL 55 71 100.00 PROJECT PARKING PROVIDED *REQUIRED LONG-TERM PARKING STALLS 43 85 HANDICAP 4 2 TOTAL 47 87 BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED REQUIRED * BICYCLE SPACES 79 71 LOCATED IN UNITS 55 LOCATED FIXED ON SITE 16 LOCATED IN BUILDING AT EAST ENTRANCE 8 FLOOR AREA RATIO BUILDING AREA (SF) 17,742 NET AREA (SF) 100,494 FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.18 HOUSING TYPES MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM HEIGHT STORIES 40'-0" 3 2 OF 9 NORTH ** CALCULATED FROM RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) LINE TO CENTERLINE OF ADJACENT STREET LAND USE CHART * REQUIRED SPACES ARE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWED (OUTSIDE THE TOD OVERLAY ZONE): 1 BEDROOM: 32 X 1.5 SPACES = 59 SPACES 2 BEDROOM: 16 X 1.75 SPACES = 28 SPACES 26-50 SPACES = 2 HANDICAP (1 VAN ACCESSIBLE MIN) * PARKING RATIO OF .85 SPACES PER BEDROOM * REQUIRED BICYCLE SPACES ARE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWED: 71 BEDROOMS X 1 SPACE = 71 SPACES. 60% REQUIRED TO BE ENCLOSED, 40% FIXED. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 146 MMN SITE LOCATION SITE PLAN NOTES SITE LOCATION / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT MAP Director Signature PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS ________ DAY OF ________, 20__. OWNER (SIGNED) Date THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS THIS DAY OF MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: AS . (PRINT NAME) A.D., 20 BY . THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF OUTLOT A, SPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH, FORT COLLINS, COLORAOD SHEET INDEX VOA SENIOR RESIDENCES FORT COLLINS, CO POWER TRAIL NC RL RAIL ROAD TRACKS LMN APAPAHO PASS DR S TIMBERLINE RD E DRAKE RD 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 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 ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 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 REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. 12. 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. 13. 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 Revised November 12, 2015 3 LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 14. 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. 15. 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. RL Sheet Number Sheet Title 1 COVER 2 SITE PLAN 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN 3 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND DETAILS 5 TREE MITIGATION PLAN 6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 7 BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 8 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 9 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 145 Poudre Fire Authority City of Fort Collins, Larimer County X Done Appendix C Implementation Action Plan Page 69 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 115 Water X Page 68 Appendix C Implementation Action Plan ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 114 Advance Planning Larimer County Planning Done Page 66 Appendix C Implementation Action Plan ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 112 •LCMP: ER-3 & ER-4, p 6-11; LU-10, p 3-9 City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Larimer County Parks, Natural Resources Done Appendix C Implementation Action Plan Page 65 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 111 City of Fort Collins Advance Planning at (970) 221-6376 Email plus@larimer.org aplanning@fcgov.com This plan is available on the web www.larimer.org www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 31