No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingJennifer Carpenter Jeff Hansen Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jennifer Carpenter Ruth Rollins William Whitley City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing January 12, 2017 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • ELECTION OF INTERIM OFFICERS • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non -agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft December 15, 2016, P&Z Hearing Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the December 15, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2A. Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan #ODP160001 PROJECT This is a request to rezone 12.27 acres of land currently zoned DESCRIPTION L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and 9.71 acres FOR REZONE: of land currently zoned E, Employment, a total of 21.98 acres, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 2017 district. The rezoning request is being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is presently zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. APPLICANT: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o TB Group 444 W. Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o Mr. Tim McKenna 2 N. Cascade Avenue, Suite 590 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 2B. Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan #ODP160001 PROJECT This is a request for an amended Overall Development Plan DESCRIPTION for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant FOR ODP: of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Proposed land uses include a mix of permitted uses allowed on a per zone district basis. The O.D.P. also includes 12.27 acres zoned L-M-N and 9.71 acres zoned E (Parcel J) that are the subject of a separate and preceding request to rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N. This rezoning request must be considered prior to this Amended O.D.P. as the Parcel J is designated "Multi -Family, 276 total units & 13 DU/A"which requires M-M-N zoning without the need to modify any L-M-N standards. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. There is no established vested right with an O.D.P. APPLICANT: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o TB Group 444 W. Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o Mr. Tim McKenna 2 N. Cascade Avenue, Suite 590 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 2017 3 2 :� • Land Use Code Changes Related to natural Resource Protection & Prairie Dog Management PROJECT Since the original Land Use Code provisions regarding prairie DESCRIPTION: dog colonies were adopted, there has been considerable change in the size and characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area, best practices for fumigation and relocation, and citywide development patterns. Based on the latest research on the ecosystem value of prairie dog colonies and current best management practices, staff proposes a number of Land Use Code updates regarding prairie dog management and the protection of natural habitats and features on development sites. APPLICANT/ City of Fort Collins OWNER: Copperleaf PDP PROJECT Request for a Project Development Plan for a multi -family DESCRIPTION: project consisting of 94 units on 2.98 acres, 110 bedrooms, 147 parking spaces, zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood. The request also includes three modifications of standard for the size of the private park, setbacks along two property lines and length of the rear wall of garages. APPLICANT/ OWNER: OTHER BUSINESS City of Fort Collins Approval of changes to Planning and Zoning Board By -Laws Approval of 2016 Annual Report ADJOURNMENT Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 January 12, 2017 Agenda Item 1 STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft P&Z December 15, 2016, Hearing Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes from the December 15, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft December 15, 20161 P&Z Minutes (DOC) Item # 1 Page 1 Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair Gerald Hart, Vice Chair Jennifer Carpenter Jeff Hansen Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & [SINTTi 09*01:5i�iTi11• u . N 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 December 15, 2016 Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Absent: Staff Present: Agenda Review Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider Hart and Heinz Gloss, Yatabe, Prassas, Holland, Wray, Sawyer, Frickey, Kleer, Wilkinson, Hahn, Virata, and Cosmas Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience, noting that the Natural Habitat and Buffer Standards for Prairie Dog Management will be postponed until the January hearing. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from November 10, 2016, P&Z Hearing 2. Continuation of Gateway at Prospect Addition of Permitted Use and Overall Development Plan #ODP160001 to January 12, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. WilMarc Medical PDP #160033 4. Rennat Annexation and Zoning — ANX160005 5. Harmony Commons Hotel Public Input on Consent Agenda: A citizen requested that the Rennat Annexation be removed from the Consent agenda and put on the Discussion agenda. Chair Kirkpatrick stated that it will be heard at the end of the Discussion agenda. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the December 15, 2016, Consent agenda, with the exception of the Rennat Annexation and Zoning. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. 221 E. Oak — Stand -Alone Modification Request to Parking Standard 7. West Plum Housing Project Development Plan PDP160029 8. Short -Term Rental Land Use Code Requirements Recommendation to City Council Project: 221 E. Oak — Stand -Alone Modification Request to Parking Standard Project Description: This is a request for a Modification to the parking standard for a mixed -use project consisting of four 2-bedroom units and two 1-bedroom, live/work spaces. This development must provide 10 parking spaces on -site per Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a). The applicant proposes leasing four parking spaces at the nearby Old Town parking garage and providing two on -site electric vehicles that will act as a car share. All of the building's energy needs would be handled through solar panels and a series of geothermal ground loops. The building will be net -zero energy usage. If the Planning and Zoning Board approves the modification, it would be valid for one year, by which time a Project Development Plan must be submitted incorporating the modification. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 3 Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey provided an overview of this proposal. Laurie Davis, with Davis Davis Architects, gave a detailed presentation of the modification request, starting with the goals of the project. She explained the reason for the modification request and shared some history of "net zero" building living, which is basically healthy living free of toxins. Her company is seeking alternative compliance in lieu of onsite parking. She discussed the project goals of the Institute for the Built Environment, detailing the 7 performance categories of healthy living: place, energy, water, materials, health/happiness, equity and beauty. Her proposal would reduce the required 10 parking spaces to 6, plus 2 on -site "car share" spots (and would also include an additional 4 reserved spaces in the Old Town parking garage). She added that there would be 7 new on -street parking spaces on Oak Street. She demonstrated why the requested modification meets the code criteria, citing 4 justifications: 1. It is equal to or better than the code requirement; 2. The benefit to the City is huge, as it will promote the "walkable city" concept; 3. Relative to sustaining urban objectives, the lot is too small to provide code -recommended parking; and 4. Is in conformance with LUC1.2.2. She concluded by saying this modification will result in a "green", sustainable building site that will help Fort Collins meet its sustainability goals. Staff Analysis Planner Frickey gave an analysis of the project, discussing the merits of the Applicant's justification. He analyzed the distance from the site to local amenities and businesses (i.e. transit, grocery stores) and compared this to other similar sites. While this site is not in the Transit Overlay District (TOD), it is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone district. He concluded that this project is in alignment with other projects, including carbon -neutrality and City-wide goals. Public Input Renee Choury, 318 Whedbee Street, stated her perception that parking is becoming more difficult around Library Park and along the College Avenue corridor. She doesn't see an increased use of the parking garages. She feels that these issues should be addressed today rather than in the future. Cathy Norman, 226 Remington Street, stated that a lot of growth is occurring and it seems like many projects are requesting modifications to parking, which results in neighbors having to give up personal parking. Business owners have been struggling with providing client parking. She feels that this proposal may detrimentally impact future business. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Davis responded by reiterating that this proposal would provide 7 parking spots that did not formerly exist. She added that limiting parking actually increases the density and livelihood of businesses. Planner Frickey clarified that Townhomes at Library Park and 215 Mathews do indeed meet the parking requirements. Board Questions Member Hobbs asked for clarification on the long-term link to the "net -zero" vision for this property; Planner Frickey responded that there will be a requirement for the building owner to meet the City-wide Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 4 goals, and approval will be contingent upon meeting these goals. He added that even changes of ownership will be subject to these requirements. Member Schneider asked if there is a time frame on maintenance of the leased parking spots, and Planner Frickey confirmed that the developer will have to maintain those in perpetuity. He also stated that a residential parking permit feasibility study was performed in the Library Park area in 2016, indicating that the area did not meet the threshold for requiring a residential parking permit program (area was not "parked up" at least 70% of the time during the day). At night, this is less of an issue. Member Schneider asked about zoning this block into 2-hour time periods; Planner Frickey said this is an option. Planning Director Gloss added that the Board can decide whether to mandate this as part of the modification approval. Member Carpenter asked what would happen if the year-to-year leases become unavailable; Planner Frickey responded that the PDP would require an amendment for a change in the parking requirement. He added that there are currently parking spaces available. Ms. Davis confirmed that there is one spot currently reserved in the Old Town garage, and they are on the waiting list for 3 more spaces. Eventually, each unit will have 1 parking space in conjunction with their unit ownership, and there will be a future sharing agreement with the HOA. The Land Use Code (LUC) prohibits unbundling parking from unit rental. Member Carpenter asked whether parking spaces will be required for the "live/work" feature of the project; Ms. Davis replied that, because the units are small, they anticipate that many employees will walk or bike to and from work, and she doesn't expect many external people onsite. Planner Frickey confirmed that retail is not allowed in the NCB zone district. Member Schneider asked if this project will be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission; Planner Frickey stated that it may in the future, but not for this modification request. Member Hansen asked if there are any provisions in the LUC that would allow ground -level parking with 3 stories above for a total building height of 4 stories; Planner Frickey responded that a 4- story building would exceed the height limit in the NCB zone district. Member Carpenter asked whether the car sharing would be limited to only building residents; Mr. Davis responded affirmatively. Member Hansen asked if transit passes could be provided as part of ownership; Ms. Davis responded that this is an option. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs stated that the site is similar to a TOD site because of the characteristics of the location; he feels that the Colorado lifestyle is such that people do have and use cars, so they will need to be stored somewhere. He also stated that a total of 6 leased spots (1 for each unit) would be adequate. Member Carpenter agreed with that analysis, saying that she feels there is a car storage problem, but providing 1 parking space per unit would be agreeable. Member Hobbs clarified that he believes the "car -share" vehicles would be used by residents for quick trips, but residents would still require space to store their own cars. Member Schneider suggested this proposal is still less than the 10 required, and they will still need some handicapped spots. Chair Kirkpatrick is in favor of this project, even though this is an infill sites; she is in support of the modification and in having the 6 leased spaces. She added that she would like to see a neighborhood impact study performed prior to this project coming back during the Project Development Plan (PDP) phase. She clarified that this modification could be approved with the condition that 6 parking spaces be secured for car storage (one/unit) plus a transit pass be issued to each resident. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 221 E. Oak — Stand -Alone Modification Request to Parking Standard, with the condition that a total of 6 total parking spaces be leased by a city -owned parking garage and that a transport pass be included in each unit ownership. Chair Kirkpatrick amended the motion by requesting a Neighborhood Impact Study be performed prior to the PDP phase. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 5:0. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 5 Project: West Plum Housing, Project Development Plan PDP160029 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a 63-unit, 233-bed multi -family residential building. The site is located on 1.2 acres at the southeast corner of West Plum Street and City Park Avenue and is in the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District. A 5-story building is proposed with 180 parking spaces integrated within the building structure. Recommendation: Approval Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief overview of this project. He then introduced Stephanie Van Dyken, Landscape Architect with Ripley Design, who gave a detailed presentation. The Applicant is EdR (Education Realty), a company that develops but also manages collegiate housing communities. She showed slides of the site location and discussed the neighborhood outreach that was performed. She discussed the flow -lines, the sunlight conditions, outdoor amenities, intersection elevations, the massing study for context, the views from various angles, sidewalk angles, and bicycle parking locations (both outside and inside rooms). Staff Analysis Planner Holland recapped the key points, including how City Plan principles are being applied, character sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods, height and density setbacks, compatibility, massing and transition, edge variation, landscaping setbacks, parking garage placement, and tree placement. He discussed building design, emphasizing a row -house element and a relatable architectural style with strong residential character elements. He presented a pictorial view, showing the east side of the building, which indicated that shadowing criteria was properly met. The shading impact is within code requirements related to snow and ice buildup, so he does not consider this to be a substantial adverse impact. The parking requirements were also met; Planner Holland showed a graphic of the recently - adopted bus route for the area, noting that there are acceptable time intervals for the bus routes. Street improvements were also met for the project, since the frontage was improved. This proposal includes an occupancy increase, which is supported by the 4-bedroom unit designs. Having an on -site manager was also added as a suggestion condition. Member Hobbs asked whether there are any other comparable projects that include bicycle spaces within each unit; Planner Holland answered affirmatively, saying he would have preferred having a separated space within a parking garage, but he believes this arrangement will also work. He added that the Applicant might add some amenities, like a bike wash in the garage or at the main entrance or an automatic sliding door for convenience. Chair Kirkpatrick asked about the building design for the bike parking "in -unit". Max Reiner, Project Manager with Humphreys & Partners Architects, stated that they are planning some bike storage areas, in addition to allowing for 1 bike in each location, although they could be stacked to accommodate 2 bikes. Regarding access to building, most residents will enter through the garage and use the elevator in the central corridor — this area will have replaceable carpet squares for maintenance. Hallways and doorways will be wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic plus bicycles. There was more discussion regarding the hallway width; the planned space was concluded to be adequate. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 6 Public Input Terry Usrey, 1940 Larkspur Drive, has a concern about this project related to Transfort traffic, saying that perhaps there should be a requirement for a transfort pullout. He is in favor of on -site security. Kyle Schinkel, 1510 Lakeside, has a concern with the density and parking issues, citing the number of residences close by. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Van Dyken responded that a pull-out was considered but would require a wall, and that could restrict accessibility. She noted that there is a bus stop just across the street. Regarding security, the owner will responsible for managing the property, and a 24-hour help number will be provided. Planner Holland added that he would be willing to talk to Transit staff about the bus pull-outs for consideration. There is a residential parking permit program to review if they feel their neighborhood needs assistance for spillover parking, which may be an issue. Member Hansen asked how a bus pullout would be accomplished while still maintaining continuity of the sidewalk. Planner Holland responded that a bus pullout along the frontage would leave them in the tree lawn, the tradeoff being the tree spacing. Nicole Hahn, with Transportation Services, stated that congestion in general has been an issue, since density is increasing. She believes that pedestrian, bike and transit levels of service are already exceptional in this area: close to campus and other amenities and they meet the required level of service. Board Questions Member Hansen asked about parking in the area in general and whether parking issues are due to non- residents; he also asked if any parking studies had been done. Planner Holland stated that no recent parking studies of garages had been performed, but this will be a future consideration. The current requirement of .75 parking spaces per bed was adopted as a result of a study developed and adopted by City Council. He added that the District parking requirements were different (.6 parking spaces per bed). Ms. Van Dyke added that both Local and District were operating under the old code standards that had no minimum parking requirements. Member Hansen asked about garage placement; Planner Holland showed the closest building to the east side, the Campus West condos, which present a good transition, articulation of design, acceptable massing breakup and style of design. Board Deliberation Member Hansen has a concern with the bike parking in the units; he feels that this could present a future issue. Member Carpenter thinks that the protection of bikes is important but has a concern with the indoor space requirements. She likes the outdoor amenities, is in favor of having an on -site manager, and was pleased to note that this proposal has no modifications. Member Schneider agreed with Member Carpenter's comments. Member Hobbs also supports the project, saying that this high -density project fits well in the area. Chair Kirkpatrick also likes this project, commenting that the massing was well done; she is not completely supportive of the way the parking garage is situated and its visibility, saying that perhaps this could be reviewed in the next project phase. She asked if street maintenance is different in the winter with the possibility of ice and snow; Planner Holland stated that the adjacent sidewalk owners would be responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear. Ms. Hahn added that this consideration is in the future plan. Member Hobbs suggested that some sort of "green" wall might also be added to break up the texture of the walls. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the West Plum Housing Project Development Plan PDP160029, with the condition that an on -site manager be available 24 hours a day, and based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 7 included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0. Board took a short recess at 8:OOpm and returned at 8:10pm. Project: Short -Term Rental Land Use Code Requirements Project Description: Proposed short-term rental (STR) regulations and associated Land Use Code changes. Recommendation: Approval Chair Kirkpatrick recused herself due to a conflict of interest, - Member Carpenter will chair in her absence. Secretary Cosmas reported that several items had been received on this item since the work session: • 1 citizen email requesting non -primary STRs be classified as commercial rather than residential; • 1 citizen email in opposition of the proposed ordinance; • 1 copy of the ordinance with proposed changes (from City Attorney); • 1 copy of the ordinance with the changes incorporated (from City Attorney); and • 1 additional citizen email in opposition to STRs. Staff and Applicant Presentations Ginny Sawyer, Program and Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins, gave a detailed presentation of this recommendation. She explained some of the history, including the changes to the Land Use Code: • Definitions of primary residence (lives in a dwelling unit for 9 months or more); • Definitions of short-term rental units (one party at a time for less than 30 days); • "Party" is a reservation paid for a single group; • Owner -Occupied could include a carriage house onsite or a 2-family dwelling, and will also be considered primary; • Parking requirements (1 off-street parking for 2-bedroom except for TOD); and • Zoning limitations — owner -occupied can be allowed anywhere; non owner -occupied will be limited to zones allowing lodging establishments. Ms. Sawyer discussed the public outreach and where STRs would be allowed, noting there is a concentration of STRs in the downtown area due to amenities. She added that this ordinance will also propose a "grandfather" clause for any existing STRs. She is also proposing that each STR be inspected to ensure compliance with minimum housing standards. Some may have to go through the existing APU process to reach compliance. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified that no licensing procedures are being considered at this time, so citizens should focus their comments on LUC topics. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 8 Public Input Lisa Derbyshire, 709 Garfield, has several concerns with STRs, including definitions on parking, response time to complaints, and if they should be treated as residential or commercial properties. She does not feel that City outreach has been adequate, recognizing that STRs will be difficult to enforce. Maggie Dennis, 315 Whedbee Street, stated that she doesn't feel that STRs are comparable to "bed and breakfast" establishments. She feels that her neighborhood is less protected than other areas that only allow primary rentals. She asked what some of the STR limits are (in terms in owner rentals, parking requirements, etc.) Terry Usrey, 1940 Larkspur Drive, is familiar with issues concerning Air BnBs, but he now has a concern with the distinction between primary and non -primary enterprises. He also has concerns about occupancy loopholes, so he is requesting that STRs be prohibited, including any potential ccgrandfathered" STRs. Michelle Haefele, 623 Monte Vista Avenue, is opposed to the proposed ordinance, saying this is fundamentally a zoning issue, and these are lodging businesses that do not belong in residential neighborhoods. She suggested that the definitions in the LUC be revised and simplified. Any STRs should only be allowed in those zones that are already approved for primary STRs. Sue Ballou, 1400 West Lake Street, lives in the Avery Park neighborhood, which was originally all owner - occupied but is now 70% rentals. She would like to see the STR regulations also applied to long-term rentals. She is in favor of the proposal. Lisa Eaton, 320 E. Mulberry Street, is a STR landlord and recognizes this is an on -going issue across the nation. She feels this is more of a residential use, and she is supportive of her own STR. Reed Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth Street, suggested that the proposed ordinance isn't ready for approval yet. He has a concern that neighborhoods are changing over time, and resident expectations are being compromised. He doesn't feel that STRs belong in neighborhoods. Margit Hentschel, 216 Wood Street, has had a lot of interaction with the City of Fort Collins, and she believes this project is very negative for the community. She has lived close to a STR in the past and had a bad experience overall, adding that there will be an exponential number of people impacted. Diana Clements, 737 Hinsdale Drive, owns an STR and is in support of this proposal because she feels our city should offer a safe place for non-residents to come together. She believes having STRs is a nice compromise for non-residents who want to experience Fort Collins on a personal level. Margaret Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth, is not in favor of STRs because the parking requirements do not compare favorably to those governing long-term rentals. She believes this proposal isn't ready for Council presentation. Whitney Cranshaw, 1400 West Lake Street, lives in the Avery Park neighborhood, and he questions the distinction between long-term and short-term rentals, saying there isn't enough regard for the needs of the neighborhoods. He also stated that fees shouldn't be restricted to low -density areas only. Tamela Wahl, 311 Whedbee Street, is not opposed to STRs but is opposed to this two -pronged approach, because she feels it applies different standards to neighborhoods, making it discriminatory. She also thinks there are some issues with the classifications on the map that was provided, saying that Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 9 the neighborhoods surrounding the Old Town areas should also be regulated, and she questioned the STR rates that were presented because her own neighborhood rate seems much higher. Renee Choury, 318 Whedbee Street, believes her neighborhood is suffering due to the number of existing rentals and businesses. She is in favor of limiting the overall number of STR businesses. Applicant and Staff Response Ms. Sawyer responded to some of the citizen concerns by saying that adjustments are being made all the time to the proposal, and City Council will hear this proposal on January 3rd, 2017. Planner Frickey also responded that the map representation is accurate. Ms. Sawyer added that one individual cannot own more than three STRs. Additionally, parking standards are based on the type of housing, so parking requirements will vary, which can be more problematic in the Old Town area. Board Questions Member Schneider asked what the "grandfather" date will be; Ms. Sawyer responded that this licensing date is still being determined. He also asked about the distinction between short-term and long-term rentals; Ms. Sawyer responded that this distinction will require another process and will require public input. Member Hobbs asked whether there is any distinction in the code as to the housing type that can be considered for an STR; Planner Frickey responded that most multi -family homes or apartment complexes do not allow sub -letting, but owners could rent out their apartment under a short-term basis under the current regulations. She added that a 3-license limit per owner/entity is being proposed. Member Schneider asked if the existing owners had been subjected to the inspection process yet; Ms. Sawyer responded that this will occur soon, but the only requirement now is to have sales tax and lodging licenses. Ms. Sawyer acknowledged that this proposal will need more time for continuous improvement. Member Schneider also inquired about the no parking restrictions in the TOD areas only; Ms. Sawyer responded that this could be changed. Board Deliberation Member Schneider doesn't have any issues with the proposal and agrees that there is a need for regulation. He feels this proposal is a good compromise, but he would like to change the parking requirement for the TOD. He will support sending this proposal to Council. Member Hobbs agrees that this is a policy decision and the P&Z is simply making a recommendation to City Council at this time. He also stated that there is a stark distinction between primary and non -primary owner types and uses, which may result in the distinction between residential and commercial use. He feels we have a responsibility to people who bought homes in Fort Collins not expecting to see commercial uses in their neighborhoods. He also feels that the availability of investments is limited but doesn't want to encourage investment in short-term rentals due to lack of affordable housing. He will support this proposal for primary owners but not for non -primary owners. Member Hansen feels that this is new territory and is still unsure how it the LUC will be impacted; he supports the proposal and would like to continue to address the parking standard by removing this exemption from the TOD. Member Carpenter thanked the citizens and staff for their work during this process; she feels this proposal is a good start to addressing this topic, but she also questions the parking for STRs in the TOD area. Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the adoption to the LUC changes for Short -Term Rentals to include parking restrictions in the TOD zone district, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 3:1, with Member Hobbs dissenting. Planning & Zoning Board December 15, 2016 Page 10 Chair Kirkpatrick rejoined the hearing at 9:09pm. PROJECT: Rennat Annexation and Zoning — ANX160005 Project Description: Proposed short-term rental regulations and associated Land Use Code changes. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave an overview of this proposed City -initiated annexation, including some history of property. He shared some of the comments received from neighbors regarding density of development, traffic issues, number of residences that could potentially be built, and congestion in the area. Secretary Cosmas reported that 1 citizen email had been received with concerns about the traffic, noise and road access. Public Input None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hansen asked to see a proposed zoning map; however, the proposed zoning doesn't completely reflect the structure plan. Planner Kleer explained how the zoning would evolve with this annexation; Chair Kirkpatrick pointed out that we are required by the LUC to recommend land annexations once it becomes compliant with State statutes. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council annex and zone the Rennat Annexation and Zoning - ANX160005, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0. Other Business Several Board members and Planning Director Gloss thanked Chair Kirkpatrick for her service to the Board and to the City of Fort Collins. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Chair Agenda Item 2A PROJECT NAME GATEWAY AT PROSPECT REZONING #REZ160001 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to rezone 12.27 acres of land currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and 9.71 acres of land currently zoned E, Employment, a total of 21.98 acres, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district. The rezoning request is being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is presently zoned, from east to west, C- G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. APPLICANT: OWNER: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o TB Group 444 W. Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o Mr. Tim McKenna 2 N. Cascade Avenue, Suite 1490 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Approval with seven conditions The rezoning request is being submitted in conjunction with the Amended Gateway at Prospect Overall Development. The purpose of the request is to facilitate a future multi -development project on the subject 21.98 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended Overall Development Plan). While multi -family is a permitted use in the L-M-N zone district, it is capped at 12 dwelling units per gross acre, 12 units per building and 14,000 square feet per building. The applicant seeks to develop a project that exceeds these parameters. While multi -family is also permitted use in the E zone district, and not Item # 2A Page 1 Agenda Item 2A restricted by the L-M-N metrics, the applicant has voluntarily requested a down -zoning to M-M-N in order to create a unified development parcel with singular zoning. The request to rezone the two subject parcels complies with the standards and criteria of Section 2.9(H). In addition, and in compliance with Section 2.9(I), staff is recommending seven conditions of approval to ensure that all aspects of the future multi -family development measures up to the principles and policies of City Plan. Gateway at Prospect 1 inch = 1,000 feet Overall Development Plan _ & Rezoning 1 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N County, R, Residential (Sunrise Acres) S E, Employment (Colorado Welcome Center and Colorado State University Research Foundation - owned parcel) E C-G, General Commercial (Vacant) E I, Industrial (Vacant) W County R, Residential and FA, Farming (Boxelder Estates and other County Residential Parcels) Item # 2A Page 2 Agenda Item 2A The property was included in the City's Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business (157 acres) and R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as a Planned Unit Development under the Land Development Guidance System. Then in 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner: • C, Commercial (44.7 acres) • E, Employment (104 acres) • L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres); • U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer (21 acres). This rezoning was part of a city-wide rezoning to implement the City's new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the P.U.D. system. About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the O.D.P. to the Cooper Slough Association / Boxelder Estates H.O.A. for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125 feet for a length of about 1,880 feet and contains approximately 4.7 acres. This conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the O.D.P. and Boxelder Estates. Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres. In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner: • U-E, Urban Estate (21 acres); • L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (68.6 acres); • E, Employment (60.9 acres); • C-G, General Commercial (26.9 acres). Interstate Land First Filing P.U.D. for a Harley Davidson dealership was approved in 1996 and consisted of a 26,000 square foot building on a four -acre lot located along the S.W. Frontage Road. In summary, since annexation in 1989, the parcel has been rezoned three times in 28 years. 2. Summary of the Review Criteria for Rezoning of Parcles Less Than 640 Acres: Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi- judicial versus legislative) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: Item # 2A Page 3 Agenda Item 2A • Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or • Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial): • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 3. Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan: The request to up -zone 12.27 acres from L-M-N to M-M-N and down -zone 9.71 acres from E to M-M-N is supported by the following City Plan Principles and Policies: A. "Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability — Economy: A mix of housing options throughout the community also accommodates residents of all income levels in the city near places of work or other activity centers." (Page 47.) The request to rezone the subject parcels to M-M-N would add a housing type, multi -family, to the mix of housing options in this area of the City at development parameters that exceed L-M-N metrics. The nearest multi -family development is located 1.2 miles to the southwest in the Bucking Horse neighborhood. Multi -family housing is envisioned to be in close proximity to major employment areas and the subject parcels are located near existing and future workplaces in the following manner: • Existing — Prospect East Business Park (1.05 miles to the west) • Existing — Seven Lakes Business Park (.9 mile to the west) • Future C-G, General Commercial (adjoining) • Future I, Industrial (.5 mile to the east) • Future E, Employment (adjoining) Multi -family housing is one of 33 permitted uses in the M-M-N zone district. In order to ensure that rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N results in actual development of multi -family housing in fulfillment with the City Plan policy, and not one of the other permitted non-residential land uses, staff recommends the following condition of approval: Condition Number One: Development on the subject 21,98 acres shall be limited to multi- family dwellings. B. "Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability — Environment: Emphasis on redevelopment, infill, historic preservation, and high -efficiency housing and buildings also helps to divert waste and conserve water, energy and other environmental resources. Lastly, a Item # 2A Page 4 Agenda Item 2A compact development pattern and transportation options help reduce carbon emissions, reduce impacts on climate change, and improved air quality. (Page 47.) In terms of utilization of public services and land consumption, multi -family housing is efficient and promotes compact urban growth. In addition, Prospect Road is designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor which means it will be served by transit in the future which offers an option in mobility. C. "Growth Management Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements." (Page 49.) The subject site has been annexed into the City for 28 years. The site does not represent an urban edge condition, nor is 1-25 considered a hard edge, as the City's eastern boundary extends east to C.R. 5, a distance of greater than one mile. The City's boundary and Growth Management Area have been established in conjunction with Larimer County and the Town of Timnath through a series of jointly adopted Agreements. While the site may appear to be disconnected from the urban area, this is due to the Poudre River floodplain, and two natural areas (Riverbend Ponds and Running Deer). The areas that are not protected are zoned for urban levels of intensity. (See the City Zoning Map attached.) For example: • East of 1-25: C-G (15 acres), 1 (117 acres) • South of Prospect: E (143 acres) Development of the subject site, and the larger Gateway at Prospect O.D.P., represents sound growth management practice within existing City limits, within the G.M.A. and in fulfillment of City Plan. D. "Principal LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development." (Page 50-51.) The site is capable of being served with water and sanitary sewer by the East Larimer County Water District and the Boxelder Sanitation District. Electricity and natural gas can be extended to serve the site. Widening Prospect Road to the arterial standard will be accomplished by multiple established mechanisms that ensure growth shall pay its own way. This includes improving the development's direct frontage and any off -site improvements as may be necessary to mitigate the project impacts and achieve the City's adopted levels of service. In addition, all building permits will be assessed a wide range of fees to fund a variety of improvements not the least of which is Street Oversizing Fee, which funds improvements to arterial streets. E. "Housing — Principal LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area." (Page 59.) Multi -family housing has been identified as a critical component in the City's mix of housing on a city- wide basis. For decades, the historic split between single family and multi -family housing has held at a consistent 60% / 40% ratio. City Plan reinforces long-standing policies that multi -family housing must be widely distributed and not concentrated around the Downtown or the C.S.U. campus. (Land Use Policies Plan, 1979; City Plan, 1997, 2011.) F. "Housing — Policy LIV 7.1: Encourage a Variety of Housing Types and Locations. Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed -use developments that are well -served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities. " (Page 59.) Item # 2A Page 5 Agenda Item 2A Rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N will allow multi -family development within the 177-acre Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. thus enriching the mix of housing. Currently, there is no M-M-N zoning within a radius of greater than one mile. (As noted, Bucking Horse Apartments is greater than one mile and this multi -family project was the subject of an Addition of Permitted Use, not the result of M-M-N zoning.) The subject parcels are within close proximity to land zoned for employment, industrial shopping and services. Amenities include the active outdoor recreation offered by Riverbend Ponds and Running Deer natural areas and the future regional trail along Boxelder Creek. G. "City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies — Focus on a Compact Development Pattern: Growth within the City will be focused to promote a compact development pattern by directing urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (G.M.A.). The compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas." (Page 66.) Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. is not sprawl or leapfrog development. The 177 acres are annexed, zoned and not at the edge of the Growth Management Area. The development pattern is expected to provide three key objectives: • Clustering the allowable density in the Urban Estate zone district will result in open space and provide a land use transition along the western and northern edges; • Compact development and urban character will be placed on the parcels zoned L-M-N, C-G, I, and the prospective M-M-N; • Natural resource protection will be provided along Boxelder Creek. As noted, surrounding zoning is mixed ranging from Urban Estate to Industrial. 1-25 adjoins the O.D.P to the east. Since multi -family housing is expected to be distributed to all portions of the G.M.A., and contribute to the vision for a compact development pattern, the rezoning fulfills the principles and policies of the Structure Plan Map. H. "City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies — Provide an Interconnected Transit System: An expanded public transit system is an integral component of the City Structure Plan Map. The system is designed to provide for high -frequency transit service along major arterials and Enhanced Travel Corridors. Feeder transit lines will provide connections from all major districts within the city. The City's compact form will help make comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit service possible." (Page 66.) Prospect Road is designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. The density gained by multi -family housing will help support transit as an alternative mode of travel. 1. "Components of City Structure Plan Map — Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods will serve as the primary building blocks of the community's built environment. Neighborhoods will be walkable and connected and will include a mix of housing types. Neighborhoods will include destinations within walking distance such as schools, parks, neighborhood shopping, and places of work and civic uses." (Page 68.) Item # 2A Page 6 Agenda Item 2A Rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N will enrich the mix of housing types. At the master plan level, Gateway at Prospect includes a public neighborhood park, regional trail, future shopping and employment opportunities. J. "Principle LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or a Community Commercial District." (Page 73.) As noted, the vision for Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. is to build on the success of other large-scale master -planned neighborhoods such as Rigden Farm, Oak Ridge, Miramont, The Landings, Sidehill/Bucking Horse and the like. All of these mixed -use neighborhoods include multi -family housing at typical M-M-N densities. With 177 acres, the goal is to create a neighborhood with a variety of housing types, a neighborhood park, a regional trail and a commercial area. Multi -family housing will contribute to fulfilling these policies in a manner that is customary to the City's established development pattern. K. "Principle LIV 22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community." (Page 74.) Multi -family housing on 21.98 acres of a 177-acre O.D.P. will add housing diversity and help create a mixed -use neighborhood. L. "Policy LIV 22.1: Vary Housing Models and Types. Provide variation in house models and types in large development, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of a standardized subdivision." (Page 74.) Adding M-M-N zoning to the Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. will contribute to the mix of housing types and options within a large, unified development. Streetscapes will include buildings facing streets with front doors and connecting walkways to avoid the appearance of a standardized subdivision. Per Section 3.8.30(F)(2) — Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings — Variation Among Buildings, projects containing more than five buildings must provide at least three distinctly different building designs (excluding clubhouse). In order to ensure compliance with this City Plan policy, and to ensure the elimination of the appearance of standardized land development, staff recommends the following condition of approval: Condition Number Two: Multi -family development on the subject 21.98 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended O.D.P.) must include four distinctly different building designs as defined by the Section 3.8.30(F)(2) — Design Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings — Variation Among Buildings. M. "Policy LIV 22.2: Provide Creative Multi -Family Housing Design. Design smaller multi -family buildings to reflect the characteristics and amenities typically associated with single family detached houses. These characteristics and amenities include orientation of the front door to a neighborhood sidewalk and street, individual identity, private outdoor space, adequate parking and storage, access to sunlight, privacy and security." (Page 74.) As mentioned, Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. will include public streets, a public neighborhood park, a regional trail, a commercial center and employment uses. South of Prospect Road there are 143 acres Item # 2A Page 7 Agenda Item 2A zoned Employment and east of 1-25 there are 132 acres zoned C-G and I. The proposed multi -family component will include buildings that front on public streets with individual ground floor units featuring their own entrance and connecting walkways to the maximum extent feasible. The multi -family dwellings will be within approximately one -quarter of a mile of the future public neighborhood park, a future commercial center and adjacent to the proposed Boxelder Creek Regional Trail. Staff finds that the multi -family component, as proposed, would be integrated into the larger neighborhood in a town -like pattern unlike a prototypical apartment complex with series of inward -facing buildings served by nothing but common breezeway entrances and perimeter parking lots. M-M-N zoning would contribute to supporting commercial uses that would serve the larger neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is found to conform to the basic design characteristics and amenities of the M-M-N zone. In order to ensure that any subsequent P.D.P. comply with these basic design characteristics, Staff recommends the following condition of approval: Condition Number Three: Multi -family development on the 21.98 acres that are the subject of the rezoning, must be designed with a framework of streets (public or private) and that buildings are oriented to these streets to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, ground floor units must face such streets with each unit having an individual entrance. Further, such street -facing units must include a front porch or stoop that is connected to the sidewalk through a walkway. Where it is not possible to orient a building to a street, such buildings must comply with the pedestrian connectivity standards of Section 3.5.2(D) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. N. "Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods — Purpose: ... are intended to be setting for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks." (Page 80). The prototypical arrangement of M-M-N zoning on a city-wide basis is that such zones are generally located between N-C, Neighborhood Commercial or C-C, Community Commercial and L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. This hierarchy places the commercial properties along the arterial streets, bounded by M-M-N, which in turn is then bounded by L-M-N. As proposed, the subject 21.98 acres are bounded by the following: • North: L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (55.6 acres) • South: East Prospect Road (500 linear feet of frontage) • East: C-G, Commercial (27 acres) • West: County Residential While the proposed rezoning arrangement does not perfectly comply with the prototypical relationship among the three zones, all three zones are represented, and concentrated M-M-N housing is in close Item # 2A Page 8 Agenda Item 2A proximity to transit, commercial services and employment. In addition, the proposed M-M-N parcel is within easy walking or biking distance to the future public neighborhood park and the proposed regional bike trail. Finally, the three zone districts are all part of an Overall Development Plan and will function together by virtue of a connected pattern of streets and blocks. O. "Principal LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment district." (Page 80.) As noted, the subject parcels include 21.98 acres which are located between the lower density existing County subdivision to the west and the L-M-N parcels within the O.D.P. and the parcels zoned C-G, General Commercial and E, Employment per the Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. The proposed M-M-N zone would adjoin County Residential zoning. There are eight abutting properties. Initially, from strictly a zoning perspective, this juxtaposition may seem abrupt but distances between the existing houses to the west and the subject site are significant. (The applicant has prepared an illustrative map showing these separations.) While zoning is but one tool to achieve land use transition and compatibility, other tools, at a finer grain, are equally effective in accomplishing the same objective. The land development standards in Article Three of the Land Use Code are specifically intended to ensure that new development is of high quality, and that impacts are identified and mitigated in order to achieve compatibility. The applicant has included, for information purposes, a conceptual site plan indicating a multi -family project that shows up to 276 dwelling units. Distributed over 21.98 acres, the average residential density would be 12.56 dwelling units per gross acre. This slightly exceeds the required minimum density of 12.00 d.u./a for parcels greater than 20 acres in the M-M-N zone. (For comparison purposes, it is interesting to note that in the L-M-N zone, a single phase is allowed to be developed multi -family dwelling units up to a maximum of 12.00 d.u./a but only as long as the overall project does not exceed 9.00 d.u./a., there are no more than 12 units per building and no more than 14,000 square feet per building.) In order to ensure that future multi -family development at this location, under M-M-N zoning, takes its place within the transitional hierarchy called for in the City Plan policy, staff recommends the following condition of approval: Condition Number Four: Multi -family development on the subject 21,98 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan), shall be capped at 276 dwelling units. (Note that this metric is capped by number of dwelling units and not by the ratio of dwelling units per acre. This is because, based on past experience, by the time of the submittal for the Project Development Plan, the number of gross acres may decrease or otherwise fluctuate due to land being conveyed or dedicated for a variety of public improvements, utilities, or common open space/amenities.) P. "Principal LIV 29-3: Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street." (Page 80.) Item # 2A Page 9 Agenda Item 2A Access from the proposed M-M-N parcels to the areas zoned General Commercial would be via an east - west local connector street and the existing north -south Southwest Frontage Road, designated as a collector roadway, both of which include public sidewalks. Q. "Policy LIV 43.3 — Support Transit -Supportive Development Patterns: Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit -supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use." (Page 95.) Per the City's Structure Plan Map, East Prospect Road is designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. Locating multi -family housing, zoned M-M-N, at the subject site broadens the mix of uses and fulfills this policy. R. Catalyst Project Area: Catalyst areas are viewed as places for ongoing and new public and private sector initiatives that use a multi -disciplinary and triple bottom line approach, addressing economic, environmental and social factors in a balanced manner. City Plan focuses on City actions that can inspire private sector response and create catalytic change. (Page 157.) The Prospect/1-25 Gateway is identified as one of 14 Catalyst Project Areas. Staff has prepared an Exhibit (Exhibit One, attached) listing these areas and demonstrating the extent to which they include M- M-N zoning, or zoning that permits multi -family (at greater than 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre) or existing multi -family (again, at greater than 12 d.u./a.) The Exhibit shows 11 of the 14 areas meet these criteria. The Prospect/1-25 Gateway is one of three Catalyst Areas that is not presently zoned to allow multi- family at greater than 12 d.u./a. (Portions of the other two areas include land that is not yet annexed and zoned.) Staff contends that the greater the mix of land uses and variety housing choices, the greater the potential for creating a critical mass that would position the area for catalytic change per the vision outlined in City Plan. In other words, it's hard to imagine areas of the City where catalytic change is anticipated without having the full complement of housing variety and mixed -uses. 4. Warranted by Changed Conditions Within the Neighborhood Surrounding and Including the Subject Property: Here's what changed since the last rezoning in 2004: • A commitment by CDOT to widen 1-25 to three lanes between Mulberry Street and Loveland at an estimated cost of $235 million dollars to be constructed beginning in 2018. • A commitment by the owners of land at the four quadrants of 1-25 and Prospect Road to collectively contribute up to $7 million dollars to widen the 1-25/Prospect Road interchange estimated to cost a total of $28 million dollars. This interchange improvement is not currently a part of the lane widening project of 2018. If not included in this lane widening, then the interchange improvement would be delayed until 2035. • A feasibility analysis by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath to collectively contribute up to $7 million dollars to widen the 1-25/Prospect Road interchange. Item # 2A Page 10 Agenda Item 2A • A commitment by CDOT to match the aforementioned $14 million dollars to construct the interchange improvement so that the interchange could be improved at the same time as the lane widening project and benefit from economies of scale. • Improvements by the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority to control flooding along Boxelder Creek adjacent to the Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. at an estimated cost of $10.5 million dollars. • Passage of the Poudre School District Bond Issue which funds the construction of a high school and middle school campus on the 110-acre parcel north of Prospect Road and east of 1-25 at an estimated cost of $125.5 million dollars. • Adoption of the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Trails Master Plan which calls for a regional trail along Boxelder Creek and between the two irrigation ditches within the Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. • Adoption of the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Master Plan which calls for a future public neighborhood park within the Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. • The conveyance of the former (143 acres) City of Fort Collins Sludge Farm, south of Prospect Road, to Colorado State University Research Foundation, and rezoning the parcel from P-O-L, Public Open Lands, to E, Employment. • Ratification of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath on the boundaries of their respective Growth Management Areas. Based on the Timnath G.M.A., existing agricultural land is expected to develop at an urban level of residential density. As can be seen, there are a number of significant changes within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property over the past 12 years. Staff contends that proposed rezoning is warranted by these changes. 5. Whether and the Extent To Which the Proposed Amendment is Compatible With Existing and Proposed Uses Surrounding the Subject Land and is the Appropriate Zone District for the Land. The 177 acres of Gateway at Prospect O.D.P are undeveloped. Regarding the various residential parcels to the west, the applicant has provided an exhibit that illustrates an on -site transitional buffer ranging from 9 to 88 feet, located between the rear property lines of the County parcels to the edge of the future north -south street. The exhibit also shows the off -site separation between the existing houses to the west to the A.P.U.'s onsite transitional buffer ranging from 35 to 787 feet. These physical separations are effective in achieving compatibility. In addition, while not a buffer, the future north -south public street will include 76 feet of total right-of-way plus 18 feet of total utility easement (94 feet) which contributes to separation. Finally, there would be on -site design aspects, such as building setbacks and front yard landscaping on the east side of the Item # 2A Page 11 4genda Item 2A future street that will contribute to overall buffering and separation. Combined, these buffers, distances and setbacks contribute to buffering and mitigation of any negative impacts. Per Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code, compatibility is defined as: "Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation access, and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as. " Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. " Staff recognizes that a number of existing County subdivisions are now included within the City's Growth Management Area. For example, four County subdivisions that are now annexed and are in close proximity to either multi -family or commercial development include: • Fairway Estates — 301 East Harmony and Brickstone P.D.P • Fossil Creek Meadows — Fossil Creek Condominiums • Harmony Half Acres — Caribou Apartments • Applewood Estates — Red Tail Ponds In each of these cases, the extent of separation and buffering varies but as each multi -family project was reviewed; all aspects of compatibility were evaluated. The proposal to introduce M-M-N zoning, in relationship to Boxelder Estates and other adjacent properties, is proportional to that of similar relationships found within the City's Growth Management Area. Due to the privately -owned buffer, there will be no street connections and thus no traffic impacts. The multi -family housing can be placed at distances that are equal to or greater than similar land use relationships found throughout the City. In addition, compatibility can be achieved by requiring the elements of compatibility to be implemented at the P.D.P. stage. Consistent with City Plan and existing development patterns, the existence of a County semi -rural, residential subdivision does not preclude the City from realizing the goals of compact urban form and opportunities for a variety of housing in all parts of the City. In order to ensure that any subsequent P.D.P. complies with the applicable compatibility criteria, Staff recommends the following three conditions of approval: Condition Number Five: Multi -family development on the subject 21.98 acres must be designed such that buildings do not exceed 40 feet in height. Masonry exterior materials must be provided on the front elevations up to at least the top of the first floor. Off-street parking must not be located between buildings and streets (public or private) to the maximum extent feasible. Condition Number Six: A transitional landscape buffer ranging between 9 and 88 feet must be provided between the rear (east) property lines of the adjoining County parcels and the western edge of the future north -south collector road, as well as along the north property line of 3604 E. Prospect Road. Further, such area shall be densely landscaped, with an emphasis on the northern portion, and overall, must include a mix of Evergreen and Deciduous trees and other plants, undulating earthen berms, sustainable ground Item # 2A Page 12 Agenda Item 2A covers and proper irrigation in order to establish an effective and aesthetically pleasing land use transition. Condition Number Seven: The multi -family buildings that are placed along the future north -south street must be setback from the property line by no less than 15 feet. Staff, therefore, finds that the proposed rezoning of the subject 21.98 acres to M-M-N, as conditioned, is compatible with existing and proposed uses and is the appropriate zone district for the land. 6. Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in Significantly Adverse Impacts on the Natural Environment, Including, But Not Limited to Water, Air, Noise, Stormwater Management, Wildlife, Vegetation, Wetlands and the Natural Functioning of the Environment. Under current L-M-N zoning, multi -family is permitted but capped at three specific metrics. In addition, there are over 30 permitted uses ranging from single-family detached to convenience retails stores with fuel sales. This wide range is intentional and specifically calibrated to create mixed -use neighborhoods as envisioned by City Plan. Under current E, zoning, multi -family housing is also permitted with no caps on the three aforementioned metrics. In addition, there are over 67 permitted uses ranging from single family detached to light industrial. This wide range of uses is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces. Secondary uses are allowed to support primary uses and to allow residential in close proximity to employment. Up -zoning 12.27 acres of L-M-N and down -zoning 9.71 acres of E, to 21.98 acres of M-M-N would not create any different impact on natural habitats and features than the impacts associated with the permitted uses in the underlying zone districts. The wide range of currently permitted uses is roughly comparable to M-M-N permitted uses, particularly the non-residential commercial uses. The rezoning to M-M-N would not result in significant adverse impact on the stated criteria. 7. Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in a Logical and Orderly Development Pattern. The current zoning around the four quadrants of the 1-25/Prospect Road interchange is as follows: Northwest (Vacant - Gateway at Prospect O.D.P.): • C-G, General Commercial 27 acres • E, Employment 60 acres • L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood 68 acres • U-E, Urban Estate 22 acres Southwest (Vacant — CSURF): • E, Employment 143 acres Southeast (Vacant — Paradigm Properties): • C-G, General Commercial 17 acres Item # 2A Page 13 Agenda Item 2A Northeast (Vacant — White Brothers): • C-G, General Commercial 15 acres • I, Industrial 117 acres Total: 469 acres As can be seen, there is no M-M-N zoning within the four quadrants of the interchange covering a total of 469 acres. In contrast, a square mile section is 640 acres and defined by section line roads typically classified as arterial streets. On a city-wide basis, with the exception of natural areas, it is rare to find such a large area as 469 acres that does not include either M-M-N zoning, or comparable multi -family housing developed under different zoning or under prior law. Allowing M-M-N on the subject site would result in creating opportunities to locate housing in close proximity to a variety of potential workplaces. Further, such M-M-N zoning would be the only such zone within a 1.5 mile radius. Staff finds that this arrangement of zoning would also result in a logical and orderly development pattern for east -central Fort Collins. 8. 1-25 Sub -area Plan: The 1-25 Sub -area Plan was adopted in August of 2003. The Plan states: "Due to the recent adoption of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and East Mulberry Corridor Plan, along with the Harmony Corridor Plan (1995), the 1-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of 1-25 from around the Prospect Road interchange on the south, to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east. " (Pages v — vi.) The plan area map indicates that the westerly limit of the study area north of Prospect Road is the alignment of Boxelder Creek. Since the subject parcels are west of Boxelder Creek, they are outside boundary of the 1-25 Sub -area Plan. 9. Comparison of the Size of the Proposed M-M-N zone with Existing M-M-N Zone Districts: For comparison purposes between the size of the proposed rezoning and existing zoning on a city-wide basis, Staff has selected a sample of 24 M-M-N zoned areas, totaling 488 acres, including the subject site, that were not fully developed in 1997. (The year of the adoption of the Land Use Code that established the concept of the M-M-N zone district). The areas were then ranked in order by size. (Exhibit Two, attached.) Based on this sample: • Range: The 24 areas range in size from 8.43 acres to 44.46 acres. • Average: The average size is 18.96 acres. • Median: The median size is 15.67 acres. As can be seen, at 21.98 acres, the subject rezoning is within the range of the sample and slightly above the average and median sizes. Establishing M-M-N zoning on a parcel that is 21.98 acres, therefore, is not an outlier. Further, relative to the 177 acre O.D.P., the 21.98 acres represents 12.40% of the total Item # 2A Page 14 Agenda Item 2A area which indicates that multi -family housing would contribute to the mix of housing choice but not dominate the neighborhood. 10. Neighborhood Information Meeting: Per Section 2.9(B), a neighborhood meeting is not required except that with respect to quasi-judicial map amendments (rezoning) only, the Director may convene a neighborhood meeting to present and discuss a proposal of known controversy and/or significant impacts. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 19, 2016. (Note that two earlier meetings were held in conjunction with the Amended Overall Development Plan and the Request for an Addition of Permitted Use. The request for an A.P.U. was withdrawn and replaced by a request for rezoning. All three neighborhood meeting summaries are attached since the issues related to potential multi -family development are similar whether entitled by an A.P.U. or rezoning.) One of the results of this public outreach is the recommendation of seven conditions of approval. 11. Conclusion and Findings of Fact: In reviewing the request to rezone the two subject parcels from L-M-N and E to M-M-N, a total of 21.98 acres, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The request to rezone 12.27 acres from L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use, and 9.71 acres of E, Employment, a total of 21.98 acres, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood complies with the standards and criteria of Section 2.9(H) of the Land Use Code. B. In order to encourage and facilitate the orderly development of the 21.98 acres, seven conditions of approval are recommended as allowed by Section 2.9(I). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve Gateway at Prospect Rezoning, #REZ160001, based on the Findings of Fact of the Staff Report, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development on the subject 21.98 acres shall be limited to multi -family dwellings. 2. Multi -family development on the subject 21.98 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended O.D.P.) must include four distinctly different building designs as defined by the Section 3.8.30(F)(2) — Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings — Variation Among Buildings. 3. Multi -family development on the 21.98 acres that are the subject of the rezoning, must be designed with a framework of streets (public or private) and that buildings are oriented to these streets to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, ground floor units must face such streets with each unit having an individual entrance. Further, such street -facing units must include a front porch or stoop that is connected to the sidewalk through a walkway. Where it is not possible to orient a building to a street, such buildings must comply with the pedestrian connectivity standards of Section 3.5.2(D) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. Item # 2A Page 15 Agenda Item 2A 4. Multi -family development on the subject 21.98 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan), shall be capped at 276 dwelling units. 5. Multi -family development on the subject 21.98 acres must be designed such that buildings do not exceed 40 feet in height. Masonry exterior materials must be provided on the front elevations up to at least the top of the first floor. Off-street parking must not be located between buildings and streets (public or private) to the maximum extent feasible. 6. A transitional landscape buffer ranging between 9 and 88 feet must be provided between the rear (east) property lines of the adjoining County parcels and the western edge of the future north -south collector road, as well as along the north property line of 3604 E. Prospect Road. Further, such area shall be densely landscaped, with an emphasis on northern portion, and overall, must include a mix of Evergreen and Deciduous trees and other plants, undulating earthen berms, sustainable ground covers and proper irrigation in order to establish an effective and aesthetically pleasing land use transition. 7. The multi -family buildings that are placed along the future north -south street must be setback from the property line by no less than 15 feet. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map - Big Picture (JPG) 2. Aerial Map - Close -Up (JPG) 3. E. Prospect Corridor Features Map (JPG) 4. E. Prospect Corridor Zoning Map (JPG) 5. Exhibit One - Catalyst Areas (DOCX) 6. City Plan M-M-N Purpose & Policies (PDF) 7. Exhibit Two - Comparison of MMN Zones by Acreage (PDF) 8. Gateway at Prospect Rezone Applicant's Justification (PDF) 9. Rezoning Map (PDF) 10. Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. (PDF) 11. Multi -Family Conceptual Site Plan (PDF) 12. Gateway at Prospect 1 st Neigh. Mtg. Summary (DOCX) 13. Gateway at Prospect 2nd Neigh. Mtg. Summary(DOCX) 14. Gateway at Prospect 2nd Neigh. Mtg. Summary(DOCX) 15. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 16. Adjustment to Land Area Calculations — Boxelder Drive (PDF) Item # 2A Page 16 No Text r '�' ��, � � ,,, .�•�. '� + r' (�. :./tom . ' �. ryyi `eI 1 .. � (r`` � ,alb ."eL .� ''.,. T. • i� �' �R' i�►A ' � j ka "I s(,�'ra I .' tea�. ,� � �_' � F � � �^ ,,I.i rr� � q' ►_ `,� � ram' i �, , '. _ — I � _"-'w`_� ��` � I. • � l•� �' � ® 4z F5i%. • 40 Now MEN 1 I on zfilm 1111/1111 : , I111111111 : � , I111111111 WIN 1 1' s i 4.% 11 Ri • ■m — i'I lim mei r71P_1IN! re, R = ♦ si VMS r'1rl � i , rr — . � i Attachment 5 EXHIBIT ONE CATALYST PROJECT AREAS PER CITY PLAN 1. Campus West 2. Downtown Hotel/ Convention Center 3. Foothills Mall Area 4. FortZED 5. Harmony/College Area 6. Highway 392/1-25 Gateway 7. Lincoln Avenue Area 8. Mason Corridor 9. Mountain Vista 10. Mulberry/1-25 Area 11. North College Area 12. Poudre River Corridor Area 13. Prospect/1-25 Area 14. South College Corridor Area City's densest concentration of multi -family Legacy Apts., Uncommon Apts., D.M.A. Plaza Foothills Apts. Foothills Multi -Family Apts. Penny Flats, Old Town Flats, Mason Flats, Flats at the Oval, Pura Vida Apts, Carriage Apts. Clocktower Apts. Settlers Creek Apts., Brickstone Apts. None Buffalo Run Apts. Capstone Cottages (See FortZED) Vacant - 43 acres zoned M-M-N None Aspen Heights, Crowne on Conifer P.D.R. Pine Street Lofts, Legacy Apts. None Prospect Station, Spring Creek Place P.D.P Attachment 6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN) Purpose: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. A typical Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1- Density Housing in new Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. The minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be seven (7) dwelling units per acre. Policy LIV 29.2 - Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood -serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods may include the following: • Princ/pa/uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots (under 6,000 square feet), duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live -work units, and multi- family housing. • Suppordng uses: Non -retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks and recreation facilities; schools; small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed -and -breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units stacked above retail or office space; and live -work units. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. Policy LIV 29.3 - Neighborhood or Community Commercial District Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed - Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street. Policy LIV 29A- Mix of Housing Types Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood's transitional, higher -activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate low- and medium -cost housing with higher -cost housing and non-residential uses. Policy LIV 29.5 - Transitions Encourage non-residential uses and . larger buildings of attached and multiple -family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods. CITY PLAN Exhibit 2 ensity Mixed Use N 1 East side of Stanford Road (Between Swallow and Horsetooth) 44.46 2 Mountain Vista (This is MMN that is south of Mountain Vista and east of Timberline Road and north of the Larimer — Weld Canal.) 43.14 3 The area east of S. Boardwalk and south of Oak Ridge (Miramont) 30.58 4 N.W.C. of S. Shields and W. Drake (Raintree) 28.32 5 N.E.C. of S. Lemay and E. Harmony (Courtney Park / Golden Meadows) 25.35 6 N.E.C. of N. Lemay and Lincoln 24.08 7 Gateway at Prospect 21.98 8 Crowne on Timberline 20.00 9 S.E.C. of E. Prospect and S. Lemay (Park Central) 19.74 10 N.W.C. of Wakerobin Ln and S. Shields St 16.33 11 Blue Spruce and Bristle Cone (South of Willox and east of Blue Spruce.) 15.80 12 N.W.C. of Wakerobin Ln and S. Shields St 15.77 13 from Bacon School.) 15.57 14 S.W.C. of S. Shields and W. Drake (Cimarron) 15.28 15 Crestridge and Venus (Skyview) 14.60 16 S.E.C. of S. Shields and W. Horsetooth (Four Seasons) 13.63 17 Crestridge and Venus (Skyview) 13.49 18 Shields) 13.09 19 Harmony Rd) 12.93 20 S.E.C. of S. Shields and W. Drake 11.82 21 N.W.C. of S. Mason and W. Horsetooth (The Preserve) 11.34 22 N.W.C. of E. Harmony and Boardwalk (Landings) 10.50 23 N.E.C. of S. Shields and W. Harmony (Woodlands) 8.82 24 Harmony Rd) 8.43 Range 8.43 - 44.46 Average 18.96 Median 15.67 Total 489.68 Source: City of Fort Collins GIS Department Attachment 8 � � = GROUP landscape architecture I planning I illustration December 14, 2016 Gateway at Prospect Justification of Rezoning Request Ownership The owner of Gateway at Prospect ("Gateway") is Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC ("FCIC"), a 14 member group that acquired the Gateway property in 2013 for investment purposes. The Property Gateway is the 177-acre property located at the northwest corner of 1-25 and Prospect Road. Recent History Gateway was previously owned by a Great Britain based investment group called Western VII Investments LLC, which called the property "Interstate Land." It was annexed to the City and zoned in April 1989. It has been rezoned twice since, most recently in April 2000. An Overall Development Plan ("ODP") was approved in 2004. Adjacent Properties In addition to Gateway at the northwest corner, the other properties at the corners of Prospect and I- 25 are: • Southwest Corner: 142-acre tract owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation ("CSURF"). The property is annexed to the City and zoned for employment and commercial development. Its proposed use is for a high-tech campus to house spin-offs from CSU and other R&D uses. • Northeast Corner: 129.4 acres owned by Rudolph Farms. The property is annexed and zoned for commercial development. Its proposed uses include retail, industrial, assisted living facilities and a church. • Southeast Corner: 17.4 acres owned by Paradigm. The property is annexed and zoned for commercial development. Proposed uses are the permitted commercial uses, and would include retail, restaurants, fast food and office/warehouse. Additional properties surrounding Gateway • To the South, the Colorado Welcome Center owned by Colorado State University, a CDOT rest area, a strip owned by the City, and a 12.5-acre tract owned by K and M Company. • To the West, Boxelder Subdivision and Sunrise Acres Subdivision, both older Larimer County residential subdivisions. • To the North, a fully developed Larimer County industrial park. • In addition to the foregoing, the 110 acre Poudre School District site is just east of the Northeast Corner, on the north side of Prospect Road, and is planned for a Senior High/Middle School and associated athletics fields. Construction of the school was approved as part of the recent $375 Million Poudre School District Bond Issue. Page 1 444 Mountain Ave. TEL 970.532.5891 Berftud,C080513 weB TBGroup.us Attachment 8 Request For Rezone This is a request to rezone approximately 12.4 acres of LMN (Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods) district and approximately 8.4 acres of E (Employment) district land at Gateway at Prospect (a total of 20.8 acres) to MMN (Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods). The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for an increased level of residential intensity, for an already permitted use within both of the existing zone districts. The MMN parcel would provide a more gradual transition in development intensity and use between lower density development to the west and higher intensity development proposed to the east. The MMN zone district also allows for the opportunity to provide more diversity in housing product within the City. There are several other neighborhoods in Fort Collins that have MMN zoning situated in a similar way to what is proposed at Gateway at Prospect including: a) Carpenter and College Ave b) Harmony and College Ave c) Harmony and Boardwalk d) Harmony and Lemay e) Timberline and Zephyr f) College and Crestridge g) Harmony and Shields h) Horsetooth and Shields i) Drake and Shields j) Prospect and Shields k) Prospect and Overland 1) Taft Hill and Elizabeth m) Shields and Elizabeth n) College and Willox o) Vine and Timberline p) Mulberry and Greenfield q) Timberline and Drake r) Timberline and Horsetooth The MMN at Gateway at Prospect, as proposed, would be the only MMN property in the I- 25/Gateway district, as it is not zoned in any of the other quadrants of the interchange. 1. Text Amendments and Legislative Zonings or Rezonings. Amendments to the text of this Code, and amendments to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of more than six hundred forty (640) acres of land (legislative rezoning), are matters committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council, and decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one (1) factor. The proposed area for rezoning is less than six hundred forty (640) acres of land. 2. Mandatory Requirements for Quasi judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi- judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: a. consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or The rezone to MMN (Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) at Gateway at Prospect meets the intent of the City 's Comprehensive Plan and City Plan which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 1. Introduction — Community and Neighborhood Livability a. Defining how neighborhoods will accommodate future population and lifestyle shifts. Page 2 Attachment 8 2. Introduction — Urban design and Historic Preservation a. Defining gateways that help distinguish Fort Collins from surrounding communities. 3. Introduction — Housing a. Serving the housing needs of many diverse groups and changing demographics. b. Providing high -performing housing for all income groups. 3. Community and Neighborhood Livability Vision a. A compact pattern of development within a well-defined community boundary. b. Cohesive, distinct, vibrant, safe and attractive neighborhoods c. Quality and accessible housing options for all household types and income levels. d. Distinctive and attractive community image, design, and identity. 4. Community and Neighborhood Livability a. Overview: ...By increasing the overall average density of the city, the community's neighborhoods will foster efficient land use, support a mix of housing types, increase efficiency of public utilities, streets, facilities, and services, and accommodate multiple mode of travel (including vehicle, bus, bike and walking). b. Supporting land uses are to be brought together in a development pattern designed to create a pleasant environment for walking and bicycling as well as automobile and transit travel. c. Activity centers generally correspond to Commercial Districts identified on the City Structure Plan Map and are intended to be vibrant, walkable, bicycle friendly, transit -supportive places that contain a mix of housing, employment, retail, culture, arts and dining. d. Earlier versions of City Plan also envisioned a community with a wide variety of housing types (including single-family houses, duplexes, townhomes, apartment, and condos/lofts) — ideas which are carried forward in this chapter of the 2010 City Plan so that people from all income levels may have choices of affordable and quality housing in diverse neighborhoods throughout the community. e. Finally, the earlier versions of City Plan introduced the introduced the City Structure Plan Map to guide ongoing growth and evolution of the community. It translates the overall vision for our built environment into a map with four basic kinds of components that make up the physical form and development pattern of the city: Neighborhoods, Districts, Edges, and Corridors. These components are structured around the following key themes: - Focus on a Compact Development Pattern - Provide an interconnected Transit System - Accommodate Multiple Means of Travel - Provide Transit -Oriented Activity Centers - Provide an Interconnected System of Open Lands - Reduce Carbon Emissions 5. Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability a. The economic, environmental and human aspects of the City's sustainability relate to community and neighborhood livability in the following ways: b. Economy: A mix of land uses (housing, retail, employment, etc.) provides opportunities to grow and diversity the economy throughout the community and for citizens to meet their retail an services needs in a variety of locations. A mix of housing options throughout the community also accommodates residents of all income levels in the city near places of work or other activity centers. c. Human: Community and neighborhood livability is related to human well-being in that a mix of land uses and housing and transportation options provide opportunities for citizens to be self- sufficient and to live, work, and travel within the community. 6. Subarea Plans a. Prospect Road Streetscape Plan Page 3 Attachment 8 7. Housing — Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. a. Policy LIV 7.1 — Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations: Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed use developments that are well -served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. b. Policy LIV 7.2 — Develop and Adequate Supply of Housing: Encourage public and private for -profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain and adequate supply of single- and multiple -family housing. 8. City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies a. Focus on a Compact Development Pattern Growth within the city will be focused to promote a compact development pattern, by directing urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas. b. Provide an Interconnected Transit System An expanded public transit system is an integral component of the City Structure Plan Map. The system is designed to provide for high -frequency transit service along major arterials and Enhanced Travel Corridors (including Prospect Road). Feeder Transit lines will provide connections from all major districts within the city. The City's compact form will help make comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit service possible. c. Accommodate Multiple Means of Travel The City's form and structure will facilitate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, as well as cars and trucks. New development will be organized and woven into a compact pattern that is conducive to automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit travel. d. Components of the City Plan Structure Plan Map Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods will serve as the primary building blocks of the community's built environment. Neighborhoods will be walkable and connected, and will include a mix of housing types. Neighborhoods will include destinations within walking distance such as schools, parks, neighborhood shopping, places of work and civic uses. e. Policy LIV 22.1 — Vary Housing Models and Types Provide variation in house models and types in large developments, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of standardized subdivision. f. Policy LIV 22.2 - Provide Creative Multi -Family Housing Design Design smaller multi -family buildings to reflect the characteristics and amenities typically associated with single-family detached houses. These characteristics and amenities include orientation of the front door to a neighborhood sidewalk and street, individual identity, private outdoor space, adequate parking and storage, access to sunlight, privacy and security. g. Policy LIV 22.3 — Offer Multi -Family Building Variation Offer variation among individual buildings within multi- building projects, yet stay within a coordinated overall "design theme. Achieve variation among buildings through a combination of different footprints, facade treatment, roof forms, entrance features, and, in specialized cases, building orientation. Avoid monotonous complexes of identical buildings, although there may be ways to achieve visual interest among substantially identical buildings with a high degree of articulation on each building, combined with variation in massing on the site. 9. MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN) a. Purpose: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed - Page 4 Attachment 8 Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. b. Policy LIV 29.2 — Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood -serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods may include the following: Principal uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots (under 6,000 square feet), duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live -work units, and multi- family housing. Supporting uses: Non -retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks and recreation facilities; schools; small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed -and - breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units stacked above retail or office space; and live- work units. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. c. Policy LIV 29.3 — Neighborhood or Community Commercial District Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed -Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street. d. Policy LIV 29.4 — Mix of Housing Types Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood's transitional, higher- activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate low- and medium -cost housing with higher -cost housing and non-residential uses. e. Policy LIV 29.5 — Transitions Encourage non-residential uses and larger buildings of attached and multiple -family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods. 10. Enhanced Travel Corridors a. Policy LIV 43.3 — Support Transit -Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit- supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. 11. Longer Term Action Item a. Gateway Design Standards (including Prospect Road) b. Prospect Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan 12. Catalyst Project Areas a. During the Plan Fort Collins process project team members, City Council, and the public identified areas throughout the city that have the potential to "showcase" opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. Through a combination of public and private actions that complement and build upon one another, these areas have the potential for lasting, desirable change. Catalyst areas are viewed as places for ongoing and new public and private sector initiatives that use a multi -disciplinary and triple bottom line approach, addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced manner. While each area requires City and private sector engagement, City Plan focuses on City actions that can inspire private sector response and create catalytic change. The intent of this section of City Plan is to identify these areas as those that are positioned for catalytic change, and to use several case studies as examples to illustrate how change might Page 5 Attachment 8 occur in a synergistic manner. The timing and pace of activity in these areas will ultimately be determined by market forces, community interest, and City and private sector investment. There are multiple areas and projects that can be viewed as Catalyst Project Areas throughout the City. The planning team initially identified 12 areas, and others may surface as the plan is implemented overtime: Prospect/1-25 Gateway b. warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. There has been significant change in character of this property since it was originally zoned. These changes include: 1. Boxelder Floodplain: Over the course of the last 16 years, dramatic development has occurred at all the intersections of 1-25 from Loveland (Hwy 34 and Crossroads) to Fort Collins (Hwy 392, Harmony Road and Mulberry) except one — the 1-25 and Prospect intersection. The primary cause of this isolation is the Boxelder Floodplain. Boxelder Creek starts north of Ft. Collins and flows down the east side of 1-25 until it reaches the north end of Gateway, where it crosses under 1-25 onto Gateway. It passes through Gateway and crosses under Prospect Road at the south end of Gateway. Prior to remediation work being completed, it passed under 1-25 through 2 culverts (there are 4 culverts under 1-25, but two have been blocked), and under Prospect Road through one culvert. The small size of the culverts caused the highway and road to act as a dam in a 100 year storm event, causing flooding of the northeast and southwest corners of 1-25 and Prospect, hundreds of acres in Timnath, and the portions of Gateway adjacent to Prospect. As a consequence, no development could take place on these lands. During 2016, the Boxelder Stormwater Authority (Ft. Collins, Wellington and Larimer County) and Timnath contributed $10,851,588 Million dollars to remediate the floodplain caused by Boxelder Creek. Among other improvements, the two closed culverts under I- 25 were opened, and the City closed Prospect Road for June, July and August in order to install 7 culverts under Prospect Road. The remediation work removed from the floodplain all of the property located in Timnath, all of the northeast and southwest corners of the 1-25 at Prospect Road intersection, and the portion of Gateway adjacent to Prospect, making all of that property available for development. The engineers for the City and the Boxelder Stormwater Authority have submitted the "as built' data to FEMA and are awaiting the issuance of a Letter Of Map Revision ("LOMAR") to formally remove the floodplain. The LOMAR will allow development to take place on all the properties formerly in the flood plain. 2. Prospect and 1-25 Interchange improvements: At a cost of approximately $235 Million, the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") plans to expand 1-25 to 3 lanes on each side from Mulberry to Loveland. CDOT proposes to accomplish this through a "Design -Build" process in which CDOT prepares the engineering work up to a 30% level and sends it out to contractors to complete the engineering work and bid on the construction. The Design -Build bid is planned to be sent to contractors in January, 2017. The original bid proposal did not include any intersection construction. FCIC and the three other owners of the other 1-25 and Prospect Road corners (together, the "Prospect Interchange Task Force", or "PTIF Group") contacted the City and CDOT this past September, in hopes of persuading CDOT to include a new intersection (including a new 7 lane overpass bridge, on and off ramps and expansion of Prospect in the vicinity of the interchange) at Prospect Road (the "Prospect Intersection") in the Design -Bid process. The objective was to accelerate the construction of the intersection from 2035 or beyond, to 2018. Page 6 Attachment 8 CDOT responded by indicating that the Prospect Intersection was estimated to cost $28 Million, and that CDOT could be willing to include it in the Design Build bid if the City and private parties would come up with half the cost, $14 Million, split $7,000,000 each from the PTIF Group and from the City. Construction of an improved intersection is critically important to the City and CDOT. The intersection is currently reaching its capacity, and has significant traffic issues. The City Plan and the Transportation Plan both identify the Prospect Road interchange as the "Gateway" to the City, and deem it to be a "Catalyst Project ", critical to future of the City. After many meetings and significant efforts by all parties, The City Council, on November 25, 2016, adopted a resolution to include the Prospect Intersection in "CDOT's North 1-25 Improvement Project" through cooperative public -private funding. FCIC and the rest of the PTIF Group have agreed to provide up to $7,000,000 for the project. And finally, CDOT has agreed to include the project in its Design Build bid. It is anticipated that construction of the North 1-25 Improvement Project, including the Prospect Interchange, will commence in January, 2018. 3, Floodplain Weir: As part of the Boxelder floodplain remediation construction, the City requested that FCIC convey to the City an exclusive easement of a 2.7-acre site fronting on Prospect Road for the construction of a "weir" (a ditch) to carry overflow water from Boxelder Creek to the 5 culverts to be built under Prospect Road. At no cost to the City, FCIC conveyed the easement requested to the City. The weir consumes 2.7 acres of Gateway's property, eliminates 110 feet of Gateway's frontage along Prospect Road and eliminates 110 feet from the east side of the Gateway tract on which FCIC had hoped to sell for multifamily development. 4. CSURF: Until 2007, when CSURF acquired its 142 acres, the property belonged to the City and was used as a "sludge farm". After its acquisition by CSURF, it was zoned for commercial and employment uses, adding significant potential commercial uses to the area. 5. Additional ROW for Prospect Road widening: Also at the request of the City, FCIC has conveyed to the City 27.5 feet of Prospect Road frontage and granted an additional, parallel, 15-foot easement for utilities for a 42.5-foot setback from the current Prospect Road right-of-way. The conveyance of the 27.5 frontage was for the future widening of Prospect Road. These conveyances were also made at no cost to the City. 6, New PSD Middle/High School: On November 8, 2016, voters in the Poudre School District approved a bond issue of $375 Million, a portion of which will be used to construct a Middle School /High School and an associated athletic complex on the District's 110-acre site '/2 mile east of Gateway. Construction is scheduled to start in 2017. The middle/high school is expected to cost $125.5 Million and to open in 2020. 7. Dramatic growth and changes in land use in north Timnath: There has been significant development on the east side of 1-25. What was previously farm land has either developed into residential property or has approvals for future construction of residential development. c. Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: Page 7 Attachment 8 1. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; Boxelder Estates, a County subdivision with platted lots, is located to the west of Gateway at Prospect. This neighborhood consists of semi -rural ranchettes which were platted in the 1960's. The zoning for the majority of the neighborhood is R — Residential with a few lots zoned FA -Farming. Streets in this neighborhood are paved and lot sizes range from 0.41 acres — 5.41 acres. There is an existing strip of land which separates Boxelder Estates from Gateway at Prospect which is owned by the Boxelder HOA. This land was purchased approximately 20 years ago, is roughly 110 feet wide and 1,880 feet long. This land was purchased by the Boxelder HOA, from a former owner of Gateway, to ensure that street connections could not be made with any future adjacent development. There is a significant, existing buffer between the houses in Boxelder Estates that area located to the west of the proposed MMN parcel. With the exception of one house, all of the Boxelder Estate houses are currently located 640 feet — 787 feet from the Gateway at Prospect property boundary. The one house that is closer, is located approximately 35 feet from the Gateway at Prospect property boundary. This property owner has reviewed the planned development and provided written consent to the proposed development. In addition to the existing buffer, a transitional landscape buffer is planned which will range from 9 feet — 88 feet. A North -South collector road is planned adjacent to the transitional landscape buffer which will have a 76-foot right-of-way. We anticipate some additional land area on the east side of the collector road, in the form of building setbacks, which will be determined at the time of PDP/FDP applications. In total, this provides a buffer that ranges from 110 feet (which includes the nearest house)— 875 feet between Boxelder Estates houses and the nearest possible building within the multi -family parcel. The multi -family parcel also serves as a transition between the County subdivision and a planned high intensity commercial development to the east of both the multi -family parcel and the Boxelder Creek, and will act as a buffer to the noise associated with 1-25. 1-25 is located to the east of the commercial zone district with overall intensity in zoning planned, per City of Fort Collins zoning maps, increasing as you move from Boxelder Estates to the east. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. This parcel would serve as a transition between the platted County subdivision to the west and future commercial development to the east. Multi -family is currently a permitted use in the existing zone district. A change to MMN zoning will allow for an increased level of residential intensity providing housing more diversity within the City. The increased intensity of housing works symbiotically to support adjacent neighborhood commercial development and promote non -auto oriented development. 2. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; We do not anticipate any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed multi -family development would be arranged in a manner that protects the adjacent Boxelder Creek. In addition, a regional trail, per the City's Master Trails Plan, is Attachment 8 proposed along the eastern side of the multi -family parcel providing additional buffer between the natural environments and the residential units. 3. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. This District is intended to function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods (typically the L-M-N zone district) and a central commercial core (typically an N-C or C-C zone district). The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town -like pattern of development, and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts. The Prospect and 1-25 interchange is identified as an enhanced travel corridor per City Plan. Development within the MMN zone designation would allow for higher intensity, transit - supportive development. The MMN zone district would encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. It would serve as a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district. Page 9 GATEWAY REZONING MAP A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO DESCRIPTION OF REZONING BOUNDARY: A had of land being a ofCo of themn Quarter of Sdnng w 16. Township ] North. Range 68 Weof the hth P.M., City OF Fiat Collins, County of Lvimer, giveeofColmado wing mote punmlvly IfmnMd s follows: Considering the South line of the Smthmt Qu of Scandal 16.T]N. R68W m Mang North W 33'S 1' East and wire all Madngs contained Mrcin all thcmm: COMMENCING at the Snvh Gordon comer of Second 16: thence along the West line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, NsMh day IV 16- Es4 360.01 fen to IM POINT OF BEGINNING; Timm. Nast 00' 11' 16" East.))6.89 fed. drove. North 90° W W. Fact 835,33 feat thence. Sontag' 21' 44" Fort 44692 fact thence, South 58° 32' 55" Wcat. 12964 feet thence. South 24° 25' 35" Wm, 303.45 fa: bocce XgiMIepIXEP eacnon IanNmAv OWNER'. FORT ISOCLINAL-25 INTERCHANGE CORNER LLC OWNER'. FORT COLLINSIF25 INTERCRPNGE CORNER DEC N90'ODBO'E III South 00° SW 59" Went 222.69 feet to rec North ant coma of Lot 3. Block 2. Boxelder Estates Second Filing: thence along the North and Feat lines of mid Let 3 the following 2 curries and doormen North 88° 21' MY West. 290 40 fa; South 01° 3810" West, 269.9] feet w the North nghtuf-way lire of Fart Prespal Bond: thence along said North line, North age 21' 25- West. 95.00 feel to the Emt nght-of-way line of Between Dave; thence along the PON. Noah and West all way lines ofBoxelder Dove the following 5 nations and distances: alang a curve drionave to the mathesl having a central angle of 89° 59' 35" with a radius of ISM feet, an are length of 3.56 fen and the coos of which hears North 43° 21' 38" West, 21.21 feet, thence. North 01° 38' 10" Eact 314.96 fci thence, North tltl° 21, 50" West, W. W feet thence, South 01° 38' IV Wmt 314.95 fd; theme along a curve concave to are mrtM1wear having a central angle of 89° 59' 57"wiM a radius of 1509 feeL an uc length of2356 feet and Due coos of which bears 5waM1 46°38' 16" West, 2132 And to the North nghtuf-way line of Heat Prospect Rosd; armce OWNER. DESELMS abng sold Noah line, Noah 121' 25' West,33072 faro the East line of Loa 1, Block 1, Bnxeldw Esmw Second Filing; ahtnce along the ROBERT A e N DENISE Est and Noah lines ofl aid Lm I the following 2 cans and digni North 00° I F 10" Tue. 33001 fen: thence, Noah far 21' 50" WINE 120.13 feet o Oc POINT OF BEGINS ING, atroul g957,450 ysre foot or 21.980 sres, more or hers. The above dsetibed mess are subject W all m mN and righmaf wry Dow on record or misting. DESCRIPTION OF REZONING AREAS FROM E TO MMN: Trans of lend being a Nation of aM1c Smthcst Qmnv of Scdim 16, ToweM1ip) MOM, Range 68 Went of 1M 6th P.M., City of FM Collins, OWNER. SEASTAR wEBrMxEP1NE sea r � County of Lilted. State of Coomilit wing = a pYde4 aCnlarly bed as follows: LIMITED PMTNE HIP Tr l Considering the South line of the Smthmn Qaaaa of Section 16, TIN, R68 W as bang North 00° 33' 51- East and wit v1 ligual contended BB�I Covert relative harega: R PARCEL[ log' EDZ0-LW COMMENCING a the Somh Quaver comer of Safng 16, thence alngg the Wm line of the Southeast Qllaram of Senator 16, Noah W I I' 16" PARCEL 3 E 3W.01 fM m Ow MINT OF BEGINNING; North 00° I F 16"E 14.91 fed; thence South 88°02'35"97.10 fed; OWNER: ANDERSON act, ail, PontEaM1 534,440 . A. lrerxx South 56°32'31"Eazt 20tl%gfM to the Wenn of way line of Bnxeldw Onve'trrnce slot the Wefts of -ern line of I(ENNDER E B SCOOT R W 81n Y 8 HM1t Y 12269 x. B PNDERSON BCOTTR 8 Onve Oc following 2 couara and duluc®: Stan m length 10" West, 218,05 a fen; thence along a mrve South a .38. northwest.ethaving acrntrs Z angle of ht-ite 59' S]" with a radius ea ed R fool he x length of North fM and the KV Ihund V 25 -which Mrs South el t 38' I6" Wvyt of Lot f1, lathe North lder Estates line of East Prorymt Rod; Menge along yid NonM1 lire, ad E gI 21' llo West, 330]2 feel m sta Fast line of Lot I, Black I, East. 3 Estates Bmmd Filing: thence along the t. L and Did line of MIN Lm I the following 2 ontys and distanm: Math IXI° I1' 10" Est 3ID01 fw; arena. North 88° 21' 50' Wog, 120.13 fa m Be POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 112.146 r4yre had an 3.575 vTw, mart or 4w. _ PARCEL2: COMMENCING v the Sough Queen career of Setting lie thence along the Wag line of the Southeast Quarter OfSation 16. Noah W If 16" OWNER'. DEADMOND ESL 360.01 foot them. sham ° 11' 16" Ewa. 1091 fa; thmam, SOmh 88° D2' 35" Env, 29). 10 fat. thence, South 56' 32' 31"Ems.208.88 TARRY L g NANCY K Ed m she Went aghtofway lice ofBoxelM Dave: theme song the West and Noah right -of way lines of doxelda Dave the followin82 vursm and divmm: North 01° 38' 10" Env, 96.90 feel; thence, Saudi 88° 21' 50" Rod. 39.67 feel to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along a curve cngmw m the wen having a cenaal angle of 19° OY 45" with a n lim of 610W fiction arc lengthof202.95 fen and arechos en whichbears NAMIW01'W'Ea 202.01fed;6mce,Norlb OS°36'0]"Eon,81)6fed:Mmce,Nmth30°I]'28"Eaq 56544 feel; Thence, Sq 48°21'44"E 4W.32fM;wc,Bosh58°32'5r We,129.MfL these,SmW24°25'35'We5430345fMthence,Sw W° OWNER. MOCOY Della=l9.03'4 5959"Weer, 22269 feel; to Nut NoMdert comer of Lot 3, Block 2,Boxelder Eames SemM Filing; thence along the North and Wea lines of MARILYN JOANNE RE1000'L-2029 yid Lot 3the following 2 common and dinnnces: NoM88-21'50-Wen,290.40fed;Souf0t°38'10"WM269.97f mMe NoM DIr,N19.0134' iighuiLway line of East Pmq¢ct Roil: thence along and North line, North 121' 25' West, 95JD0 feet W Due Earl right-of-way line of PgXTOF Chard-2020 Begetter Drive thence ale the Far aM Noah right -of lines or Boxelder Drive are fallowing 3mmses and dirlanew: ca B B Y 6 nga curve BEGINNING GMCEL3 FOINTOF of HAND feel, fnvdetotthe he of matuNG et, ntral tac of BEGINNING North thane. fee,thenceNonh8length0" end, POINTtl fee, North 86°21'S0"West. 20.33fdtmhe POINT OF h 43- 1'38-norMast ,21.i1 North0 P38'35"with 314.9sOF 1g31 featthence,eettO 01°6w1a. East ggg•Ogyy-N. PMCEL2 a4.96 .coW BEGIN NING.cmminin6310.864 g1uere feces m].136 saw. mute ur law. 14.91' g8I1B PCYMCF NBB'21'SQ'W /3g.9I The above Jwetibal ens ore subjat to all wamumta and rights-ofwaynow m sword aexiatmg. BEGINNING 120.13' ry� REZONE MDPNCFLt IdT DESCRIPTION OF REZONING AREAS FROM LMN TO MMN: '� OWNER'. MOODYNN A mict Of land being a pmtim of the Southeast Qummr of Sarim 16, Towehip 1 North. Range fib West Of thn 6th P.M.. City of Fat Collins, MMILYN JOANNE County of Larima. State ufCulmmlu ping mac pmicuhrly dexnbcd artfollows: o n � Cmsidaring the Sous line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16,TIN, R68W a boating North 00°33' 51' East and with all bearings contained ¢¢ LOTL BLOCK df 2 PROR79EDZOAWG-Ai In hertin relarvc tlmrtl: yI BO%ELG£R yI Y a ESTATES 'p EX�S77NGZON�NG-E E W PARCEL 3: - PARCELI pI� £ OWNER: ^ 1121465q. H. COMMENCING attM Swnh Qlmnercomerof8arm 16; tM1enee along Me West ]me of the BouMmnQ MmofSectiool6, NoM 8O°II'16" CULBERTSONB .11 LS]S an x$�1] East.360.01 fa;Judge, Noah OF 11-16"Fee, 14VI Estimate POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North W° 11"16"F 761.98 frt; DAVIDM 2 �q W there, Npth 9O° W 00" East g35 33 fd; thence. South 48° 21' U' Emt, 46SO fed: thence, South 30° 17" 28' West 565.44 fttq manni / South 05° 36" 07' {Vest, 8176 feet thence vmg a curve mine ve to the wind Favors a ecnlml angle of 19° 03"45' with a radius of6111.00 Dal. W an m length of202.95 fat and the coos of which beam South on 01- 3C Wind 202,01 feat to too North right-of-way line ofBtrxelda Onvc x theme along the Noah and West right-of-way titles of Bnxeldw Dee are following 2 courses and distances: North 86° 21' SIT WINE 39.67feel; dead. Sou%01-38-1IT West 96.90 fen; thenw, North 56°32"31-West 20,88 fa; thence, North 89-02"35"Wm, 297. 10 feet to the POINT OF m POINT OF BEGINNING, cngeining 534.440 square feet ur 12.269 ace. more ur less. COMMENCEMENT momfmt TM above dwcriMd arcs am Subject to all amen antl n mof-we ore or might j gh Ymwmrtc g. sEenon a-EmmOON NW21'25-W 33D.T2 - - _ _ _xNnxw _ J,Si PROSPECT ROAD Delta=89.59"1 R=15,W L=23.W Dir- S46-31516i Chore= 21.22 ea 0 e0 160 2wFen ( US ELI FEET I ,nrn- ern. PR0!R25EDZ0NING-WN EATURVIGZONRIII PARCEL2 310,964 sp(L ).136a LOT 3. CLOCK DOXEITER ESTATES 2ND OWNER. GW ZTHOMASL LAURA P Dull 891 - - eovmmxEng R=15.00'L=23.W ......�...,.... Dir-N43'21'38FIN sane lanN� Chord= 21.21 OWNER: FORT COLLINSM125 INTERCHANGE CORNER LLC OWNER. FORT CCLLINSI 25 INTERCHANGE CORNER LLC LEGEND: fl10 ��A9 ��x e �555x E%Sau S Ut= E z < a 11 Is pz Z� Z LIJd =w Z, Z Zw ti? f� �g 3 R� tis SJ Q JC) I� J NQ V 00 ? 0 1v 0 O Nr LL W LL OLL / } LLO Ow W I I U SEetlm at -URN IR SYMBOLLEGEND101 SECTON CORNER PROPOSED REZONING BOUNDARY - - - - - - - SECTION LINE Sheet EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY Of 1 Sheet GATEWAY AT PROSEPCT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Legal Description AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERSTATE LAND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN General Notes: WEST LOTS � m.HROUGHENE(5NDw BLOCK BLOCK 2BOX _ ARNELGF�AND�LLGATEDIN SEJC ON LARMER SATE OFO WNSHIP COLRADO AND VEN BEING MOREIPARTICULARLY DESCRIBED GO RANGESIXTY wie IE -I _ a . ciryDECONTROLLING . COUNTY OF THENC NDETUOC 0558 WESTALONGTHE RESTUDIED SAID SALE. SOLD UPS BEING THE TTENC_ CONTINUING NORTH M-0558 WESTALDNO SAID WEST LINECIFSANDRIBIA DELTA IBM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PARCEL ME FUND DESCRIBED IN T J E I A - I D TH OF 04 50 NEST A D ALAN - E D F 2 1 G 34 FEET TO A A D I NT ON TH E SOUTH LINE OF A PARCEL OF HAND DESCRIBED IN LARTMER ROUNDUP RECORDS UNDER LINE OF SUNRISE ASIA AS EXTENDED TTENC_ I DELP OF 09 08 NEST ALONG SAID EAST ING A DISTANCE OF 1117 52 DEBT TO k FORT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF CROSSROADS FACT BURNHAM CENTERS TTENC_ ALONG SAID SOLID LINE THE F D LOSING FIVE C PLACED AND DISTANCE TTENC_ SOUTH 58 2128 EAST A DISTANCE OF 1 D2 98 SET -0 -HE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DRUM CROSSROADS DART BUSINESS CENTER, TTENC_ I DELP OF 05 58 NEST ALONG THE -ACT LINE DF SAID CROSSROADS DART INUANESS �R A DISTAIRCE ME 33 OR REETTO A FORT ON LEE SOUTH LINE OF SMITTRELD SUED VISION TTENC_ ALONG SAID SOLID LINE THE F D LOSING FOUR COURSES AND DISTACHES TTENC-NDBTH685100 FACTA D13TANCE OF 141 86 FEET TO A FORT ON PREVENT LHEOF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY25. TTENC_ ALONG SAID WEST LINE -HE FOLLOW NG TOO GOLFERS AND DISTANCES TTENC_ SOUTH 01-41TS W A DID ANI OF 408 31 SET TO -HE NOR-H LINE OF INTERSTATE �AND ROD FIRST OTHER, TTENC_ ALONG SAID INTERSTATE LAND 'CD FIRST FI ING TTE OL YANG TWO -OURSES AND DISTANCES TUENC_ SOUTH 1 FROM AMTADRTANC_OFG29C5 E-T TO THE W-ST LINE OF INTBROTATE HIGHWAY 25 FROINTAGE ROAD THENC_ ALONG SAID INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 FSONTAGE ROAD THE DEPLORING SIX COURSES AND DISTANCES THEN C_ S OUT IT 81OFF I REAST A DISTANCE OF 157 CD E-T TO A POINT ON A CURNE SAID CURVE BEING MON LAMBERT TO AFORESAID LINE THENC_ ALDNGTHE ARCOFACURVE CONCAVE TOTU- NOTHAESTA DID ANNE OF 403 65FEET WHOSE DELTA IS MI WHERE RADINUS IS AN 25FEET"DWHOGE LONG -HOED BEGINS SOUTH 43-2016 WEST A DISTANCED 46019FEET THENC_ SOUTH GREG ABLYTALONG ALINE BEING NON TANGENTTO A DEFEND -TEND A DISTANCE ME 167 00 FEET THENC_ LOCH WCAM WESTALONG SAID NORTH RIGHTOFWAYA DISTANCE OF 194 83 FEE__OTUE SOULTHEATCORNMOSSAIDUCT3, DONALD, THENC_ ALONG SAID LOT 3 BLOCK 2 THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES ADD DISTANCES THENC_ LOCH 01COVE RECTA DISTANCE OF27001 FEET. THENC_ SOUTH A-2755 WEST A DSTANC_ OF 269 97 MET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF PROSPECTAVENUE. = xELDER DRINK SAID roixT DEiw APOmmEWCURVnnRE BUD THENC_ ALONG SAID FOREVER DRIVE THE COLLODION FINECOURSES AND DISTANCES = nKKrpow ory DEx OF23MLFWHOOEDELTRIS emCWHOSERADms Ks 15M FKEFANDwwE CLOTE THENC_ NORTH 0I RECTA DISTANCE OF 314 95 FEET THENC_ NORTH BEEN OF WEST A DISTANCE DF60 00 F-ET TO THE EAST LINE OF LA-5, BLANK 1 CHORD MON BEER ESTATES SECOND FILING THENC_ ALONG SAID FOREVER ESTATE SECOND FILING THE DEPLORING TTREE COURSES AND DESTANCIES THENC_ ALDNGTHE ARCOFACURVETHAT IS CONI NORTHWEST A DISTANCE OF 2361 FEET WHOSE DELTAINDOONCH WHOSERADIUM 0 15M MIDLAND AH03E LONG CHORD BEGURNSOULTH 43U54yWESTA DISTANCE OF21 24 DEBT TO A AT SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH LINEOFSJUDIPROOMPERATMENUE, THENC_NDRTRSSCAM COSTA DIATANI PESTICIDE -ACT LINE OFSAID LOT I BLOCK1 ADD 01 FEETTOTHE NORTHEAST CORNER GROUND LOT 1, PARENT. TRU_wTDD _ NORTH RTH BEEN 5558BACREORLESS 1DARD SSUWEUT, MYR�MF FWAODRER D ST PARKER CONTAINS ,�MORE � ER OFR RDMMNO„ ISTIxDON SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND REAL PARCEL KRFEMxT .IOFSEOIONSiEENPm.TO SHIPSEv NNDEa1FRAN .TNDGESNry GETWK (RmWxT .I.SiH PRINCIPAL MEMBER aTP IS F C r OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF TURNER. STATE OF COLORADO AND sexG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16 WHO ASSUMING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST rz PART OF SAID SEATION 16 AN BEARING SOUT1188I CAST BEING A GRID BEARING OF THE COLORADO STATE PLANE COORDIMTE SGINTEM NORTH ZONE. NORTH ANGLICAN DAIRRA 106111 A DISTANCE ME DRUG 22 FEEL WITH ALL OTHER RECORDS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO THENCE NORTH WCAM WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINEA DISTANCE OF 1242 ED FEET THENCE NORTH OUT AD COSTA DIATANI PC FEEL TO A FORT ON THE EASTLINEOF I4TERJRNATEHFGHWAY25FRONTAVER0MANl PONFLOF BEGINNING' THENCE ARGUE SAD EAST LINE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT COURSES AND DISTANCES THENCE NORTH BUSH 31 FACT A DISTANCE OF D5 57 FEET. THENCE NORTH OVM OF FACT A DISTANCE OF 142 NO FEEL TO A POI OR ON A CU ME SAI D CURVE BEING NON TANGENT TO AFORESAID LIN E, THENCE ARGUE THE ARC ME A CURVE TANG ENT TO THE SOUTHEAST A DISTANCE OF AM 75 EST, WHOSE DELTA IS MATTAE WHOSE RADINUS IS 361 MET WHO %WHOSE U0143CHORDBLEARESNOTANTH SANTA DISTANCE OF FAR 64 FEET THENCE NORTH 81-M ZED FACT ALONE ALINE BEING NOWTAINGENT TO AFORESAID CURVE A CATALOG OF 142 AM FEET TMENCENORTHOU-4411 EACTADISTAITUEOF 15709 PLACID A FORT ON A CURVE SAID CURVE HONGKONG TANGENTTLOAFORMAD LINE, TMENCEAUCCIGTHEARCOWACURSE CONEGAVETHOTHE NORTHAVESTADISTANCE OF AVE NODDED WHOSE DELTA IS MEDIUM WHEGGERADINUS124MOMFEET"DWHOGE LONG CHORD BEARS NOTFULD! (HOURED DART A DUSTANGE OF 217 OUT EST, THENCE NORTH ONTEVEI ASK FACT A DISTANCE OF AD AS MET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25, THENCE ARGUE SAD WEST RIGHT OF WAY TH E FOULUCANING FIND COURSES AND DISTANCES THENCE NORTH RANGES[ DART A DUSTANGE OF ARM 24 FEEL To ENCE NORTH 1 A IMM WEST A DISTANCE OF SOL 18 EST, THENCE SOUTH 26-3731 WASTAIDISTANCROFROCTREET, THENCE SOUTH 60-5155 WASTAIDISTANCROFDOOLIFEED THENCE NORTH WC52TWESTA DISTAIRGEONS0323 FEETTOTHE PART LNEGFWPARFELOF LANDEENSCRUBLED IN LWIMERCOUNTYRECORELS UNDER MECHANICS NO THENCE NORTH BLOOD WESTADISTANCEOFROB22FEED THENCE NORTH WCAM WESTADI�ANCEOF41000FE�TO�E���NEROFAPARMLOF�DD�CRIBMIN�IMER�UNWRECOR�UNDM RECEPTION NO 2KSM07886 THENCE SOUTH PRODS SANTA DISTANCE OF INDWIFFBETTOTHE NORTH RIGHTOFWAYOF PROSPECTAVENUE, SAID NORTH A[xcKSAT AR EL CON INS21 As A AGREE MORE ORxNEVER PAR.ANDEs SUBJECT TO Am RIGHIEIIFWRY OR OTTHER EASEMENTS ME RECORD OR As EDAM EXISTING ON SAID DESCRIBPARED SAID AL ANSWERS CONTAINS ITS 107 _ ACRES MINE AN LESS PC AND IS SUBJECT TO ANY RiGxr F-WAY OF OTHER BASEMENTS OF RECORD OR as NOW BOOSTING ON SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL OF HAND 2 TWO POINTS PROGRAMMERS HAVE BEEN PLANNEDTO SERSTALLAREAS OFTHE PROJECT ALUTHORTR NE DISTRICT 'ANTS ON LL BE BEGINNING AS REQUIRED By POUDRE FIRE THEME D AT ETMEIo PPaEC.EEVE�MENTPD�UNDI LOOP IONS ALONG 'ROSAEC_ ROAD 5 LEE PROPOSED VAN D USSR AND D ENS ITI AS S TOWN ON TH I S D BE A E E A 'PROX MATE ANY ADD ITI D PAT A NED DISCURICTS MOST BE APPROVED ACCORDING -0 -HE CAFERLA AS SET FOR-H By -HE C T DECONTROLLING o ANY ME FORT COLLINS PROPOSED TRARL SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN ID-N-IFIED ON TTE OCR SEPARATE ON THE ODP BUT ARE SUBJECT TO CHARGE WITH MORE D-TAILED DESIGN MITTERRAND I THE AREA BEEN INDICATED 0 CONNECTIONGS) FROM TH PUBLIC PARK & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE BONALDER REGIONAL TRAIL WILL BE PRIDEVIDED VIA TRAIL SPURS ANDMOR SIDEWALKS 10 IGESOR OODOENTEFSHALGBE O ATED, INTHREEaU. TER OF ONE NIEOF NON D .HE HOMES Ix TEEuLxznxEDis.RR PER TEE FUND �EOSED. Ojai UP +1 ISAM Land -Use Statistics TANG UREADESTATE FARCosaao mw+cwx — a OF E. PAEDIUVDENSI�PAIX-DJSENE13M FARCELD EYPOPMENT S-DOCCARYJEESPAPPCEAgo EYPOPMENT N �(TARGETS k9� '� �rnv FWDanuATmwns Et�wNnsACIffwGE. xNIFNDFSRRUTmwnsss®wxETASnoxOF��. Vicinity Map _ m == m - I BOB DIM41191ololffil I Ir���M111�1� 1. U IIIIIIII WE' IQ •, I 1 r 11 Owner's Certification of Approval: THE UNDERMIGNED DOGRADO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WAVE ARE THE LABINFUL OWNERS OF REAL CONDITIONS AND RESTRUCTURE SET FORTH ON SAID SUE MAN IN WITH EBB WHE BEDE WE HAND HER EU NA) SET OUR RANGE AN D SEATS THIS THE DAY NOTARMILCERTIFICKNE STATE ME CDmRADDD wuxry GC AMENDED THE FORDEBOING IMENTRUMENT WES ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME AS MECOMMENEDINUESPIRES NOTAPPYRUMUCA (SEAL Planning Approval: BY THE DIR OPEN 0 C UP M UN IV DEVELOPMENT ARE NEIGH BORHOOD SERVICES OF THE GINTOWFORTCOLLNS CO ORADOTHIS ROYAL AD 20 ��GROUP iartraealm�Fel gxnNlirDRRon MO WOOL MEANS a 9711325911 a.emma-sa RM TEIGNELCUS Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan An Amendment To The Interstate Land ODP Ft Collins Colorado 2 NCRKU CASCADE AVE. SUITE 1490 CCLCRMA SPRINGS, ED W903 719 Do 5800 CONTACT RIM MCNENIM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REVIEW ONLY J�L SLID MCI ONTO, HE .eN Call emoreaN,eg. Staff Comments 811.16 Staff Comments 10281H Staff Comments 12.1416 7MAY 3 2016 COVER 10F2 DIRECTATOR ME COMMUNITY D��PMEW AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES J OPENSPAKE • IREFCCUS • w DATA IT BELOW : O 1W • LMN 2 •PRIMAXYLGERS e• :o• � •11UPOLMODU GPQO3 O� • o � • • NE PROR • © •MR • FACCUTUAL I NE i • «� as CLUSTERED r- • 1 1 � SPACE • i • 1 �! •�i•••u•••••••••••>1 •13BACCESRAGEDOGI j • 1 1 COMBINED • 1 'WI 8 ACRESGEOP• • L- A .11 PARNSEL. dLL • • SI � • LLI $ • I i • FUTURE - ROFTOFWky CONNEATI � I I I III III I I I III I I �mEo =K I I I I SMITTAFTED .O1 Al UMIMD�m E Em�URY s vv 1 SECONDARY «•USEZ seceEs \VQ\VA\ t �A 00 \, WBS �/�✓ WAMBOLD CARRY IIIAI ��r`� OvvuwiE \ \xaOURSELVES cue i W., T ' OO C YfF214AWIES \SCULPTURAL CARTER� I I 1! I I I I I 1 I II I N W F— �I I Q I Z I I I I 1 / III I I I �•••• PGEOEs�i�mi�.w,E �•••• a�nEn AE�i«w.wv.cm�.tiw�..E+m Pam ® vensm Ewbwnvxsrcx 1 MINE DISTRICT BOUNDAFUES ARE APPROXIMATE BANNED ON CARTY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING MAPS 2 AYRES FLOODPLAIN LINE T D BE FINALIZED WITH THE UOMFWCIUONMR BUILDING ADD CONSTRUCTION PERMIT'S MUST MEET THE FLOODIPLAIN REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE REGULATOR FLOODPILMN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE THE REVIS-D BOXELDER CREEK FLOODDIAM WILL HOT BE ANDFLOODNAYBOUNDARI-SMAYDIF ER FROM TH03E IN THE CLOUR 3 THIS OVERALL DEV-LOPfREN- P�N STORK THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE CHAT NATJRALACEAS HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS GODDESSES AND THE PCOPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF NDI PER SUBMITTALS GENERAL BUFFER ZONES BLOWN DNTHADDIPMAYBEREDUED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION BAKER DURING TLE 'DP PROCESS * PLEAVE SEESEGROM 34 1 OFTHE LAND JS- ADDS FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BJFF-R ZONES * MACUMUM NUMBER OF UMITS PER TAPPET 13 BASED ON NET APPEASE A IW6 WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN TLE NE- A-R-AGE CAL-U�T ON PER THE LAND 4 7�Mw P 911�a Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan An Amendment To The Interstate Land ODP Ft Collins, Colorado 2 NORM FSVE SAVE. SUITE 1490 COLORMA SPRINGS, ED W903 719 HIM.5800 CONTACT TIM MCNENNA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REVIEW ONLY N� Staff Comments 811.16 Staff Comments 10281H Staff Comments 121=16 7MAY 3 2016 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 20F2 r No Text Attachment 12 FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use. LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road DATE: April 21, 2016 APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner LLC CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer Project Description As proposed, the project consists of developing the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. The request also includes an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi -family dwellings with greater than 12 units per building, and with buildings exceeding 14,000 square feet in size, and on a single phase that exceeds 12.00 dwelling units per acre, to be allowed on 12.4 acres within the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone. Per the City's Land Use Code, multi -family is permitted in the L-M-N zone but capped at the aforementioned parameters. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi -family apartments in buildings that are larger than would otherwise be permitted on 12.4 acres in the L-M-N zone. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. 1 Attachment 12 Questions, Comments, Concerns 1. Could you describe the access point on Prospect Road? A. This will be a 3/4 access, not a full -turning access. This means left turns exiting the site will not be allowed. Allowable turn movements would include right -in, right -out, and left -in, but no left -out. 2. So the access point on the Frontage Road will allow for full turning movements? A. Yes, full access will be allowed at the Frontage Road access point. 3. Can you estimate the total number persons at full build -out? A. We are not able to provide a precise number at this time as we do not know the number of houses that may be designed on the single family portion of the site. The L-M-N zone district requires no less than 4.00 dwelling units per net acre and no greater than 9.00 per gross acre. Residential development in the Employment zone must be no less than 7.00 dwelling units per net acre and there is no density minimum or maximum in the General Commercial zone. For the proposed multi -family project, at this time, we estimate there would be approximately 276 units. 4. The proposed apartment project needs the Addition of Permitted Use to allow the larger buildings both in terms of number of units, size of building and overall average density for one phase of larger project. Do any other proposed uses need an Addition of Permitted Use? A. No, just that portion of the apartment project that is in the L-M-N zone. All other proposed uses are permitted in their respective zone districts. 5. You mentioned that the L-M-N zone allows for a mix of housing. Could you describe what types of housing? A. Yes, the L-M-N allows for single family detached, single family detached — alley load, single family attached (townhomes), two-family dwellings (duplexes), multi- family, mixed -use dwellings and mobile home parks. The standard requires that no one type of housing comprise more than 80% or less than 5% of the total. 6. Will there be a traffic signal at the Prospect Road access drive? A. No, placing a traffic signal at this point would be too close to the existing signal at the S.W. Frontage Road. This is one reason why this intersection is limited to 1/4 turning movements only. 2 Attachment 12 7. Is the Cooper Slough a protected wetland? A. Please note that the Cooper Slough is not on our property. 8. What are the plans for increased traffic on Prospect Road? I'm concerned about the new stadium being on Prospect and the game day traffic. Also, it seems there are more commuters driving into Fort Collins on a daily basis from outlying areas and towns. 9. 1 would like to follow-up on that comment by asking about why we don't have an eastbound protected left -turn signal to turn north onto Summitview? With the heavy traffic, this left turn is getting more and more difficult and dangerous. We need to get into our subdivision (Boxelder Estates) from eastbound Prospect and the high speed and volume of westbound traffic, we are taking more risks with an unprotected left. A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: Please note that at this time, the project has not been submitted yet. One of our submittal requirements is that the applicant submits a Transportation Impact Study. This analysis will assess the traffic impact generated by the proposed project based on the number of units and the amount of commercial square footage. These impacts will be evaluated and the appropriate mitigation measures will then be required. In general, this may mean dedicating additional public right-of-way and building the requisite auxiliary turn lanes. In terms of the present situation, we will look into adding a protected left turn signal for eastbound Prospect. 10. Can you talk about the construction on Prospect planned for this summer? A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: Where Boxelder Creek crosses under Prospect Road will be totally reconstructed this summer with a new bridge. This will result in a temporary full road closure. Summitview will get the detour traffic. 11. If Summitview gets the detour traffic, then you will need to adjust the signal timing at the Summitview/Mulberry intersection. As it's timed now, northbound traffic turning left (west) onto Mulberry allows for only about five cars per cycle. This is not long enough to accommodate the detour traffic. A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: We will look into increasing this signal timing for northbound left turns. 12.You mentioned in your presentation but could you confirm that there is to be no access from the O.D.P. west into Boxelder Estates and north into the County Subdivision? A. That is correct. 9 Attachment 12 13. Question for the City: Are you factoring in the future development of the 100- acre Poudre School District campus on the east side of 1-25? Traffic around schools can be heavy at times especially given the options available under the school of choice policy. A. Response from City: Yes, we will be looking at development of that parcel. 14. Why not a new traffic signal on Prospect at the site access? A. Response from City: It's simply too close to the existing signal at the Frontage Road. Since Prospect will carry significantly more traffic than the site access drive, we need to allow for a signal progression that favors east -west traffic. Residents within the O.D.P. that need to go westbound during peak times would be making a right turn which does not necessarily need a signal. Or, residents may choose to exit the site on the east to gain access to the Frontage Road which will take them to the signal at Prospect. This will allow for a safe left turn to go east on Prospect. Now, having said that, as development occurs in this area, we may have to coordinate with CDOT on the signal timing at the Prospect Road/Frontage Road signal so that traffic in all four directions is accommodated. 15. Is a round -about under consideration? A. Yes, a round -about may be a practical and efficient traffic control device at the site access intersection with the Frontage Road on the east side of the site, north of Prospect. 16.1 just want to make sure — you are not proposing to build a road across the irrigation ditch and tie into Locust Street in Sunrise Acres to the north? A. That is correct. 17. Does the City plan on annexing our Sunrise Acres (to the north)? A. Response from City Planner: There are no immediate plans to annex either County subdivisions (Boxelder Estates and Sunrise Acres). 18. I'm concerned about the O.D.P., and subsequent phases, complying with the Adequate Public Facilities provisions of the Land Use Code particularly with regard to the ever increasing traffic on Prospect. Timnath continues to grow and the School District's upcoming bond issue calls for new schools on their parcel east of the interstate. I'm not seeing how all the projected growth can be handled on our streets and still maintain safe levels of service. A. Response from City: You are correct. We will continue to be challenged to keep our level of service standards (measure of delay at intersections) at the level that we have committed to. Our job is to make sure that as development occurs, the 10 Attachment 12 proper amount of mitigation is provided commensurate with the impact being created. 19.1 see congestion at the CDOT ramps that impacts through traffic on Prospect. As growth continues in this area, the City will need to coordinate with CDOT to make sure that traffic flows smoothly. A. Response from City: You are correct. CDOT plays a major role in this area. 20. What does the green area on the map mean? Is this area developable? A. Yes, this area is in the City and zoned. But, developing this area is challenging due to the need to cross the ditch (Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal). At this time, the developer prefers not to develop this area due to the constraints with access, utilities, etc. 21. What about crossing ditch with a footbridge? A. Yes, that is possibility that we have discussed. We have also talked to the City's Parks Department about developing a public neighborhood park on that parcel but the City is concerned that it's a bit isolated. The Parks Department has also indicated that a regional trail on the south side of the ditch may be worth pursuing, especially if it can be connected to a larger trail system. 22. Have you talked to the ditch company about potential crossings? A. Not yet. 23.You need to be aware that the Greeley Water Line is in that area. A. Yes, we are aware of the Greeley Water Line Easement. 24. Who will provide the water and sewer? A. Elco Water and Boxeleder Sanitation special districts. 25. Can the applicant tell us what other properties or projects that he has developed? A. Response from Mr. McKenna: I represent a small ownership group. We do not intend to be the developer. Rather, we are interested in doing the master planning but would prefer to sell to a development company. 26. Will the condos be one story? A. We don't know yet. Ron Attachment 12 29. We need a Transfort bus route out here on East Prospect in time to serve the proposed high school. A. Transfort plans on providing a bus route in this area in the long term. 30.1 live on Sherry Drive and concerned about trespassing. A. We don't anticipate residents trespassing on private property. 31. In general, I oppose the project. It's too dense for our area. 32. In Boxelder Estates, we have adjudicated wells. I'm concerned about the increase in impervious surface that may impact our wells. 33. Boxelder Creek flooded in 1963. With the newly formed Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority, we pay $83 per month. As the O.D.P. develops, new residents should pay into this District as well. A. We will abide by the financial requirements and obligations of the special district. 34. We like the quiet of Boxelder Estates. It seems like we are being bombarded by new growth. We like our peace and quiet and do not support your project. 35. 1 like single family detached homes that are owned by the occupants, not rental apartments. 36. 1 seems like this project represents just dumping renters out on the fringe of the city. It's like East Vine Drive with Waterglen and Trailhead with all those houses but no amenities for the residents. These types of projects are isolated from the city. 37. Traffic on Prospect is unbearable. With the upcoming road closure, it will just become worse. What are the traffic counts on Prospect? A. Approximately 24,000 trips per day. 38. East Prospect needs a separate right turn lane for the 1-25 southbound entrance ramp. There's just too much traffic and not enough improvements. 39.1 would like to point out that PSD plans not only to build new schools on their 100 acres but a district -wide athletic facility as well. This will just add to the traffic problems. 40. What is your timeframe for developing and constructing the first phase apartments? A. It's hard to say because as we noted, our ownership group does not plan on being the actual developer. But we anticipate that we would gain approval of our 9 Attachment 12 Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use, which requires a public hearing, this summer. Then if we are successful in finding an interested party to become the developer, then that group has to submit for a phase one Project Development Plan for the apartments which also requires a public hearing which takes us into Fall / Winter. Then that group would have to submit a Final Plan and complete a Development Agreement with the City which takes us into Spring of 2017. The earliest we could expect to begin earth work would be Spring / Summer of 2017. 7 /Tii . I'1itXM91 SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: LOCATION DATE: APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use. Northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road August 10, 2016 Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner LLC Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Kristin Turner, The Birdsall Group Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer Project Description As proposed, the project consists of developing the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. The request also includes an Addition of Permitted Use (A.P.U.) for Phase One of the O.D.P. to allow multi -family dwellings with greater than 12 units per building; and with buildings exceeding 14,000 square feet in size in the L-M-N zone. Per the City's Land 1 /wii . I'1itXM91 Use Code, multi -family is permitted in the L-M-N zone but capped at the aforementioned parameters. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi -family apartments in buildings that are larger than would otherwise be permitted on 12.4 acres in the L-M-N zone. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. Questions, Comments, Concerns 1. In reviewing the Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.), I see where the "short term" is defined as five years out which take us to 2021. My concern is that widening Prospect Road to four lanes will not take place in five years. And, there is a need for a separate Prospect eastbound right -turn lane to turn south on 1-25. A. Yes, that is correct. The City requires the T.I.S. to consider two timeframes. the short term is five years to 2021 and the long term is 20 years out to 2035. In addition, the project itself will be phased. Phase One will include the residential portion of the site and the gas/convenience store. The short range analysis factors in the Phase One extent of the O.D.P. as opposed to a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.). In the short term, the developer will be required to improve their frontage to the four -lane arterial standard and build the required auxiliary turn lanes. But, in the short term, Prospect will not be widened to four lanes as a larger public capital project between the Poudre River and 1-25. 2. Could you expand on the Prospect / 1-25 interchange? A. This interchange is the least improved of the five interchanges serving Fort Collins. Operationally, this interchange is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and they are aware of the existing deficiencies. We are aware of the congestion due to the eastbound through lane being combined with eastbound to southbound right turn. The City, Poudre School District, CDOT and Timnath have been in discussions regarding the funding and timing of the long term improvements required at this interchange. 3. What are the traffic impacts associated with Phase One? A. The T.I.S. analysis for the ODP is a high level analysis and indicates that traffic generated by Phase One will result in mostly acceptable Levels Of Service (LOS, rated A — D on a scale of A — F) at the affected intersections with the recommended construction of the necessary turn lanes. A more detailed T.I.S. will be required for a site specific development plan for phase one with specifics related to LOS and the applicant has to meet City standards for LOS, or request a variance if standards are not met. 2 /Fii . I'1itXM91 4. Do the findings you just mentioned include the gas/convenience store? A. Yes. 5. What about the future employment and commercial Phases? A. We expect that future Phases will be responsible for submitting an updated T.I.S. to account for conditions that are being experienced at that time. This would include all the improvements done for Phase One and the increase in background traffic. 6. How does all this factor into Adequate Public Facilities (APF)? Without Prospect being widened to four lanes, or without a separate eastbound to southbound right -turn lane from Prospect to 1-25, does Phase One comply with the A.P.F. standards? A; Response from City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer: The Adequate Public Facilities standard, as locally adopted Ordinance, cannot be applied to an intersection that is outside the jurisdiction of the City. The interchange is under the control of CDOT. As mentioned, we coordinate with CDOT on operational aspects of the all the City's interchanges on a continual basis. 7. It seems to me that if the City is successful in working with CDOT on jointly constructing a round -about at the easterly site access and the Frontage Road, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to expect the City and CDOT to work together to build the necessary improvements to the 1-25 / Prospect interchange. A. Response form City Traffic Engineer: CDOT is in the process of designing a new interchange. We estimate that they are at about 30% design. But, at this time, there is no project funding. The City is looking at improvements to all four quadrants in conjunction with CDOT, the Poudre School District and Timnath. 8. 1 find that response to not be very comforting. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: While the response may seem to indicate that improvements are a long way off, please note that multiple jurisdictions are actively working together to try to develop an improvement plan that can be funded from various sources and improvements can move forward. 9. For those of us who live in Sunrise Acres (north of the subject parcel), we have a hard time getting out of our subdivision on Greenfields at the East Mulberry intersection. With the road closures on Prospect, there is heavy traffic on Mulberry and we need more green time to make a left turn to go west on Highway 14. 9 /Fii . I'1itXM91 A. Larimer County is in the process of improving that intersection. Once construction is complete on Prospect, the heavy traffic on Mulberry should be reduced. 10.Overall, Prospect needs four lanes, not two, to handle the traffic that is coming in from around the region. I'm concerned about the 100 acres that PSD has east of 1-25 and Timnath's plans for growth. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: As mentioned, the City will require the developer to dedicate the necessary public right-of-way and construct the public improvements along their frontage to the four -lane arterial standards. In addition, we have the ability to require the necessary off -site improvements as identified in the T.I.S. to mitigate the impacts caused by the proposed development. But, widening Prospect from the Poudre River to 1-25 is a much larger capital project that involves multiple jurisdictions and will require a large capital outlay. The burden of widening Prospect Road as a four -lane arterial does not fall on one particular development. Funds for this widening have not been approved by the City. 11.1 live in Boxelder Estates and we are experiencing too much traffic associated with all the construction on Prospect. As we drive east on Prospect, we need a left turn arrow to go north on Summitview from. With so little green time, it takes several cycles to get through the intersection. A. Response from City: We understand that with all the traffic that is re-routed due to construction projects on Prospect, there is undue delay for left turns at the major intersections. When Prospect reopens, we can analyze signal timing. As traffic engineers, we are responsible for keeping traffic moving on a system -wide basis. This means that the legs of the intersections that carry the most volume get the most green time at the signal. Obviously, the east -west traffic on Prospect carries more volume than Summitview so to keep the city-wide system at optimum efficiency, Summitview green time is impacted. Another reason we allocate more green time for the legs with the most volumes is that it reduces the number of rear -end collisions. 12. A lot of us in Boxelder Estates are elderly. It's unnerving to have to make a right turn on red to go west from Summitview to Prospect. We have to accelerate rapidly because of the speed of the drivers on Prospect. My car is small and it takes a bit of time to get up to speed after I make the right turn and the looks (and hand gestures) I get from drivers are rude. 10 /Fii . I'1itXM91 13. Northbound Summitview to westbound Mulberry (left turn movement) is dangerous due to the diagonal geometry of the intersection, and the fact that east -west trucks have a hard time slowing down and stopping at the red light. A. Response from City: We are aware of the conditions of this intersection which is under the jurisdiction of the CDOT. 14. When do you think widening Prospect to four lanes will be funded? It's not part of the current round of capital projects and was not voted in for the next round. That means it will have to be approved in the following round. A. Response from City: You are correct. As an unfunded project, it's difficult to predict when the project would be approved. It has to be approved as a project first and then funded as revenue becomes available. Based on this timeframe, the widening will not occur in the short term. 15. How many apartments are planned and is there any interest from the multi -family market in its development? A. We are planning on 276 apartments and we are receiving significant interest from the development community. 16.Are there any similar projects where we could see the scale and size of the project? A. The apartments at Timberline and Drake are roughly comparable. The new apartments that are under construction on South Timberline Road across from the Bacon Elementary School are similar. In addition, the apartments at the Foothills Mall along Stanford Road are similar but are not fully constructed yet. And, the recently approved apartments at Bucking Horse are comparable but are not yet under construction. 17. What do the colors on the map represent? A. The green is Boxelder Creek (and floodplain), the yellow is residential (Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone districts) and the red is commercial (Employment and General Commercial zone districts). 18. How big are the lot sizes in the residential area? A. In the Urban Estate, the minimum lot size is one-half acre, or less if located within a cluster plan where one-half of the U-E ground is preserved as open space. In the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), because we are over 30 acres, we are required to have a minimum of four housing types. These can be single family detached, single family detached with alleys, duplexes, townhomes, and multi -family. The density range in the L-M-N is no less than Ron /Fii . I'1itXM91 4.00 dwelling units per net acre at the low end and no greater than 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre at the high end. Therefore, there will be a variety of lot sizes in the L-M-N. 19. Will your proposed multi -family buildings in the L-M-N be three stories? A. Yes. Three story multi -family buildings are already allowed in the L-M-N zone. 20.1 live west of the project on a large lot in the County. Three-story apartments don't conform to our area. I'm concerned that the apartment folks will trespass on my property and I have animals. I'm concerned about liability. I'm concerned that the new development will impact my well. And, I'm concerned that the new development will cause flooding on my property. A. We will be using potable water from Elco, not groundwater. We are required by the City's Stormwater Utility to not route any stormwater from our property onto your property. B. Response from City Planner: Please note that the property was included in the City's Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business (157 acres) and R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as a Planned Unit Development under the Land Development Guidance System. Then in 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner: C, Commercial (44.7 acres); E, Employment (104 acres); L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres); U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer. This rezoning was part of a city-wide rezoning to implement the City's new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the P.U.D. system. About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the O.D.P.to the Cooper Slough Association / Boxelder Estates H.O.A. for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125 feet for a length of about 2,100 feet and contains approximately 5.18 acres. This conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the O.D.P. and Boxelder Estates. Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres. In 2003, a Final Plan was approved on four acres along the Frontage Road for the Harley Davidson dealership. 9 FTAM . I'1itMM91 In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner: U-E (21 acres); L-M-N (68.6 acres); Employment (60.9 acres); and Commercial (26.9 acres). 21. What are the two current construction projects on Prospect that are causing the full road closure? A. The two projects are related to the improvements being constructed by the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA). First, Boxelder Creek is being routed under Prospect by the installation of the new culverts. This involves a new bridge which is being designed for the ultimate four -lane arterial cross-section. Second, since the culverts are sized to only carry approximately the 10-year storm, an overflow channel, or weir, is being excavated to handle the amount of flood water associated with the 100-year storm. This overflow channel will be between 85 feet and 100 feet wide and about ten feet deep and may carry flows in more frequent events due to local tributaries. These two projects are being constructed in conjunction with the new Grays Lake flood control reservoir that has been built upstream on Boxelder Creek. The entire system -wide project is designed to prevent flooding in areas along Boxelder Creek in Larimer County, Timnath and Fort Collins. 22.And these are the improvements being constructed with the new annual stormwater service fee assessed on our properties? A. Yes, all residential properties within the BBRSA are assessed an annual fee of $60.00 to cover all the new construction, and, as time goes on, to cover the long term maintenance of the facilities. In addition, for any new construction in the BBRSA that results in new impervious surface, there is a stormwater system development fee based on the amount new impervious surface area that is created. 23. Can you describe the details of the A.P.U. for the multi -family in the L-M-N? A. Yes, as mentioned, multi -family, per se, is a permitted use in the L-M-N but is capped in the following manner: no greater than 12 units per building; no greater than 14,000 square feet per building; and on an individual phase that is no greater than 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre of land. Our proposal would increase the number of units per building to exceed 12, increase the size of the building to exceed 14,000 square feet, and to increase the density to greater than 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre. 7 /Tii . I'1itXM91 24. By how much would you exceed these limits? A. Our buildings would be a mix of 24-plex and 36-plex structures. The size of the buildings has not yet been determined but will exceed 14,000 square feet. And, we estimate that our phase of multi -family in the L-M-N will come in around 13 dwelling units per gross acre. 25. Would the multi -family phase cause the overall 67-acre L-M-N area to reach a density that exceeds the maximum allowable 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre? A. No, our overall L-M-N density on the entire 67 acres, plus the multi -family, would not exceed 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre. 26.1 don't support the request for the A.P.U. The expectation under zoning is that the property will develop as L-M-N, not M-M-N. How do you justify this request? A. We see a multi -family component as adding to the mix of housing types for a mixed -use neighborhood. With close proximity to 1-25, we do not want to develop the ground as an isolated truck stop with highway -oriented uses like you see along the interstates in other jurisdictions. We see value in developing a neighborhood that offers a wide range of housing for a variety of people in a wide range of incomes. We see the multi -family component has a part of the highest and best use for this portion of the site. 27.You cannot use an economic benefit argument as a justification for an A.P.U. A. Understood. 28. An L-M-N neighborhood is supposed to have an L-M-N neighborhood center don't see the gas/convenience store as being an L-M-N neighborhood center don't see any amenities. The development appears isolated from the City. A. We see multi -family as adding diversity to the neighborhood. We recognize that we are separated from the City but this is primarily due to the Poudre River floodplain, natural areas and existing County subdivisions. The parcel, however, is inside the Growth Management Area, and was then annexed and zoned, and then master planned as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. We see the land as being a unique parcel that is near 1-25 and major employment areas. There are other neighborhoods in the City where the neighborhood center is a gas/convenience store. 29. But I still don't see a walkable neighborhood center. Access from the L-M-N to the gas/convenience store is via a round -about which is difficult to cross as a pedestrian. It looks to me like the gas/convenience store will be highway oriented, not neighborhood oriented. And, it's located in the commercial zoned area, not in the L-M-N. You still need an L-M-N neighborhood center. 0 ETAM . I'1itMM91 A. We understand the requirement for an L-M-N neighborhood center. 30. In general, I'm not seeing any neighborhood amenities. A. As noted, we intended to pursue the conveyance of a parcel to the City Parks Department for a future public neighborhood park. In addition, the Parks Planning Department has identified a portion of our northeast area as logical segment for the future regional bike trail. Our goal is to develop the commercial area for neighborhood oriented businesses and services. As mentioned, we don't want to replicate the highway oriented land uses found at the 1-25 and Highway 14 interchange. 31. I'm concerned that Phase One represents a five year build out and we would still experience congestion and failing levels of service for certain turn movements at 1-25 and Prospect. A. We understand your concerns. The T.I.S., at this stage, is intended to provide a broad analysis at the appropriate level for an Overall Development Plan. As noted, the big picture issues have been identified. With each subsequent phase that is submitted for a Project Development Plan, a new T.I.S. will be required that provides analysis at a more refined level of detail. 32. Does the City keep data on accident statistics? A. Response from City: Yes, keeping track of accident statistics is very important to us. We continually analyze crash data city-wide as one of our core functions. 33.1 would like to remind everyone that an A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone goes on to City Council for consideration. It is my opinion that the request for an A.P.U. is speculative and for purposes of the developer trying to enhance the marketability of the property. A. As we have mentioned, for an O.D.P. that is 177 acres in size, having a multi- family component enriches the mix of housing on a city-wide basis. 34. Do you already have a buyer lined up for the multi -family? A. No, we do not. 35. Where exactly is the A.P.U. parcel and how big is it? A. It is at the south end of the area zoned L-M-N, closest to Prospect Road. It is about 12.4 acres in size. It's designated as Parcel k on the O.D.P. 9 /Fii . I'1itXM91 36. What will be the density on the L-M-N as a result of the A.P.U.? A. The density will be about 13.00 dwelling units per gross acre which is slightly over the maximum allowed in any on phase in L-M-N of 12.00 d.u./a. 37. Will there be a buffer between the apartments and the existing homes to the west? A. Yes, we estimate that the closest house will be about 130 feet away from the nearest apartment building. Other houses will be further away by a distance ranging from 793 feet to 875 feet. 38. What will be the size of the lots on the very west edge of the site north of the A.P.U. parcel? A. This area is zoned Urban Estate. As a result, this area will have our largest lots. As noted, in the U-E, lots must be a minimum of one-half acre. Or, lots can be smaller but only if arranged within a Cluster Development where one-half of the land area is preserved as open space and the other half is the clustered lots that can be smaller than one-half acre. 39.1 live to the west and in my opinion; our large lots will need more of a transition than what you are describing. A. We are aware of your concerns. As you know, Boxelder Estates purchased from the previous owner a swath of land about 110 feet in width along their eastern edge. This buffer will contribute to making a transition and also precludes any street connections. 40.1 live on three acres. Multi -family doesn't conform to our neighborhood character. 41. When was the property annexed into the City? A. 1983. 42. When do you think you will break ground? A. The first thing we have to do is apply to F.E.M.A. for an amendment to their floodplain maps based on the improvements being done by the Boxelder Creek Flood Control Project. This requires a process known as a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This could take us into 2018. We can be submitting our Phase One plans and having our plans reviewed by the City somewhat concurrently to the F.E.M.A. process. So as you can see, it may be at some point in 2018 when we can break ground on Phase One. 10 /Fii . I'1itXM91 43. Will the requested density associated with the A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone be capped? A. Response from City Planner: Yes, all requested A.P.U. metrics will be capped and not open-ended. This is what was done for the multi -family project in Bucking Horse which was also an A.P.U. 44.1 live in Sunrise Acres to the north. Is the proposed public neighborhood park still indicated to be north of the ditch? If so, I'm concerned about trespassing. A. No, we are now discussing with Parks Planning about conveying a parcel that is south of the ditch and just north of the proposed multi -family parcel. This parcel would be about four acres and is centrally located within the larger residential area. This would a public neighborhood park. 45. Will you be putting any of the ditches into a pipe to gain more ground? A. No, we are not thinking about putting any ditches into a pipe. 46. We need to be realistic that a City -funded Prospect Road widening capital project will not happen in the short term (2021). Such a project would likely have to be put to the voters as part of a package to renew one of the sales taxes that is dedicated to transportation improvements. And then, if approved by the voters as part of a sales tax capital projects package, it would then have to wait for revenues to come in. As a result, it may be at least 10 years out or longer before Prospect could be widened to four lanes. A. Response for City Traffic Engineer: That is correct. It is unlikely that Prospect will be widened to four lanes by 2021. Large capital projects that benefit the City's arterial system as a whole are generally funded by one of the dedicated sales taxes specifically earmarked for transportation improvements. As you mentioned, these funding sources expire after their term and must be renewed by the voters. These projects are intended to address existing deficiencies and are not considered the obligation of any one particular development proposal. Please note that dedicated sales tax revenue is just one funding source. Other sources include the City's Street Oversizing Fund, and grants from the Metropolitan Planning Organization, State of Colorado and the federal government. Oftentimes, multiple funding sources are consolidated to move a project up on the priority list. 47. I'm concerned about the future development of PSD property on the east side of 1-25. This is a 100-acre parcel that PSD has indicated could be used for schools serving grades K through 12 as well as a district -wide athletic facility. PSD is seeking voter approval this Fall for a bond issue that would fund these planned schools and facilities. 11 /Tii . I'1itXM91 A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are in discussions with PSD. We have been told that the schools planned for this parcel will draw primarily from students who already reside east of 1-25. We are also aware that the planned athletic facility would be the new French Field and draw participants district -wide. 48. With the Boxelder Buffer now owned by the H.O.A., does this mean there will be no road connection? A. Yes, that's correct — no road connection. 49. Could you tell me how much new traffic we can expect on Summitview as a result of this project? A. Our trip assignment estimate in the short term is shown as Figure 7 in our T.I.S. Based on our assumptions, we see most of the trips using Prospect and the Frontage Road versus Summitview. For example we estimate for southeast flow, there will be six trip ends in the a.m. and 17 trip ends in the p.m. during the peak hours. For the northwest flow, there will be 16 a.m. and 10 p.m. trip ends during the peak hours. Please note, however, that it may be more accurate to measure the delay at the Prospect / Summitview intersection. 50. Will the Frontage Road be widened? A. No, but the intersections will add capacity with the auxiliary turn lanes as recommended in the T.I.S. 51. Will there be only one access onto the Frontage Road? A. Yes, that's correct due to the constraints of Boxelder Creek. 52. Do you have an idea about the alignment of the proposed regional trail? A. Within our O.D.P., and between Prospect and Mulberry, this trail will generally follow the alignment of Boxelder Creek and the two ditches. The alignment of this trail is loosely based on the preliminary concept per the Parks 2013 Trails Master Plan. 53. Is the applicant involved at all in the current construction on Prospect? A. Yes, but only to the extent that we have conveyed 42 feet along our frontage to the City of Fort Collins for the project. 54.Are you intending to sell the land for a profit? Uwdm 12 FTAM . I'1itMM91 55.1 see a big benefit in providing a safe sidewalk along Prospect from your project to the Summitview intersection to tie into the existing trail along Prospect west of Summitview. Since your project does not extend west to Summitview, there is a gap. It seems like pedestrians, runners and bike riders from your project would want to safely gain access to this trail without having to deal with unimproved frontage along Prospect. A. Thank you for this comment and this something we may consider for their first phase. 56. Will there be sufficient sanitary sewer capacity to serve the site as proposed? A. Yes, we have had conversations with the Boxelder Sanitation District and they have indicated that there is capacity available. As you know, their treatment plant is just south of Prospect. 57. Will there be any commercial development south of Prospect? A. The large vacant land south of Prospect is owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation. We do not know their plans for the property except to say that they typically hold land for the long term for the various needs of the University. 13 /_X=1TitXM[! NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and Rezoning LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road DATE: December 19, 2016 APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner LLC CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Kristin Turner, The Birdsall Group Stephanie Thomas, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer Project Description This item was formerly a Request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi -family on 12.4 acres of land zoned L-M-N due to the request exceeding three development standards. Since multi -family is already a permitted use in the L-M-N per se, the development review process has now been adjusted to delete this request. This item now consists of a Rezoning of 12.4 acres of L-M-N and 8.4 acres E, Employment, a total of 20.8 acres, to M-M-N. This item is also being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) on 177 acres land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The purpose of an O.D.P. is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. The requests for Rezoning and an Amended O.D.P. would have the effect of reducing the L-M-N zone from 68 to 55.6 acres, reducing the E zone from 60 to 51.6 acres and adding 20.8 acres of M-M-N zoning. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or the consulting team. 1 /_X=1TitXM[! Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. Could you explain the progress that is being made with regard to future widening of the 1-25 / Prospect Road interchange? A. Yes, we are working with CDOT to find a joint public/private funding mechanism to leverage the interstate widening project between Mulberry and Loveland by adding the bridge and interchange widening to the project scope. As you know, for this segment of the highway, CDOT plans on sending out for bid the widening of 1-25 from two lanes to three. This project is estimated to cost $235 million dollars. But, this project is funded for widening the lanes only and does not include improving the Prospect Road interchange. The cost of widening the interchange (bridge, ramps and roadway) is estimated to be an additional 28 million dollars. As a result of this added cost, we, along with the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath and the other three adjoining properties (Colorado State University Research Foundation, Paradigm Properties LLC and the White Brothers) have committed to raising $14 million dollars, which would then be matched by CDOT, so the interchange is widened in conjunction with the larger CDOT project. If not done now, CDOT estimates that interchange improvements would be delayed until 2035. The four adjoining property owners have agreed to raise seven million with the balance raised by Fort Collins and Timnath (seven million dollars.) B. The widened interchange would include a new seven -lane cross-section bridge, new ramps and widening of Prospect Road. CDOT anticipates that construction would begin in early 2018. 2. How far in each direction would be the extent of the four -lane widening? A. Our understanding at this time is that the four lanes would extend to the frontage roads. 3. That may not be sufficient to mitigate the traffic generated by the development. A. Keep in mind that as developers, we are obligated to improve the linear front footage along our property that adjoins Prospect Road. And, in conjunction with the recent stormwater improvements, we have already dedicated 43 feet of additional right-of-way along Prospect Road. Further, as each building permit is issued, for both commercial and residential buildings, the City will collect the Street Oversizing Fee which is earmarked for funding improvements to arterial and collector streets and sidewalks on a city-wide basis. In 2016, the Street Oversizing Fee for a multi -family dwelling unit is $2,143. (This fee is typically increased annually to keep pace with capital construction costs.) For 276 units, the total Street Oversizing Fee would be, based on 2016 rates, $591,468. 2 /_X=1TitXM[! 4. Is the area north of the Dry Creek Ditch still slated to be open space? A. Yes, this has not changed. The area between the two ditches will be set aside as open space. This area would be difficult to develop. The exception is that this area is being considered as a logical location for the future regional bike trail per the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 5. As the land owner going through the entitlement process, is it still your intention to sell the property in the future to a developer? A. Yes. 6. Will the future developer be obligated by the parameters of the both the Rezoning and O.D.P.? A. Yes, that is correct. 7. 1 live to the north in Sunrise Acres. Will any of our neighborhood streets be extended into your development? I'm concerned about Locust Street and Sherry Drive being used by future residents of your project. A. Due to the constraints of the two ditches, and consistent with our previous presentations, we are not planning on extending any of the streets in Sunrise Acres into our project. Response from City Traffic Engineer: As you can see, Locust Street currently terminates in a dead-end at the applicant's property. In order to provide a standard turn -around on a public street, we will be requiring the developer to provide a turn -around, but not a street extension per se, on their property. This will help fire trucks navigate Sunrise Acres. 8. And, just to be sure, your plan still shows no street connections to the west into Boxelder Estates? A. Yes, as we have discussed in our previous presentations, due to the H.O.A. purchasing a buffer strip, we are precluded from any street connections to the west. And, south of the H.O.A. buffer strip, we do not plan for any street connections. 9. Are you still willing to discuss various options as to long term maintenance of the buffer with the H.O.A.? A. Yes, we think we may have a mutual interest in how best to manage this buffer with the H.O.A. and we look forward to having that conversation. 9 /_XM1TitXM[! 10. Could you review the floodplain issues and timing associated with amending the FEMA maps? A. As we have noted, there is a significant portion of the site that is mapped as being the Boxelder Creek floodplain. But, this area will reduced as a result of the new culverts under both 1-25 and Prospect Road and overflow weir that were constructed this past year by the Boxelder Basin Stormwater Regional Authority. This included five new culverts (total of seven) under Prospect and opening two closed culverts under 1-25 (total of four). The overflow weir is 2.7 acres. This is why Prospect was closed for three months this past summer. In addition, the BBSRA is in the process of constructing a system of flood control improvements, including a new reservoir, further upstream from our property. The result is that the extent of the floodplain on our property will be reduced. Once these improvements have been completed, FEMA will amend their floodplain maps accordingly and remove the floodplain. We anticipate that the new mapping will be in place in 2018. All told, these flood control improvements cost $10,851,588 million dollars. 11.Are there areas of the site that are not in the Boxelder Creek floodplain? A. Yes, the further away from Boxelder Creek to the west, this area is not impacted by the FEMA floodplain. 12. Will you be making any changes to the two ditches? A. No, there will be no changes to the two ditches. 13. With a potential of 20.8 acres of M-M-N, combined with the fact that multi -family is a permitted use in the E, Employment zone, of which there are an additional 51.6 acres within the O.D.P., I'm concerned about a possible massive multi- family project on 72.4 acres. A. We are not intending to develop the site in that fashion. And, we are restricted from this happening by the Land Use Code. This is because multi -family in the E zone is a secondary use and is restricted from taking up more than 25% of the 51.6 acres. The balance of the E zone, 75%, must be developed as primary uses. 14.1'm concerned about the additional traffic generated by the density allowed by rezoning to M-M-N. A. Yes, based on our previous meetings we are keenly aware of the traffic issues related to our project within the context of the immediate area. Please keep in mind that we are rezoning only 12.4 acres of L-M-N. Overall, across a multi - phased project, residential gross density in the L-M-N is capped at 9.00 dwelling units per acre. L-M-N zoning also allows a single phase to be up to 12.00 10 /_XM1TitXM[! dwelling units per acre as long as the overall does not exceed 9.00 d.u./a. Our multi -family project comes in around 13 to 14 d.u./a. Regarding the rezoning of the Employment parcel (8.4 acres), please note that there is no residential development density cap in the E zone. 15. If there are no density caps in either the M-M-N or the E zones, then how can we expect the future developer to hold to your commitment to density of 13 to 14 dwelling units per acre? A. We are willing to add a condition to our Rezoning request that would cap our gross residential density just as we did for our A.P.U. 16. So if the 12.4 acres remained as L-M-N, the maximum allowable density could range from 112 units (9.00 d.u./a) to 149 units (12.00 d.u./a)? A. That's correct and we are suggesting that these 12.4 acres come in between 13 and 14 d.u./a for a range of 161 to 174 units under M-M-N zoning but as conditioned by the same parameters as the request for an Addition of Permitted Use. B. We would like to emphasize that our Rezoning to M-M-N will be conditioned just like the request for an Addition of Permitted Use. We would commit to a cap of 14 dwelling units per acre. We are proposing a multi -family project of approximately 276 units on a total combined M-M-N parcel of 20.8 acres which equates to 13.27 dwelling units per acre. We are suggesting a cap of 14 d.u./a due to the fact that after surveying the site, land may be taken out of the gross acreage for public roads, private roads and various other dedications and easements for utilities or open space which would drive up the dwelling -units -per - acre ratio but without adding units. 17. Do the extra units gained by the M-M-N zoning have any bearing on the recommendations of the Traffic Study? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Not really. This is because the gain in multi -family units that could be generated by M-M-N zoning may not be a critical evaluation since the applicant is willing to accept a condition of approval that limits the number units to approximately 276. The applicant's proposal reflects only a change in a smaller area (about 12.4 acres of L-M-N) and less density increase that would otherwise be allowed by M-M-N. The difference between the two zones (going from 12 to 14 d.u./a) would result in an overall change in the total number of multi -family dwelling units of about 25 dwelling units. This is similar to the previously proposed APU, and is not significantly different from the submitted overall TIS. Subsequent submittals will need to review transportation impacts for the specific number of units in more detail. Ron /_iMITitMM[! 18.I'm concerned that you are putting 276 units of multi -family, and all those residents, in area where there is no walkability to a grocery store or other convenient services. Under typical City Plan zoning, M-M-N would be near commercial area that would have a grocery store and similar services. A. While we may not have N-C (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning next to our proposed M-M-N, we do have 27 acres of land zoned C-G, General Commercial, which, as I recall, allows most of the same uses as allowed under N-C. In terms of walkability, we will be providing a bike/walk path along Boxelder Creek and we have approached the City about widening the public sidewalk on the future east - west street that goes over Boxelder Creek and ties into the commercial area. Please note that our multi -family residents will be able to walk to the future public neighborhood park which would be located north and central to the O.D.P. We estimate that based on our conceptual site plan, our buildings will range from approximately 800 feet (northerly buildings) to 1,800 feet from this future park. Depending on the location of the future regional trail, it may be possible to gain access to the park without having to solely rely on public streets. Finally, our site is across Prospect Road from the Running Deer Natural Area, .52 mile from Cottonwood Hollow Natural Area and .62 mile from Riverbend Ponds Natural Area. 19. So a grocery store is allowed in the C-G, General Commercial zone? A. Yes, that's correct. 20.As I mentioned, last time, it seems like an abrupt transition between our County lots and the proposed M-M-N parcel. A. We are aware of this concern that has been raised at the previous two meetings. As a result, we have committed to providing a landscape buffer on the west side of our future north -south street that ranges in width from nine to 88 feet that can be densely landscaped. For the eight properties that abut our site, most of the houses are located to our west and front on Summitview Drive and are separated from our multi -family parcel by varying distances. One house is 35 feet west of our site and we have met with this owner and this person has indicated support for our project. The other houses that front on Summitview range from 640 to 787 feet from our project boundary. In addition, our proposed buildings will also be setback from our future north -south street (76 feet of public right-of-way plus 18 feet for utility easements = 94 feet) creating even more separation. We think with these separations, combined with effective landscaping, we will successfully mitigate any impacts associated with our multi -family project. We also think that be capping our density, our project will be roughly similar in scope as if it were an L-M-N development that comes in at the maximum allowable density per phase, 12 dwelling units per acre. 9 /_XM1TitXM[! 21.I'm concerned that even if the CDOT project, with the City and Town and landowner participation, results in widening Prospect Road, and combined with the developer's obligation for their frontage, there will still be gaps between the river and the Frontage Road. When can we expect these gaps to be fully improved? Response from City Traffic Engineer: As you know, we are aware of these concerns. At this time, there currently is no City capital project that is designated to address this segment of East Prospect Road. Since this gap is considered an existing deficiency as part of the regional arterial system, it is not the developer's obligation to address. Instead, the completion of this segment to the arterial standard will fall to the City as a future capital improvement just like what you see going on at the intersection of Prospect and Timberline. 22.I'm concerned about the wildlife that uses the area. There are typically lots of geese that are attracted to the site. A. Keep in mind that we will not develop the open space to the north between the two ditches. And, we will be required to provide a buffer along Boxelder Creek. This buffer is required to be either 100 feet or equivalent based on qualitative attributes. These two features will complement the existing City of Fort Collins Natural Areas (Running Deer, Cottonwood Hollow and Riverbend Ponds) and the Poudre River floodplain. 23.Is the open space between the ditches zoned Urban Estate and, if so, can this acreage be used to determine the number of potential units under a Cluster Development Plan? A. Yes, this area is zoned U-E and, therefore, these acres could be counted as part of the basis that determines the maximum allowable number of dwelling units that could be within a Cluster Plan. Keep in mind that under a Cluster Plan, no less than 50% of the total land area (zoned U-E) must be preserved as open space. Lot sizes within the Cluster Plan can vary and not be held to required minimum. Without a Cluster Plan, the required minimum lot size in the U-E is .5 acre. 24. From what I see, there are two access points into the portion of the O.D.P. that is west of the Frontage Road. Is that correct? A. Yes, there is full -turning access, by way of a planned round -about, at the Frontage Road. And there is three-quarter access (no left -out) at a planned intersection at Prospect Road. 7 /_XMITitXM[I 25. Will this round -about be a single lane or a two-lane? A. A single lane will have sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated level of traffic. 26. Will the developer be required to construct any public improvements along Summitview Drive? A. No. 27.At one point, for eastbound Prospect traffic, we had a separate left -turn arrow at the traffic signal so we could make a protected left turn to north on Summitview. Then, mysteriously, this left turn arrow was taken away. With all the westbound traffic coming in to town from 1-25, this left -turn arrow was very convenient. Could the City bring back this protected left turn? Response from City Traffic Engineer: We can look into this. From traffic engineering perspective, there are pros and cons to providing a separate left -turn arrow. On the one hand, the protected left turn makes it safer to turn left to go north. On the other hand, our crash data suggest that there would be an increase in rear -end collisions. These trade-offs have to be evaluated. 28. With 276 multi -family units on 20.8 acres, what is the traffic impact? A. This would generate approximately 230 peak hour trips during the peak hour. This a ratio of .833 trips per unit during peak. 29. How do you define "peak hour?" A. The a.m. peak is between 7:30 — 8:30 and the p.m. peak is between 4:30 and 5:30. 30. Does the traffic study account for stadium traffic? A. No, stadium traffic, as is currently the case with Hughes Stadium and will be the case with the new stadium, is a considered an event and not a daily occurrence. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Our analysis for the new stadium is that the traffic on a game day (typically Saturday) will be roughly equivalent to the peak traffic on a Thursday p.m. 31.1 mentioned at the last meeting that by not having four lanes on Prospect between 1-25 and the Poudre River causes the project to fail the requirements for having adequate public facilities. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Please note that we evaluate traffic impacts by "levels of service" (A — F) measured at intersections and not along 0 /_X=1TitXM[! any particular segment of roadway. Since congestion occurs at intersections with turn movements, through traffic volumes between intersections is not measured. Now, having said that, please note that the Transportation Impact Study at this stage is for the Overall Development Plan only. Any subsequent submittal that is more specific (Project Development Plan) will require a more refined study. Based on further analysis, we expect the applicant to fully construct their street frontages along both Prospect and the Frontage Road. A center left turn in Prospect will likely be required as would any auxiliary turn lanes at the affected existing or proposed intersections. 32. Turning left out at Hageman's on a Saturday afternoon is pretty scary. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We know. We are thinking of constructing a three -lane cross-section along Hageman's so exiting vehicles can make a two - stage left -turn exit and then merge with through traffic. Again, please note that there is no capital funding available for this improvement at this time. 33.At the previous meetings, we have mentioned that there will soon be a cumulative effect of increasing traffic on Prospect due to the stadium, Poudre School District plan for a high school/middle school campus and the new C.S.U. Health Center at College and Prospect. Are these facilities accounted for in the traffic studies? A. Yes, our traffic studies include pending developments, existing background traffic and an annual growth rate in the background traffic. Then we factor in the proposed development and project out the traffic impacts for five years. The scope of our traffic studies are approved by the City before we begin our analysis. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of the PSD plans for a high school and middle school campus, and perhaps a district -wide athletic facility. Most of the trips for these two schools should be east of 1-25 since boundaries for these schools will not include areas west of 1-25. We acknowledge, however, that PSD has a school of choice option if schools are not at capacity serving their boundary area. 34. To what extent will you be improving the open space between the ditches? A. Our plan is to keep this area unimproved and natural. For example, there would be no bluegrass turf and irrigation. As mentioned, the City's regional trail is planned to go through this area so there may be some benches, and the like, but overall, the area is expected to serve passive not active uses. 9 /_iMITitMM[! 35. Will Buckeye Street be extended to the east? A. No, we do not intend to extend Buckeye as it currently terminates at a house and the right-of-way does not appear to extend to our property line. 36. We need a transition in density for the benefit of the County residents. A. As mentioned, we think that a sensitive transition can be provided by not only the significant distances between our project and the existing houses but also by the landscaping and buffering that we commit to providing per the conditions that we have already agreed during the A.P.U. process. 10 Attachment 15 GATEWAY AT PROSPECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO APRIL 2016 Prepared for: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o Tim McKenna 580 Hidden Valley Road Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #1501 Attachment 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 2 LandUse.........................................................................................................................2 Streets............................................................................................................................. 2 ExistingTraffic................................................................................................................. 5 ExistingOperation...........................................................................................................5 PederstrianFacilities.......................................................................................................9 BicycleFacilities.............................................................................................................. TransitFacilities.............................................................................................................. 9 9 III, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... TripGeneration............................................................................................................. TripDistribution............................................................................................................. TripAssignment............................................................................................................ Background Traffic Projections..................................................................................... Total Traffic Forecasts................................................................................................... SignalWarrants............................................................................................................. Geometry...................................................................................................................... OperationAnalysis........................................................................................................ Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 18 18 21 21 29 Bicycle Level of Service................................................................................................ 29 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 36 IV. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 37 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 12 3. Short Range (2021) Background Peak Hour Operation ......................................... 24 4. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation ........................................... 26 5. Short Range (2021) Total Peak Hour Operation..................................................... 30 6. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation...................................................... 33 // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 15 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location.............................................................................................................3 2. Existing Geometry.....................................................................................................4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................................................... 6 4. Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................................... 7 5. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 11 6. Trip Distribution....................................................................................................... 13 7. Short Range (2021) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................... 14 8. Long Range (2035) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................ 15 9. Short Range (2021) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 16 10. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................. 17 11. Short Range (2021) Total Peak Hour Traffic........................................................... 19 12. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Traffic............................................................ 20 13. Short Range (2021) Geometry................................................................................ 22 14. Long Range (2035) Geometry................................................................................. 23 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Peak Hour Signal Warrant E. Short Range (2021) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation G. Short Range (2021) Total Peak Hour Operation H. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation I. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 15 I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements for the proposed Gateway at Prospect development. The proposed Gateway at Prospect site is located in the northwest quadrant of the Interstate 25 (I- 25)/Prospect interchange in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the developer (Neihart Land Company), the project planning consultant (TB Group), the project engineering consultant (Northern Engineering), Fort Collins Traffic Operations, and CDOT. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation /J 'DELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �7 1 rASSOCIATES Page 1 Attachment 15 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Gateway at Prospect site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, residential, and open space (agricultural). There are commercial and industrial uses to the north, south, and west of the site. There are residential uses to the west of the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northwest of the proposed Gateway at Prospect site. Streets The primary streets near the Gateway at Prospect site are Prospect Road, Summit View Drive, and the SW Frontage Road. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the key intersections. Prospect Road is to the south of (adjacent to) the Gateway at Prospect site. It is an east -west street designated as a four -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a two-lane cross section with an existing speed limit of 45 mph, west of Summit View Drive and 35 mph, east of Summit View Drive. At the Prospect/Summit View Drive intersection, Prospect Road has an eastbound left -turn lane, one through lane in each direction, and a westbound right -turn lane. The Prospect/Summit View intersection has signal control. At the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection, Prospect Road has eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes and one through lane in each direction. The Prospect/Frontage Road intersection has signal control. At the Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections, Prospect Road has all eastbound and westbound movements combined into single lanes. The Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections have signal control. Summit View Drive is to the west of the Gateway at Prospect site. It is a north - south street designated as a collector street north of Prospect Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Summit View Drive has a two-lane cross section and an existing speed of 35 mph. At the Prospect/Summit View intersection, Summit View Drive has a southbound left -turn lane and a southbound right -turn lane. The SW Frontage Road is a north -south street designated as a collector street north of Prospect Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, the Frontage Road has a two-lane cross section with an existing speed limit of 45 mph. At the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection, the Frontage Road has all northbound and southbound movements combined into single lanes. // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Page Attachment 15 A& N Mulberry s Gateway at Prospect Prospect 0 4` 25 SCALE: 1 "=2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 _�//_LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 3 % 1 rASSOCIATES Attachment 15 �� N�� °0_ L L Nc3� O o r � Prospect O coN - Denotes Lane EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY /I JDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Figure 2 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 4 Attachment 15 Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the Prospect/Summit View, Prospect/ Frontage Road, Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps, and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections are shown in Figure 3. The counts at the Prospect/Frontage Road, Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps, and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections were obtained in February 2015. The counts at the Prospect/Summit View intersection were obtained by the City of Fort Collins in July 2014. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Since the counts were performed on different days, the traffic volumes were balanced between the key intersections. The balanced recent peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 4. Existing Operation The Prospect/Summit View, Prospect/Frontage Road, Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps, and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The calculated delay is shown at level of service E and F in this TIS. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Gateway at Prospect site is in an area termed "commercial district," which puts it in the category of "commercial corridor" for analysis purposes. In areas termed "commercial corridor," acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better for the overall intersection, and level of service E or better for any leg or movement. At unsignalized intersections, the level of service is N/A (not applicable). The Prospect/Summit View intersection is in an area termed "other." In areas termed "other," acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better for the overall intersection, and level of service E or better for any leg or movement. It is important to note that several intersections along Prospect Road in this area warrant auxiliary turn lanes. At the Prospect/Summit View intersection, a westbound right -turn lane is warranted with the existing afternoon peak hour volume. At the Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps intersection, an eastbound right -turn lane and a westbound left -turn lane are warranted with the existing peak hour volumes. At the Prospect/NB I- 25 Ramps intersection, an eastbound left -turn lane is warranted with the existing peak hour volumes. Pedestrian Facilities There are no sidewalks along Prospect Road, Summit View Drive, and the Frontage Road. // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 5 Attachment 15 11 ' MA M� N �� oZ % o W L L NJn O o N 25/13 o N LO 20/57 o N f 1089/746 N f 850/623 02/785 / � 42/82 1223 0/1 J + � 16/14 y f 234/155 19/93 43/24 Prospect 202/401 570/744 117/170 640/1026 754/1073 N N N 90/241 i 8/13 o o 3/2 cp OCV N �Q ��� RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /I JDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Figure 3 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 6 Attachment 15 11 ' MA oM03 % LL N n O LO w 25/13N21/56 o N 850/62362/777 1089/746 0/1 16/14 42/82f 12/14 23 4/155 19/93 43/24 Prospect 202/401 570/744 117/170 754/1045 754/1073 N N N 90/241 i 8/13 o o 3/2 cp OCV N �Q ��� BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /I JDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Figure 4 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 7 Attachment 15 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Summit View- Hageman's Access (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T/RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT A E (55.3 secs) SB LT/T D E (59.3 secs) SB RT A A SB APPROACH D E (59.3 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/Frontage Road (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T/RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT D D SB LT/T/RT D E (57.8 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB T/RT A A WB LT/T A A SB LT/T D E (56.9 secs) SB RT D A SB APPROACH D E (56.9 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB LT/T D D WB T/RT B B NB LT/T D D NB RT B C NB APPROACH D D OVERALL C D //LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Attachment 15 Bicycle Facilities There are narrow bicycle lanes along Prospect Road and Summit View Drive within the study area. Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is not served by Transfort transit service. /J 'DELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 9 Attachment 15 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Gateway at Prospect development will include residential, retail, gas/C-store, hotel, and business park uses. Figure 5 shows a conceptual site plan of the Gateway at Prospect site. The site will be built in phases. Phase 1 will include the residential portion of the site and the gas/C-store. The short range analysis (Year 2021) includes development of Phase 1 of the Gateway at Prospect site and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The long range analysis year is considered to be 2035 and includes full development of the Gateway at Prospect site. The various site accesses are labelled on Figure 5. It is suggested that Access G line up with the existing drive to the north, which is labelled as Access H. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9t" Edition, ITE was used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at the Gateway at Prospect site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation for the Gateway at Prospect site on a daily and peak hour basis. Phase 1 trip generation of the site resulted in 6646 daily trip ends, 484 morning peak hour trip ends, and 615 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip generation for full development of the Gateway at Prospect site resulted in 17,984 daily trip ends, 1048 morning peak hour trip ends, and 1628 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Gateway at Prospect site was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in Fort Collins, and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2021) and long range (2035) analysis futures. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figures 7 and 8 show the short range (2021) Phase 1 and long range (2035) Full Development site generated peak hour traffic assignment, respectively. // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 10 t ] r I r .. t El It r r � nus*Fran.x,w r, � r orrbrw trtv r Yutt r 1 r r r , low IN f r. LMN MYrI Jr.y.. _ vsn ornnw 3 UE LMN aw•v¢u MN Frrar•er(s s ca+core »wr: Attachment 15A& SCALE: 1"=500' N L e+art. ] ♦ r I 1 ' • r ,LMN E'. l FE91 �, r:cwrWYEyrtr _ --' �,H .W..,F.r,,." 6,,, j,,- Act ^ w na .rr., i x,,,]cF lLf+c:�'+na. (J ryC y� - cuss F �.O C l •TsN• C �s5ACCQSS C MIER roan -- - - - I .r root , A44LL Q 5 -"E ReFE -O ��- Y'RTFYfM K Ys:rwt ,¢r wn m WA ar Ak to -- '�'� III �•, .�. .... PROSPECT ROAD (ARTERIAL)--- - 1 r F SITE PLAN Figure 5 �� I DELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 _MENNEENEW �7I rASSOCIATES Page 11 a Attachment 15 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out Phase 1 Area 1 220 Apartment 276 DU 6.65 1836 0.10 28 0.41 113 0.40 110 0.22 61 Area 11 210 Single Family 181 DU 9.52 1724 0.19 34 0.56 101 0.63 114 0.37 67 230 Townhome/ Condo 195 DU 5.81 1132 0.07 14 0.37 72 0.35 68 0.17 33 Area IV 945 Fueling Center 12 Positions 162.78 1954 5.08 61 5.08 61 6.75 81 6.75 81 Phase 1 Total 6646 137 347 373 242 Phase 2 Area III 820 Retail 45.0 KSF 42.70 1922 0.60 27 0.36 16 1.78 80 1.93 87 Area IV 820 Retail 130' KSF 42.70 5550 0.60 78 0.36 47 1.78 231 1.93 251 310 Hotel 100 Rooms 8.17 818 0.31 31 0.22 22 0.31 31 0.29 29 Area V 770 Business Park 233.0 KSF 12.44 2898 1.19 277 0.21 49 0.33 77 0.91 212 Area VI 770 Business Park 12.0 KSF 12.44 150 1.19 14 0.21 3 0.33 4 0.91 11 Areas VII & VI II N/A Open Space N/A N/A NOM N/A NOM N/A NOM N/A NOM N/A NOM Phase 2 Total 11,338 427 137 423 690 Full Development Total 179984 664 484 796 832 //LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 12 Attachment 15 Legend: Employment Retail/Commercial* o�o go go 25 Residential N 'Assigned (Pass -By 1-25 50% of T.G) Mulberry 0 0 0 000 So S� °O 0 0 s4 L. 40% 25% 40% Prospect a 0 0 0 0 00 0 �A2 LO O O NMM co SCALE: 1 "=1000' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 _—// I DELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 13 Attachment 15 T 6� 16/10 f 122/75 38/127 —1w- 0oo, Frontage " \ i Road 3/4 -\ SB /0 M M z �cceSS N N NOM Q Access C N O Z r� N U U ° L° O a � M LO M00 h� 0) 0) 16/66 67/135 CI' -ow— 51 /137 ► 48/34 -mow-15/61 � f 4/16 17/66 27/78 Prospect 61110/80� 1652/4 27/78 0 03 Cf� N �� C ca O �3 \ �� CO O � j 2 LL 0 SHORT RANGE (2021) PHASE 1 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /JIDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Figure 7 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 14 Attachment 15 N -aaw— AM/PM w0 21/31 f 153/208 172/201 —1w- 17/66 180/165 LO O 0 21 Cn Cn a� U U 2 �O of �j1 s Access B 9/41 16/66 f 84/188 0 co N 0) LO co O �O i 180/165 R -� \� �l/pM77 92/2°O 0 o O i 12/4 26/49 — ► 0/0 N N 2 N CUSS /� O NOM 0� M Loco M LO v 291 /442 f 15/61 N O o LL LONG RANGE (2035) FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Access C Prospect so 2 2/0 f 40/41 /--- 4/7 0 z 0 OF f 189/305 1 1 f 23/28 112/243 —am— 1 156/277 1 1 92/214 20/29 ^A� I I �ry U ? Z 0 Figure 8 DELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 15 � 1 rASSOCIATES Attachment 15 Background Traffic Projections Figures 9 and 10 show the respective short range (2021) and long range (2035) background traffic projections. The short range (2021) background traffic was developed by generally increasing the existing traffic counts by two percent per year. The background traffic growth was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Total Traffic Forecasts Figures 11 and 12 show the respective short range (2021) and long range (2035) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic assignment. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Prospect/ Summit View, Prospect/Frontage Road, Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps, and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections are currently signalized. The stop sign controlled intersections along the Frontage Road will not warrant signals in the future, nor do they meet the signal spacing criterion. Geometry Figure 13 shows a schematic of the short range (2021) geometry. As mentioned earlier, several intersections along Prospect Road in this area warrant auxiliary turn lanes with the existing traffic volumes. At the Prospect/Summit View intersection, a westbound right -turn lane is warranted with the existing afternoon peak hour volume. At the Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps intersection, an eastbound right -turn lane and a westbound left -turn lane are warranted with the existing peak hour volumes. At the Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersection, an eastbound left -turn lane is warranted with the existing peak hour volumes. With the existing bridge, left -turn lanes are not possible. With the Phase 1 development of the Gateway at Prospect site, an eastbound right - turn lane and a westbound left -turn lane are required at the Prospect/Access A intersection. Depending upon the location of Access C in relation to the roundabout to the north, Access C may only allow a northbound right -in movement. At the Prospect/ Frontage Road intersection, a westbound and a southbound right -turn lane are required. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the long range (2035) geometry. It is assumed that Prospect Road would be improved to a four -lane arterial by/before the long range (2035) future and the interchange would also be significantly improved. I° LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �7 1 rASSOCIATES Page 16 Attachment 15 11 ' MA M %1 0 o 0 LL rn rn w 24/63 L 27/15 cr -' 11O `� f 1221/847 0/1 f 0/1 � 17/16 21/105 48/27 846/1193 845/1222 M N v 8/13 o o 3/2 N SHORT RANGE (2021) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /JIDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Prospect 226/451 —im- 1 641 /837 No, f 957/701 � 4 @g ; --a*-27 14271/175 132/194 101 /274 11/0 CV � Figure 9 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 17 Attachment 15 N -now— AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles G 3 3 Z.Cn N�Q 03 o cNr Q Li O a 0 0 0 0 o� Q 30/80 0 � �_ �_ 35/20 N 1555/1160 0 15/65 LO L 1520/1050 M� f 1190/865 20/20 5/5 f 1500/11 5 20/20 60/115 340/215 25/130 20/65 60/35 T Prospect 28 1070/1530 1095/1515 1055/1515 800/1040 160/240 0 0/1 LO LO N 140/345 o� M 10/20 `n `n `n 5/5 ;n ' N I I rn LONG RANGE (2035) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /JiDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Figure 10 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 18 Attachment 15 11 ' MA 40/73 1314/955 0/1 tp �o� , p N U U a M CO LO O N CO 16/66 ► — 1264/97� r I M NOM Frontage Road Access C o � �00 N LO 94/150 f 1236/908 17/16 21/105 17/66 75/105 884/1320 913/1309 845/1222 — M N � 8/13 o o 3/2 N M N co c o o LL SHORT RANGE (2021) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /JIDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Prospect N 294/508 —am- 1 751 /917 f 1008/838 47/92 00 - 14/16 f 275/191 184/241 117/284 —jw- ^rn� n N �� 2 O Figure 11 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 19 Attachment 15 N AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles 0 LO 0 f 1620/1320 5/5 21 Cn Cn a� U U 2 0 \57 �� ^o %Op'c��.p4j\ � s D NpM Access 5i5 -- NOM � 10j40 Ln M 00 L O M l(i M 1 Access B 10/40 ` — 15/65 -10 1585/1 00 00 N Ln o LO LO N ti s'7 tip pM 90 41 ?70 NOM 02 o 0 LO z CD 10/5 135/110 — 0 NOM Access C CD LO Ln o coo LO 325/460 f 1535/1110 20/20 25/130 ) t r 20/65 240/200 1225/1665 Ln Ln Ln1275/1680 1055/1515 — LO h O 10/20 Lo Lo Lo 5/5 � Lo N LO Ln N Qi c� o o LONG RANGE (2035) TOTAL U. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Q o0 Of 5/0 LL ► 70/210 5/10 o g o M O z u' coLO M N U U i N �Q 0 2 LP o O 0 h o h h f 1380/1170 6 11 1 20/20 y f 365/245 Prospect 400/805- 1 955/1315 1 1 255/455 160/375 o0 00 M O N �� Z 0 Figure 12 DELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 20 � 1 rASSOCIATES Attachment 15 �z CIO �0s s F Frontage Road SHORT RANGE (2021) GEOMETRY _//IDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES 99 Figure 13 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 21 Attachment 15 N - Denotes Lane A�'ess D � o o LL LONG RANGE (2035) GEOMETRY /I JDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES U Of LL U1 Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 22 Attachment 15 Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the Prospect/Summit View, Prospect/Frontage Road, Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps, Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps, and the Site Access intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range and long range futures, reflecting year 2021 and 2035 conditions, respectively. The long range (2035) analyses are provided for informational purposes. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the short range (2021) background traffic future as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections will operate acceptably during the peak hours with existing control and geometry. The signal timing in the morning peak hour had to be increased to a 120 second cycle, due to the high volumes on Prospect Road as a two-lane arterial street. The signal timing in the afternoon peak hour was adjusted, but maintained a 120 second cycle. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) background traffic future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. Prospect Road was assumed to be a four - lane arterial by/before the long range (2035) future. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the key intersections operate in the short range (2021) total traffic future as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The southbound right -turns at the Prospect/Access A intersection will experience delays commensurate with level of service F. The southbound leg at the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection will experience delays commensurate with level of service F during the morning peak hour. The northbound leg and overall operation at the Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersection will experience delays commensurate with level of service E & F during the afternoon peak hour. The unacceptable operation at these intersections is due to the two-lane cross section of Prospect Road in the short range (2021) future. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 12, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) total traffic future as indicated in Table 6. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. As with the long range (2035) background traffic, Prospect Road was assumed to be a four -lane arterial by/before the long range (2035) future. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Gateway at Prospect site. There will be three pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Gateway at Prospect. These are: 1) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site; 2) the residential neighborhood to the northwest of the site; and 3) the commercial // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Page23 Attachment 15 Short Range TABLE 3 (2021) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Summit View- Hageman's Access (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T A A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT A D SB LT/T D E (59.0 secs) SB RT A A SB APPROACH D E (59.0 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/Frontage Road (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A B L W T A A WB T A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT D D SB LT/T/RT D E (57.1 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T B A SB LT/T D E (57.0 secs) SB RT D A SB APPROACH D E (57.0 secs) OVERALL B A Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB LT/T D D WB T/RT C B NB LT/T D D NB RT B B NB APPROACH D D OVERALL D D //LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 24 Attachment 15 Long Range (2035) TABLE 4 Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Summit Access (signal) View-Hageman's EB LT A A EB T A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T A A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT E 55.1 secs D SB LT/T E 58.3 secs E 58.1 secs SB RT D D SB APPROACH E 57.9 secs E 57.8 secs OVERALL A A Prospect/Frontage Road (signal) EB LT A A EB T A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WBT A A WB T/RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT E (58.0 secs) D SB LT/T E (57.3 secs) E (56.6 secs) SB RT A A SB APPROACH E (57.3 secs) E (56.6 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/SB 1-25 (signal) Ramps EB T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WBT A A WB APPROACH A A SB LT/T C D SB RT E (59.1 secs) E (59.4 secs) SB APPROACH E (58.1 secs) E (57.6 secs) OVERALL B A Prospect/NB 1-25 (signal) Ramps EB LT B A EB T A A EB APPROACH A A WBT B B WB T/RT B B WB APPROACH B B NB LT/T D D NB RT A C NB APPROACH D D OVERALL C C //LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 25 Attachment 15 Short Range TABLE 5 (2021) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Summit View-Hageman's Access (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A B EB APPROACH A B WB LT A B WB T B A WB RT A A WB APPROACH B A NB LT/T/RT A D SB LT/T E (58.6 secs) E (58.1 secs) SB RT A D SB APPROACH E (58.6 secs) E (58.0 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/Access A (stop sign) SB RT F (69.4 secs) C EB LT B B Prospect/Frontage Road (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A C EB APPROACH A C WB LT A A WB T B A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT D D SB LT/T F (220.9 secs) E (61.8 secs) SB RT A D SB APPROACH F (220.9 secs) E (61.3 secs) OVERALL C B Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T C A SB LT/T D D SB RT E (59.6 secs) E (60.2 secs) SB APPROACH E (59.0 secs) E (58.6 secs) OVERALL B A Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB LT/T E (70.2 secs) E (55.3 secs) WB T/RT C B NB LT/T D F (99.4 secs) NB RT B B NB APPROACH D F (97.1 secs) OVERALL D E (71.5 secs) Frontage Road/Access C (RT-in/RT-out) WB RT A A Frontage Road/Access E & F (roundabout) WB Leg A A NB Leg A ASB Leg A A SE Leg A A OVERALL A A Iji _LDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 26 Attachment 15 TABLE 6 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/Summit View- Hageman's Access (signal) EB LT A A EB T A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T A A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T/RT D D SB LT/T E (56.2 secs) E (55.4 secs) SB RT D D SB APPROACH E (55.3 secs) E (54.9 secs) OVERALL A A Prospect/Access A (stop sign) SB RT C C EB LT C B Prospect/Frontage Road (signal) EB LT B A EB T A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A B WBT A A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT E (56.5 secs) D NB T/RT E (56.9 secs) D NB APPROACH E (56.7 secs) D SB LT D D SB T/RT D D SB APPROACH D D OVERALL A B Continued on next page //LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 27 Attachment 15 Continued from previous page TABLE 6 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB T A A EB RT A B EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T A A WB APPROACH A A SB LT/T C D SB RT E (73.3 secs) E (75.9 secs) SB APPROACH E (71.8 secs) E (73.1 secs) OVERALL B B Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps (signal) EB LT B B EB T A A EB APPROACH A A WB T C C WB T/RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT/T D D NB RT C C NB APPROACH D D OVERALL C C Frontage Road/Access B & C (RT-in/RT-out) EB RT B C WB RT B B Frontage Road/Access D, E & F (roundabout) EB Leg A A WB Leg A A NB Leg A B SB Leg A C SE Leg A C OVERALL A B Frontage Road/Access G (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT B B SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A //LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 Page 28 Attachment 15 uses along Mulberry Street and the Frontage Road. This site is in an area type termed "neighborhood employment," which puts it into the "other" category for pedestrian analysis purposes. The level of service determination assumes that this development will build their streets and adjacent streets in accordance with Fort Collins Standards. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The minimum level of service for "other" is C for all categories. Due to the rural nature of Prospect Road and other streets in the area, the Pedestrian LOS cannot be achieved in the short range (2021) future. As future development occurs in the area, it is assumed that the future developments will build their streets in accordance with Fort Collins Standards. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Gateway at Prospect site. There is one bicycle destination within 1320 feet of the site: 1) the commercial uses along Mulberry Street and the Frontage Road. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The minimum level of service for this site is C. This site is connected to bike lanes on Prospect Road and the Frontage Road. Therefore, it is concluded that level of service C can be achieved. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area of Fort Collins is not served by Transfort transit service. /J 'DELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �7 1 rASSOCIATES Page 29 Attachment 15 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Gateway at Prospect site on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2021) and long range (2035) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of Gateway at Prospect is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. Phase 1 trip generation of the site resulted in 6646 daily trip ends, 484 morning peak hour trip ends, and 615 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip generation for full development of the Gateway at Prospect site resulted in 17,984 daily trip ends, 1048 morning peak hour trip ends, and 1628 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - The key intersections operate acceptably with the existing control, geometry, and signal timing. - The Prospect/Summit View, Prospect/Frontage Road, Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramps, and Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramps intersections are currently signalized. The stop sign controlled intersections along the Frontage Road will not warrant signals in the future, nor do they meet the signal spacing criterion. - In the short range (2021) future, given development of the Gateway at Prospect site and an increase in background traffic, most of the key intersections will operate acceptably. The southbound right -turns at the Prospect/Access A intersection will experience delays commensurate with level of service F. The southbound leg at the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection will experience delays commensurate with level of service F during the morning peak hour. The northbound leg and overall operation at the Prospect/NB I-25 Ramps intersection will experience delays commensurate with level of service E & F during the afternoon peak hour. The unacceptable operation at these intersections is due to the two-lane cross section of Prospect Road in the short range (2021) future. - In the long range (2035) future, given development of the Gateway at Prospect site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections are likely to achieve acceptable levels of service with Prospect Road as a four -lane arterial by/before the long range (2035) future. - The short range (2021) geometry is shown in Figure 13. - The long range (2035) geometry is shown in Figure 14. - Acceptable level of service is achieved for the bicycle mode based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. Due to the rural nature of Prospect Road and other streets in the area, the Pedestrian LOS cannot be achieved in the short range (2021) future. Currently, this area of Fort Collins is not served by Transfort transit service. // LDELICH Gateway at Prospect TIS, April 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Page30 F6rtCollins MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board THROUGH: Tom Leeson, C.D.N.S, Director Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief PlannerTr DATE: January 5, 2017 Planning, Development and Transportation Services Current Planning 281 N. College Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970,221,6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov com/currentplanning RE: Gateway at Prospect Rezoning Request — Adjustments to Land Area Calculations Due to Anticipated Vacation of Existing Boxelder Drive Public Right -Of -Way As submitted, this rezoning request includes up -zoning one parcel currently zoned L-M- N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and down -zoning two parcels currently zoned E, Employment, to Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Combined, these tracts form Parcel J on the Amended Overall Development Plan. There is a fourth parcel, however, that was not included in the initial Rezoning Map submittal. This fourth parcel is the dedicated, but not yet constructed, Boxelder Drive. This public right-of-way totals .457 acre, and is adjoined on three sides by land owned by the applicant. As such, it is expected to be vacated with the land area reverting back to the applicant. A future north -south minor collector street, located approximately 293 feet to the west (as measured from centerline to centerline), would replace Boxelder Drive and serve all of the area of the O.D.P. that is west of the Southwest Frontage Road. The Rezoning Map has been adjusted to now include this existing Boxelder Drive right- of-way and is the document that accompanies the Rezoning Reque st. (See exhibit.) It is timely and efficient to include this right-of-way in the Rezoning Request at this time rather than wait for the road to be vacated by City Council and then have to process an additional Rezoning Request in the future. This is because City Council will only consider vacating public right-of-way at the end of the Final Plan review process. For example, if and when Parcel J enters the development review process, and then only after P.D.P. approval, but prior to recording Final Plan, the Engineering Department will prepare a street vacation ordinance for Council's consideration. Council will only vacate the existing public right-of-way with the assurance, and contingent upon, that the Final Plan dedicating a viable alternative is properly recorded and can, therefore, be relied upon to serve future development. There is no downside to zoning public right-of-way even if Parcel J of the O.D.P. does not develop in a timely fashion. What's unique in this case is that the public right-of-way in question is planned to be vacated and become part of a development parcel. Based on the revised Rezoning Map, which now consolidates two parcels zoned E, Employment, into one parcel, the additional land area associated with this right-of-way, legal descriptions and size of the affected parcels have been adjusted accordingly: Initially Submitted: Parcel 1, E, Parcel 2, E, Parcel 3, L-M-N, 2.575 ac. 7.136 ac. 12.269 ac. As Revised With Public Right-of-Wav: Parcel 1, E, Parcel 2, L-M-N 10.034 ac. 12.403 ac. ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Total: 21,298 ac. Total: 22,266 ac. No Text Agenda Item 2B PROJECT NAME GATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #ODP160001 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an amended Overall Development Plan for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Proposed land uses include a mix of permitted uses allowed on a per zone district basis. The O.D.P. also includes 12.27 acres zoned L-M-N and 9.71 acres zoned E (Parcel J) that are the subject of a separate and preceding request to rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N. This rezoning request must be considered prior to this Amended O.D.P. as the Parcel J is designated "Multi -Family, 276 total units & 13 DU/A"which requires M-M-N zoning without the need to modify any L-M-N standards. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. There is no established vested right with an O.D.P. APPLICANT: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o TB Group 444 W. Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o Mr. Tim McKenna 2 N. Cascade Avenue, Suite 590 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to City Council approval of the request to rezone Parcel J to M-M-N Item # 213 Page 1 Agenda Item 2B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1, Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: County R (Sunrise Acres) S: E, Employment (Colorado Welcome Center and CSURF-owned parcel) E: C-G, General Commercial (Vacant) E: I, Industrial (Vacant) W: County FA-1 (Boxelder Estates and other County Residential Parcels) The property was included in the City's Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned: • H-B, Highway Business (157 acres) • R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) under the Land Development Guidance System. Interstate Land First Filing P.U.D. for a Harley Davidson dealership was approved in 1996 and consisted of a 26,000 square foot building on one four -acre lot located along the S.W. Frontage Road. Then in 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner: • C, Commercial (44.7 acres) • E, Employment (104 acres) • L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres); • U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer (21 acres). This rezoning was part of a city-wide rezoning to implement the City's new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the P.U.D. system. About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the O.D.P. to the Cooper Slough Association / Boxelder Estates H.O.A. for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125 feet for a length of about 1,880 feet and contains approximately 4.7 acres. This conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the O.D.P. and Boxelder Estates. Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres. In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner: • U-E (21 acres) • L-M-N (68.6 acres) • Employment (60.9 acres) • Commercial (26.9 acres). Item # 213 Page 2 Agenda Item 2B 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies the criteria for reviewing O.D.P.'s. A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) — Permitted Uses and District Standards This criterion requires the O. D.P. to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an O. D.P. submittal. Parcel J is the subject of a rezoning request in the following manner: • 12.27 acres: request to rezone from L-M-N to M-M-N • 9.71 acres: request to rezone from E to M-M-N If approved by City Council, this would create 21.98 acres of M-M-N (Parcel J). The purpose of the rezoning is to develop Parcel J as a single, unified multi -family project. Although multi -family is a permitted use in both the L-M-N and E zone districts, such development in the L-M-N zone is limited to the following: • No more than an average density of 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre; • No more than 12 dwelling units per building; and • No more than 14,000 square feet per building. The applicant has indicated that the intention for future development is to exceed these parameters. While the E zone is not similarly restricted, the applicant states that consolidating Parcel J under one zoning results in a more straight -forward approach and sets a clear expectation for potential development. Therefore, the O.D.P. currently indicates that all proposed uses comply with the permitted uses allowed per zone. Since this standard [Section 2.3.2(H)(1)] includes a reference to compliance with zone district standards, and since the applicant seeks to develop Parcel J in a manner that exceeds three L-M-N parameters, the O.D.P. will be conditioned upon City Council approving the preceding and accompanying rezoning request. The O.D.P. also indicates a public neighborhood park containing approximately four acres which satisfies the standard that a public or private park is provided for development plans that exceed ten acres. B. Section 2.3.2 (H) (2) - Density This criterion requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the L-M-N or M-M-N zone district. The O.D.P., as proposed with Parcel J to be designated as Multi -family and subject of the rezoning request to M-M-N, indicates the following: Item # 2B Page 3 Agenda Item 2B • L-M-N: 49.3 acres (Parcel F) — 197 to 399 dwelling units. • M-M-N: 21.9 acres (Parcel) — 276 multi -family dwelling units. In the L-M-N, the required density range is between 4.00 and 9.00 dwelling units per acre for a range of 197 to 443 dwelling units. Parcel F, with 49.3 acres, is designated for a range of 197 to 399 dwelling units thus complying with the standard. In the proposed M-M-N, the required density is a minimum of 12.00 dwelling units per acre for a base requirement of 262 dwelling units. Parcel J, with 21.98 acres, is designated for 276 dwelling units, thus complying with the standard. At the O.D.P. level, within the L-M-N zone, the range of lot sizes and the number of housing types not yet been determined and will be evaluated for compliance at the time of P.D.P. C. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) — Master Street Plan This criterion requires the O. D. P. to conform to the Master Street Plan as required by Section 3.6.1 The following streets, and their classification, are called for on the Master Street Plan: • East Prospect Road — four lane arterial • Southwest Frontage Road — two-lane collector The O.D.P. properly indicates the widening of both of these roadways in compliance with the Master Street Plan. (The Master Street Plan does not address streets below the collector classification.) For informational purposes, the O.D.P. indicates a proposed north -south minor collector roadway that intersects with E. Prospect Road and would serve Parcels (from south to north) J, E, F, M and D. As a minor collector, on -street parking is allowed. Also, an east -west local connector roadway would intersect the Southwest Frontage Road. The intersection would be a candidate for a roundabout due to the curvature of the Frontage Road and as all four legs do not form 90-degree angles. In general, Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. demonstrates overall compliance with City Plan in that development is served by a network of public streets which provide safe and convenient internal and external connectivity. D. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) — Street Pattern. Connectivitv and Levels of Service This criterion requires the O.D.P. to conform to the street pattern and connectivity standards as required by 3.6.3 (A) through (F). In addition, the O.D.P. shall also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. Section 3. 6.3(B) is the general standard that requires the local street system to provide for safety, efficiency and convenience for all modes both within the neighborhood and to destinations outside the neighborhood. The Southwest Frontage Road provides connectivity between E. Prospect Road and E. Mulberry Street. The proposed north -south collector provides internal connections to E. Prospect Road. The proposed east -west local connector provides internal connections to both sides of the S.W. Frontage Road. The fact that the O.D.P. will be served by two collector streets demonstrates compliance. Item # 2B Page 4 Agenda Item 2B Section 3.6.3(C) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with a full -turning collector or local street at a maximum interval one -quarter mile, or 1,320 feet. The O.D.P. has 2,000 linear feet of frontage along E. Prospect Road and the Southwest Frontage Road signalized intersection is roughly at the midpoint. Thus there is no segment of arterial roadway that exceeds 1,320 feet without a full -turning intersection. Section 3.6.3(D) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with limited -turning collector or local street at a maximum interval of 660 feet. As noted, E. Prospect Road is intersected by two north -south collector streets, one proposed and one existing. These two collectors are separated by a distance of roughly 1,100 feet which exceeds the standard. The reason an additional collector or local street intersection is not provided is due to the recently constructed bridge, culverts and overflow channel that is located between these two collectors. Jointly constructed by the City of Fort Collins (E. Prospect Road widening and bridge) and the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (culverts and overflow channel), these major public improvements effectively preclude any additional intersections along E. Prospect Road. This requirement, therefore, is not applicable. Section 3.6.3(E) requires that all development plans contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same square mile section from at least three arterial streets. It is notable that this particular square mile section does not have access to three arterial streets. With I- 25 on the east and the Poudre River floodplain on the west, there are only two perimeter arterials; E. Prospect Road and E. Mulberry Street. (Summitview Drive is collector roadway.) Gateway at Prospect will be unable to make street connections within the square mile section due to the following constraints: • A street connection into Sunrise Acres, the County subdivision to the north, would require a bridge over the Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal. Further, any such connection would tie into an existing street network that was developed in the County decades ago and prior to the adoption of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). • A street connection into the Crossroads East Business Center and the Smithfield Subdivision, the County commercial districts to the northeast, would require two bridges; one over the aforementioned canal and one over the Lake Canal. Further, there are no gaps in the adjoining platted lots for such a street connection. • A street connection into Boxelder Estates, the County subdivision to the west, is precluded by the acquisition of a long rectangular parcel by the Boxelder Estates H.O.A. along their east boundary that is specifically intended to prevent any street connections. • A street connection to the west into the platted semi -rural lots that are south of and not part of Boxelder Estates is precluded by the lack of any available right-of-way or easement that could be used for such purposes. Buckeye Street dead -ends at a house and it appears the right-of-way does not extend west to the O.D.P. property line. This standard acknowledges that such constraints may exist and allows for flexibility in that such street connections to three arterials would be rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing Item # 213 Page 5 Agenda Item 2B development or a natural area or feature. Therefore, the O.D.P. meets this standard to the extent reasonably feasible. Section 3.6.3(F) requires that the O.D.P. incorporate and continue all sub -arterial streets stubbed to the boundary or provide for future public street connections along each boundary that abuts potentially developable land at maximum intervals of 660 feet. There are no sub -arterial streets stubbed to the boundary and providing street stubs to the boundary would be precluded by the aforementioned constraints. Section 3.6.4 requires compliance with the adopted Level of Service Standards (LOS) in the City Land Use Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for impacted intersections. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was submitted and was evaluated by staff as it relates to the ODP and the rezone. Staff provides the following conclusions: • The traffic study identifies short term and long term geometric improvements needed for the transportation system in the area. Determining which improvements are required at what phase will be completed with future PDP submittals. • The Frontage Road and interchange are CDOT facilities and requirements and approval of improvements are under their jurisdiction. Specifics of CDOT required improvements will be determined at the PDP phase. • The difference between the previously approved CDP and the current proposal with APU in terms of traffic generation is nominal. • Adequate Public Facilities requirements in the City Land Use Code cannot be applied to CDOT's interchange since it is not under City jurisdiction. However, there are ongoing discussions with CDOT, the City and private property owners in the area to explore a potential partnership (including funding) to improve the interchange outside of the review of this proposal. • If / when the project moves into the PDP phase, the applicant has acknowledged that as a starting point for improvements with their first phase, they will be required to complete their roadway frontage along Prospect and the Frontage Road, construct a center left turn lane in Prospect, and improve intersections and access points with any other needed auxiliary turn lanes and/or traffic control changes. E. Compact Urban Growth - Section 2.3.2 (H) (3): This criterion requires that the O.D.P. conform to the contiguity requirements of the Levels of Service Standards per Section 3.6.4 and Compact Urban Growth Standards as per Section 3.7.2. The O.D.P. has been within the city limits for 28 years. As noted, it is bounded on the west and north sides by existing County development. The area is served by existing public improvements capable of supporting future growth, with the expected improvements associated with City's development standards, with one exception. Item # 2B Page 6 Agenda Item 2B As mentioned, the Transportation Impact Study indicates that there are LOS delays at the 1-25/Prospect Road Ramps but these intersections are under the jurisdiction of CDOT, not the City. In these cases, the City does not invoke the various standards related to Adequate Public Facilities since the City does not have authority over roadway improvements outside its jurisdiction. In addition, there are LOS delays associated with E. Prospect Road currently being a two-lane cross section versus five -lane as called for in the LCUASS. These existing deficiencies are typical for the edges of the city limits. On January 15, 2015, at the regular hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff provided a staff report regarding the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Excerpts from this Staff Report are useful in determining compliance with this standard: "Public facilities are commonly improved through a combination of Capital Funding (to address existing deficiencies) and Developer Contributions to address impacts attributable to development [Local Street Frontages and the Street Oversizing Program (SOP)]. The SOP recognizes that not all traffic impacts can be attributed to new development, and the program includes an annual General Fund contribution. In addition, the SOP is designed only to address new traffic impacts directly caused by development and cannot be used to fix existing deficiencies." The future improvement to widen the existing two-lane cross section of E. Prospect Road includes a proportional developer obligation based on linear street frontage. The developer's responsibility is referred to as the "local street portion" of the full arterial cross-section. Widening the roadway beyond the local street portion to the full arterial standard is the obligation of the City. This is primarily due to the fact that E. Prospect Road is one of only four arterial connections between the City of Fort Collins and 1-25, and outlying suburban communities, such as Timnath and Severance, and carries regional traffic. "Section 3.7.2(A)(1) — Compact Urban Growth Standards — Degree of Contiguity requires that at least one -sixth of the proposed development's boundaries must be contiguous to existing urban development within either the City or unincorporated Larimer County within the Growth Management Area. " "Section 3.7.2(A)(2) — Compact Urban Growth Standards — Existing Urban Development Defined: For purposes of this Section, existing urban development shall mean industrial uses; commercial/retail uses; institutional/civic/public uses; or residential uses having an overall minimum density of at least 1.00 unit per acre; and provided further that all engineering improvements for any such development, including paved streets, public sewer and water, stormwater drainage and other utilities and fire suppression consistent with the Fire Code must have been completed." The adjoining County subdivisions/parcels that create the contiguity for the O.D.P. are: • North: Crossroads East Business Center • North: Smithfield Subdivision • North: Sunrise Acres • West: Boxelder Estates • Eight parcels west of Parcel J that are developed as semi -rural County residences but are not contained within a subdivision. These County properties were developed prior to the adoption of LCUASS. While served water and sewer by East Larimer County Water District and Boxelder Creek Sanitation District, the area is Item # 213 Page 7 Agenda Item 2S characterized by gaps and insufficiencies in engineering improvements such as paved streets (to full depth asphalt) and sidewalks. Further, in terms of stormwater management, there are no water quality features or low impact development components. Generally speaking, these conditions are typical for County development of a certain age within the Growth Management Area. The standard outlines a Waiver/Exception process in cases where a development proposal is located on the edge of the City where there are existing deficiencies due to city-wide background and regional traffic impacts, and where surrounding land uses are not fully developed to urban standards. "The Planning and Zoning Board may waive or make exceptions to the contiguity requirements of this Section upon making a specific finding that the proposed development will: (1) Substantially advance the implementation of the City Plan in the provision of Medium -Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods or Community Commercial Districts; (2) Produce special benefits to the City in terms of large-scale open space dedication or preservation, completion of regional trail linkages, or substantially advance other primary open space and recreational goals contained in City Plan; (3) Not applicable; (4) Promote the infilling of an area with already existing noncontiguous urban -level development. " Staff finds that the O.D.P., with 21.98 acres designated as Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, would advance the implementation of City Plan. Further, staff finds that the O.D.P. establishes a buffer for Boxelder Creek and anticipates the extension of the regional trail as called for on the Parks and Recreation Trails Master Plan. Finally, staff finds that Gateway at Prospect O.D.P., being bounded on two sides by existing County development, qualifies as an area with existing noncontiguous urban -level development in compliance with the standard. Staff, therefore, finds that the O.D.P. is eligible for the waiver per these three criteria. F. Section 2.3.2 (H) (4) — Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties This criterion requires an O.D.P. to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the O.D.P. from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). As noted, Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. is constrained with regard to connectivity to adjoining properties. The future development of the Boxelder Regional Trail, however, represents an opportunity to make a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the northwest into Sunrise Acres subdivision. This Trail is a key component of the Parks and Trails Master Plan and is expected to serve most areas along the City's eastern edge between Fossil Creek Reservoir on the south and Douglas Road on the north. G. 2.3.2 (H) (5) — Natural Features This criterion requires an O.D.P. to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). Item # 213 Page 8 Agenda Item 2S The O.D.P. contains a section of Boxelder Creek that flows from northeast to southwest in a diagonal fashion through the middle and along a portion of its eastern edge. Both the creek and its approximate 100-foot buffer are indicated on the O.D.P. in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E). H. Section 2.3.2 (H) (6) — Drainage Basin Master Plan This criterion requires an O.D.P. to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The site is located within the Boxelder Creek Master Drainage Basin. Development is anticipated to comply with the stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards of both this particular basin and city-wide best management practices. In addition, the property is within the jurisdiction of the Boxelder Basin Stormwater Regional Authority and will abide by all the required financial and design parameters of this special district. Section 2.3.2 (H) (7) — Housing Density and Mix of Uses This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire O. D. P. and not on each individual P. D. P. This standard allows the various parcels that are residential and zoned U-E, L-M-N and M-M-N to have a degree of flexibility in determining the distribution of density and housing mix but only on a per zone district. For example: • In the L-M-N, a single phase may develop up to 12 d.u./a but only as long as the overall zone district does not exceed 9.00 d.u./a. • Similarly in the L-M-N, a single phase may develop below 4.00 d.u./a but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 4.00 d.u./a. • In the L-M-N, four housing types are required on an overall basis but not with each phase. • This provision would not apply to the U-E zone district where the option of platting minimum one-half acre lots or creating a Cluster Development Plan would prevail. • In the M-M-N, a single phase may develop below 12.00 d.u./a but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 12.00 d.u./a. The benefit of a large-scale O.D.P. is that it provides a higher degree of flexibility and creativity than development on small parcels. The applicant is aware of these various development options. Staff will monitor compliance on an individual P.D.P. basis. 3. Neighborhood Meetings: Staff conducted three neighborhood meetings and the summaries are attached to accompanying and preceding Request for Rezoning. The three meetings allowed surrounding residents to voice their concerns and discuss issues related land development on the 177-acre Amended Overall Development Plan as well the Request to Rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N, a separate item. The wide range of topics included various aspects of the developing the tract as proposed as well as regional issues that are beyond the scope of the project. Item # 2B Page 9 Agenda Item 2B A. Traffic One of the primary neighborhood comments are traffic concerns related to the lack of full arterial improvements along E. Prospect Road, as well as the 1-25 interchange at Prospect Road including Frontage Roads, the bridge width, and the lack of separate turn lanes for the ramps. The traffic study submitted with the ODP identifies needed short term and long term geometric improvements for the transportation system. There will be additional traffic studies needed to determine detailed improvements required for each PDP, and there are active and ongoing conversations with CDOT, the City, and private property owners in the area related to the interchange. Additional information is discussed in Section D of the staff report. Regarding the interchange, although not under the City's jurisdiction, it is fully understood that the interchange is constrained, especially with future development in the area. Separate from this ODP, there are active and ongoing conversations with CDOT, the City, and private property owners (including the ODP applicant) in the area related to the interchange. The focus is to determine whether interchange improvements could be added to the CDOT 1-25 widening project with a combination of state, local, and private funding. B. Gaps in Public Improvements Along those same lines, attendees at the neighborhood meeting expressed frustration with the general lack of public improvements in the general vicinity especially when compared to the rest of the City. There is concern that there is a lag time between when new subdivisions are improved versus timely construction of necessary facilities to serve the new growth. There is an acknowledgement that Timnath and Severance generate commuters that use Prospect Road on a daily basis. These growing pains are experienced on a daily basis particularly when there are gaps in the public improvements. Parcels in the eastern edge of the City, especially along Prospect Road, are not developing in a sequential manner due to the Poudre River floodplain and three natural areas. The floodplain and natural areas means that there will never be an adjoining developer to contribute to public improvements. This leads to frustration. The City is challenged to constantly balance, within the established legal frameworks, the need for constructing regional streets, sidewalks, turn lanes, and the like, at the same time that new subdivisions are developing. While each new development is required to pay its own way, there will remain regional improvements that require participation from both subsequent development and a broader regional solution such as a City capital project or formation of a special improvement district or metro district. C. Urban / Rural Conflicts The other issue of concern is the interface between existing semi -rural homes to the west and their relationship to new development that meets current urban density requirements. There is a concern that there is built-in conflict between existing residents and future residents living within a subdivision at urban densities. These issues are not unique to any one area of the City. Managing growth on the fringe of the City has been addressed on the macro level by long-standing Intergovernmental Agreement with Item # 2B Page 10 Agenda Item 2B Larimer County and the recently adopted I.G.A. with Timnath. At the micro level, however, such issues are best addressed at the Project Development Plan stage by strategic use of buffer yards, landscaping, building height, fencing, setbacks and other provisions of the Land Use Code that address compatibility. As noted, in association with the request for the Rezoning of Parcel J to M-M-N, seven conditions of approval are recommended to mitigate potential impacts related to multi -family development. In addition, Parcels A, D, and E are zoned Urban Estate and are located on the west and north edges of the O.D.P. These parcels contain 22 acres and are sufficient to ensure a compatible transition between semi -rural and urban development either by virtue of required minimum one- half acre lot size or by a cluster development plan that preserves at least 50% (11 acres) of open space. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Gateway at Prospect O.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The O.D.P. is an amendment to, and generally consistent with, Interstate Lands O.D.P. approved in 2004. B. As an amended O.D.P., it continues to comply with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H). C. In compliance with Compact Urban Growth — Contiguity standards, staff finds that the O.D.P. qualifies for the Waiver/Exception per Section 3.72(C) because the O.D.P.: (1.) Will substantially advance the implementation of City Plan in the provision of a 21.98 acre Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood; (2.) Will produce special benefits to the City by contributing to completing the proposed regional trail per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (3.) Will promote the infilling of an area with already existing noncontiguous urban - level development. D. Since the O.D.P. is being submitted and considered in conjunction with a request for a Rezoning of Parcel J to M-M-N, which is required to be considered by City Council, approval of this O.D.P. is contingent on City Council approval the Addition of Permitted Use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Gateway at Prospect Amended Overall Development Plan, #ODP160001, based on the Findings of Fact in this staff report, subject to the following condition: Approval of this O.D.P. is contingent upon City Council approval the accompanying and preceding request to rezone 21,98 acres, identified as Parcel J, from Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood and Employment to Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Item # 2B Page 11 Agenda Item 2B ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Planning Objectives (PDF) 2. Aerial Map - Close -Up (JPG) 3. Gateway at Prospect ODP Sheet 1 (PDF) 4. Gateway at Prospect ODP Sheet 2 (PDF) Item # 2B Page 12 Attachment 1 GROUP landscape architecture I planning I illustration Gateway at Prospect Amended ODP Planning Objectives May 3, 2016 This proposal is for an Overall Development Plan submittal for Gateway at Prospect located at north of Prospect Road and west of Interstate 25. The property is owned by Fort Collins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC. and contains approximately 177 acres. The property has multiple zone districts including Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), Employment (E), General Commercial (CG) and Urban Estate (UE). The property currently is undeveloped and is leased for farming. The Commercial Zone District will include primary and/or secondary uses. The Employment Zone District will include primary and secondary uses including residential development as a secondary use. The Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone District will consist of residential, including single-family and multi -family housing. The Urban Estate Zone District will include single-family residential. The 1-25 access points to the site are shown on the ODP, with access points to Prospect Road and Frontage Road. Uses surrounding the property consist of the following: South: Colorado Welcome Center, Colorado Department of Transportation Rest Area and undeveloped area owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation West: Boxelder Estates Subdivision and Sunrise Acres 2n1 Subdivision and rural Larimer County lots North: Smithfield, Crossroads East Business Center East: Interstate 25 (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: Gateway at Prospect meets the following applicable City Plan Principles and Policies: Environmental Health Principle ENV 1: Within the developed landscape of Fort Collins, natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced. Policy ENV 1.1 - Protect and Enhance Natural Features 444 Mountain Ave. TEL 970.532.5891 Berthoud, CO80513 WEB TBGroup.us Attachment 1 The development of Gateway at Prospect will include a focus of maintaining a greenbelt within the floodplain area, around Boxelder Creek and Cache La Poudre (CLP) Inlet Canal. Policy ENV 1.2 -Regulate Development along Waterways Required setbacks from the Boxelder Creek and CLIP Inlet Canal will be used to help ensure the protection of these waterways. Principle ENV 2: Open lands and natural areas within Fort Collins, the Growth Management Area, and the region will be conserved, preserved, and protected to provide habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems, and to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins by providing opportunities for education, scientific research, nature interpretation, fishing, wildlife observation, hiking, and other appropriate recreation activities as well as protecting view -sheds. Policy ENV 2.9 - Provide Access Trail connections will be designed along the existing waterways which meander through the property. Access will be provided from the south, east and north. Policy ENV 2.10 - Maintain Access Development will be designed in a manner to maintain access to the waterways and associated trails where possible. Principle ENV 4: The City will pursue new opportunities to provide multifunctional open lands. Policy ENV 4.6 - Utilize Corridors Trails along waterways will allow for wildlife movement throughout the site, pedestrian access and will help to link different neighborhoods and commercial/employment areas. Principle ENV 18: The City will minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, recognize and manage for the preservation of floodplain values, adhere to all City mandated codes, policies, and goals, and comply with all State and Federally mandated laws and regulations related to the management of activities in flood prone areas. Policy ENV 18.1 - Balance Environmental, Human and Economic Concerns Floodplains within the Gateway at Prospect development will be managed as a natural amenity to the development. Proposed walkable trails will promote connectivity to the commercial areas of Gateway at Prospect. As building within the floodplain will be restricted, these areas will be utilized for their natural qualities. Policy ENV 18.2 - Manage Risks Buildings (including housing, businesses) will be located outside of the floodplain with at least 18" vertical clearance from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This measure will be implemented in order protect structures and promote safety during large storm events. Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 2 Attachment 1 Policy ENV 18.4 - Manage Floodplain A bridge is planned to provide access from the Frontage Road. This bridge will be the only structural improvement located within the floodplain. A CLOMR/LOMR will be pursued with this improvement. Both FEMA and City of Fort Collins Floodplain requirements will be addressed during this process. Additionally, detention areas might be located within the floodplain, outside of the floodway. These detention areas will be subject to a no -rise requirement. Principle ENV 19: The City will pursue opportunities to protect and restore the natural function of the community's urban watersheds and streams as a key component of minimizing flood risk, reducing urban runoff pollution, and improving the ecological health of urban streams. Policy ENV 19.2 - Pursue Low Impact Development Low Impact Development (LID) encompasses many aspects of the proposed design. Permeable pavers will be utilized within private drives and/or parking lots as required. The site will be planned with the intent to provide green space buffers and swales to minimize directly connected impervious areas and promote infiltration. Rain Gardens and/or drywells will be utilized where applicable to treat stormwater prior to entering detention areas. Additionally, the area of the site located within floodplain will be conserved as much as possible to protect Boxelder Creek from additional sediment loading during major storm events. Lastly, water quality capture volume will be provided within the proposed detention ponds as a final water quality measure prior to release into Boxelder Creek. Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements, Policy LIV 1.1 - Utilize a Growth Management Area This development is located within the existing GMA and adjacent other existing residential and employment development. Principle LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. Policy LIV 4.1 - Ensure Adequate Public Facilities Development is planned in an area which can be adequately served by critical public facilities and services. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 3 Attachment 1 Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. This development will provide a variety of housing types in a location that currently has limited residential development. In addition, several distinct housing types will be used which will expand the options for residents in an area that currently has primarily single-family residential. Policy LIV 7.1 - Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations A variety of housing types and densities shall be provided within the development. This could include larger estate type housing, single-family housing, attached single-family housing and multi -family. Principle LIV 10: The city's streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.1 - Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets All new streets will be designed to meet City street standards. The intention is to provide a safe, functional and visually appealing street network. Shade trees and landscaping will be included throughout the developments street network. Policy LIV 10.2 - Incorporate Street Trees Street trees will be incorporated into the streetscape for all public streets in addition to open spaces and parks. Tree species and quantities will meet the requirements of the Land Use Code Principle LIV 11: Public spaces, such as civic buildings, plazas, outdoor spaces, and parks will be integrated throughout the community and designed to be functional, accessible, attractive, safe, and comfortable. Policy LIV 11.2 - Incorporate Public Spaces A variety of public spaces are envisioned for this development including but not limited to pedestrian walks, plazas, pocket parks, play areas and site furnishings. More detailed design of these spaces will be submitted at PDP. Principle LIV 13: Community gateways are located at primary entryways into the community, including at the 1-25 corridor interchanges, at the north and south ends of College Avenue, and at entrances to unique districts and corridors (such as the Downtown River District). The City will recognize gateways as important locations to draw attention to and convey the character of the surrounding district. Policy LIV 13.1 - Enhance Interchange Gateways This site is located at a key interchange gateway to the City (1-25 and Prospect). The applicant has been and will continue to work with CDOT and City Staff throughout the development process regarding necessary streetscape improvements. A Prospect Road improvement package has been submitted Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 4 Attachment 1 concurrently with this ODP. The proposed amended ODP shows how development will be incorporated with future improvements to Prospect Road. Policy LIV 13.3 - Establish Gateway Design As development moves forward, creating a high quality gateway image will be achieved with architecture, landscape, signage and lighting. These elements will be designed and refined with future submittal packages. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community. Policy LIV 14.1 - Encourage Unique Landscape Features This development will utilize quality landscape materials throughout the site, including enhanced entryway and screening in any appropriate areas. Principle LIV15: Commercial developments create a powerful impression of the City, both individually and taken together as a whole. While corporate franchises and chain stores will remain vital and recognizable, commercial developments shall be designed to contribute to Fort Collins' distinct visual quality and uniqueness. Policy LIV 15.2 - Seek Compatibility with Surrounding Development A high quality commercial district is envisioned for this development. Types of commercial development and building character will both contribute and enhance the character of the surrounding development PRINCIPLE LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities, and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or Community Commercial District, Policy LIV 21.2 - Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The street system will provide an interconnected network with transportation options to cars, bicycles and pedestrians while providing direct access to community amenities, employment areas and commercial development. Principle LIV 23: Neighborhoods will feature a wide range of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens, play fields, natural areas, orchards and community gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces to provide linkages and recreational opportunities both for neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Policy LIV 23.1 - Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces A variety of open spaces and parks are envisioned for this development. These could include pocket parks, plazas, open spaces areas and trails. Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 5 Attachment 1 Principle LIV 27 - Urban Estate Neighborhoods will provide a setting for a predominance of low -density and large -lot housing. Policy LIV 27.5 - Cluster Development Cluster development is planned within the UE zone district. Transportation Principle T 3: Land use planning decisions, management strategies, and incentives will support and be coordinated with the City's transportation vision. Policy T 3.1 - Pedestrian Mobility Policy T 3.2 - Bicycle Facilities Policy T 4A - Attractive and Safe Neighborhood Streets A mix of land uses and programming will provide multiple efficient options for movement throughout this development. Bike trails and bike lanes will be used where appropriate to provide alternative methods of travel throughout the development. Development streets will be safe for cars, pedestrian and bicycles as well as attractive. The use of street trees and street lighting will contribute to the safety and aesthetics. Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. There are two ditches within the property boundary near the northern end of the site (Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal (CLP)) and running down the eastern side of the site (Boxelder Creek). It's anticipated that there will be limited development north of the CLP Inlet Canal which will preserve this space as a natural area. A minimum of 50' buffers will be maintained along ditches and a 100' buffer will be maintained along the Boxelder Creek. In many areas the open space will exceed the 50' buffers due to the existing floodplain. Pedestrian and bicycle trails are envisioned along these waterways as well. These will also serve as circulation corridors for wildlife which will connect to each side of the property. In addition to natural areas, parks and plazas will be integrated into the development. Various modes of circulation will be provided between specified uses, parks and natural areas will be provided. (iii) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. The type and quantity of commercial and employment has not yet been determined therefore an estimated number of employees cannot be determined. This information will be provided at PDP. Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 6 Attachment 1 Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. All open space will be maintained by an HOA. The weir will be maintained by the City of Fort Collins. The neighborhood park will be maintained by the City of Fort Collins Parks Department. The Boxelder Creek will be maintained by either City of Fort Collins Open Lands or Stormwater. (iv) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The rationale behind assumptions and choices made in the creation of this ODP remain unchanged from the original, approved Interstate Lands ODP. The purpose of the Amended ODP is to achieve the following: 1. Remove any reference to the Cooper Slough. 2. Remove property along the western property boundary that was purchased by the adjacent subdivision (Boxelder Estates) and is no longer part of this ODP. 3. Locate the approximate position of the proposed 5-leg round -about. 4. Further define access from Prospect Road. 5. Further define access locations/types off of Frontage Road. (v) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 21, 2016. The following points were made: 1. Residents of neighborhood located to the west of the property requested confirmation that neighborhood streets would not be extended to the Gateway at Prospect property. a. Response: Access per the proposed ODP is from Prospect Road at an existing signalized intersection at the Frontage Road (full movement). In addition, a % access is proposed from Prospect Road along the western boundary of the property. Additional access points are identified from the Frontage Road. 2. Neighbors had concerns about general traffic along Prospect Road (existing traffic, an anticipated increase due to the proposed PSD High School east of I- 25 and an anticipated increase due to the new CSU stadium) a. Response: City Staff addressed what could and could not be required of the applicant as well as how these other development projects would have to contribute to the mitigation of their respective impacts along Prospect Road. 3. Neighbors had concerns about traffic that would be generated by Gateway at Prospect. a. Response: The applicant would be required to provide improvements in specified locations, as defined by the Traffic Impact Study. In addition, the applicant has been working with the City over the last several years on City projects to address both roadway and stormwater improvements projects that have already occurred and/or for future improvements planned by the City. 4. Neighbors had concerns about high-rise apartments within the development. a. Response: High-rise apartments are not planned for this development. Multi -family development will not exceed the height requirements per the Land Use Code. Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 7 Attachment 1 5. Neighbors had concerns about their county neighborhoods being annexed into the City of Fort Collins. a. Response: This ODP/APU does not annex the existing neighborhoods into the City of Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins has no plans to annex the existing neighborhoods in the City. (vi) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project is called Gateway at Prospect. The approved ODP was called Interstate Land ODP. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. There are two ditches within the property boundary near the northern end of the site (Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal (CLP)) and running down the eastern side of the site (Boxelder Creek). It's anticipated that there will be limited development north of the CLP Inlet Canal which will preserve this space as a natural area. A minimum of 50' buffers will be maintained along ditches and a 100' buffer will be maintained along the Boxelder Creek. In many areas the open space will exceed the 50' buffers due to the existing floodplain. These will also serve as circulation corridors for wildlife which will connect to each side of the property. Proposed Development Phasin_g Development within the commercial zone district will be considered on a case by case basis. It is feasible that a portion of the commercial zone district could move forward at any time depending on interest by commercial users. Some residential development is anticipated to move forward in Phase I. The full build -out of the residential zone district is expected to include multiple phases. Both multi -family and single-family are included in the development but the type of residential product that moves forward first will be based on market interest. Gateway at Prospect Planning Objectives 5.3.16 Page 8 I lr1 L 9 g m 9 .J1 Q39 i aS i8 Z Z W CL Z Og Jz z `Ww / a. a WLU w Q w 0 J O 0 Wg w OU)Q w �,- w CU Z '� w.. CL H s wo o0 z ° OZ W N 2 I..L z Z W Q Z 1 Q Q W V Lei ii 3 t t a a a Li Attachment 4 i roH A A A L Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME LAND USE CODE CHANGES RELATED TO NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT STAFF Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Since the original Land Use Code provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted, there has been considerable change in the size and characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area, best practices for fumigation and relocation, and citywide development patterns. Based on the latest research on the ecosystem value of prairie dog colonies and current best management practices, staff proposes a number of Land Use Code updates regarding prairie dog management and the protection of natural habitats and features on development sites. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to City Council in support of the proposed Land Use Code changes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STANDARDS: Development activities that have the potential to impact natural habitats and features are regulated by Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. In some cases, prairie dog colonies are considered a special habitat feature that warrants protection or mitigation, but provisions for prairie dog management vary depending on the site. For colonies over 50 acres in size, the developer must either protect and buffer the colony or, if the colony will be removed, replace the resource value lost to the community through some form of mitigation. Mitigation requirements are determined on a case -by -case basis, and may include the creation of grassland habitat, relocation of prairie dogs, or payment -in -lieu to fund grassland restoration or prairie dog management elsewhere in the community. Item # 3 Page 1 Agenda Item 3 For colonies less than 50 acres in size, no protection or mitigation of impacts to prairie dogs is required. If prairie dogs will be left on -site, and depending on the nature of the project, fencing, underground barriers, or other mechanisms may be required to reduce conflicts between wildlife and the development project. Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting the site must be relocated or eradicated by the developer using City -approved methods. If prairie dogs will be removed from the site, they must be humanely relocated or eradicated using City -approved methods and, in some cases, methods approved by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and/or the Humane Society. Fumigation may be used to eradicate prairie dogs, but only by an exterminator or fumigator that is properly licensed by the State of Colorado. Trapping of prairie dogs is permitted, provided that any animals trapped are released or disposed of in the manner required by the Humane Society and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES: Proposed Land Use Code Changes - Prairie Dog Management: NOTE: Areas highlighted in yellow differ from the recommendations provided and discussed at the December 2016 Planning & Zoning Board Work Session. Since the original Land Use Code provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted, there has been considerable change in the size and characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area, best practices for fumigation and relocation, and citywide development patterns. Based on the latest research on the ecosystem value of prairie dog colonies and current best management practices, staff proposes a number of Land Use Code updates regarding prairie dog management. 1. Size threshold - Reduce the size threshold for protection and/or mitigation of prairie dog colonies from 50 acres to 1 acre. Prairie dog colonies greater than 1 acre in size would be considered special features during the development review process. This would include the majority of remaining prairie dog colonies on private land throughout the city, but would allow for flexibility for smaller areas of prairie dog encroachment on a site. See Attachment 2 (Colony Size Threshold Options) for additional analysis. 2. Mitigation - Continue to determine mitigation requirements (on -site improvements, off -site improvements, relocation, or payment -in -lieu) on a case -by -case basis for development projects, but for prairie dog colonies greater than 1 acre in size. The significance and ecological value of a prairie dog colony would be determined by staff and/or the Director during the development review process. Staff would rely on the general standard in 3.4.1(C) to determine mitigation requirements, and requirements would be applied consistently to applicable development projects. 3. Fumigation (Lethal Control) - Regulation of the use of fumigants and other pesticides on private property is specifically preempted by state law. As such, no changes to the allowable methods for fumigation are proposed at this time. However, staff will encourage applicants to use carbon monoxide -based methods for lethal management on development sites, which is considered more humane than other fumigants (e.g., aluminum phosphide). This is consistent with the management practices utilized by the Natural Areas Department, and carbon monoxide fumigation services are offered by multiple Northern Colorado exterminators. Item # 3 Page 2 Agenda Item 3 4. Reporting - Require a report that documents the timing and methods used for prairie dog relocation or eradication for all prairie dog removal activities on development sites. Proposed Land Use Code Changes - Sensitive and Specially Valued Species: It was recently discovered that LUC sections 3.4.1(F)(1) and 3.4.1(N)(4), which speak to Sensitive and Specially Valued Species, reference an outdated list of "Species of Concern" in LUC section 5.1.2 (Definitions). The definition for "sensitive and specially valued species" references a document published by the State of Colorado in 1996, which has subsequently been updated numerous times and includes a number of species without any legal protection by the state or federal government. This document is updated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff administratively, rather than by the state legislature, and relates to the state as a whole and in some cases is not directly relevant to the ecosystems found in and around Fort Collins. The Fort Collins Natural Areas Department maintains a more relevant list of species that warrant local consideration or protection. Additionally, LUC 3.4.1(F)(1) mandates protection not only for species with state and federal legal protections (threatened or endangered species), but also for those identified as "species of concern" or "sensitive natural communities]." As a result, there is little to no flexibility for a developer if such a species is identified on their property, even if there are no other local, state or federal legal protections for that species. A more current list of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species may include species such as black -tailed prairie dogs, which are considered valuable native species but for which protection may not always make sense in an urban context; in some cases mitigation may be a more appropriate option. Staff proposes the following updates related to Sensitive and Specially Valued Species: 1. Definition of Threatened or Endangered Species - Add a new definition that specifically addresses plant and wildlife species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state or federal government. Species that are included in this definition are subject to additional state and federal protections. 2. Definition of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species - Update the definition for "Sensitive and Specially Valued Species" to reflect the current City of Fort Collins Species of Interest list, which is maintained and updated by the Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. The Species of Interest list is included as an attachment to this staff report. 2. Protection of Threatened or Endangered Species - Create a separate standard in 3.4.1(F) that specifically addresses threatened or endangered species, which generally warrant additional protection than sensitive or specially valued species. Habitat for such species shall not be disturbed or diminished. 4. Protection of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species - Update the standard in 3.4.1(F) that describes protections for sensitive and specially valued species. The development plan shall protect, enhance or mitigate impacts to sensitive and specially valued species to the extent reasonably feasible. This would allow for some flexibility and/or mitigation of impacts to species of interest, including prairie dogs, rather than mandating protection in all cases. This is consistent with the Natural Areas Department's wildlife management practices on City -owned properties. Item # 3 Page 3 Agenda Item 3 Proposed Land Use Code Changes - Miscellaneous: A number of other minor updates to code language throughout LUC section 3.4.1 are proposed to clarify wording, accurately refer to City departments and outside agencies, and reflect current practices. 1. Natural Habitats and Features - Natural resources, habitats and features that warrant protection under LUC section 3.4.1 have been clarified in 3.4.1 (A) - Applicability. 2. Colorado Parks and Wildlife - All references to the Colorado Division of Wildlife have been updated to reflect the current name of the agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 3. Natural Areas Policy Plan - The Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP) is no longer a relevant guidance document for the City of Fort Collins. References to this document have been updated to more generally reference the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD). 4. Wetlands - There is language in LUC section 3.4.1(E)(1)(d) regarding the protection of wetlands that conflicts with other sections of 3.4.1. This language has been updated to clarify that wetlands of any size warrant consideration as a natural habitat or feature. 5. Definitions - various definitions in LUC section 5.1.2 have been updated for consistency with the other proposed updates described in this staff report. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Staff in the Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department and Natural Areas Department have conducted outreach to community members and affected stakeholders throughout 2016, including the following: Professional workshop with representatives from other Colorado communities to discuss best practices and lessons learned related to prairie dog regulation and management (March 22, 2016) Open house and meetings with prairie dog advocates regarding the relocation of prairie dogs from a development site to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (April 19, 2016) Discussion of proposed changes at two Planning & Zoning Board Work Sessions (May and December 2016) Discussion of proposed changes with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (July 13, 2016) Open house and panel discussion related to potential Land Use Code changes, relocation considerations, and prairie dog management on Natural Areas properties (July 28, 2016) Memo to City Council in lieu of a discussion at a work session (September 2016) One-on-one conversations with developers, property owners, and prairie dog relocation advocates (ongoing) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend adoption of the proposed Land Use Code changes by City Council. Item # 3 Page 4 Agenda Item 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Code Changes - Draft Ordinance (PDF) 2. Colony Size Threshold Options (PDF) 3. Development Review Flow Chart - Prairie Dogs 4. City of Fort Collins Species of Interest List 5. Public Comment To -Date (PDF) 6. Public Engagement Results Summary (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) Item # 3 Page 5 Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ORDINANCE NO. , 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features (A) Applicability. This Section applies if any portion of the development site is within five hundred (500) feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or if any portion of the development site MOSSOSSOS contains reseufoesnatural habitats or features ,ding, without ut limitation, wetlands, r,v�r nv� nr^nc` of foothills. SoFGs i� that ���l have supported t in.e „sie o ly the A[aimv% W=ahi/iy/g. 4nd VLa4 iv^n nve n"q would significant ecological value, and such ur natural habitats or feates are discovered during site evaluation and/or reconnaissance associated with the development review process. nNatural habitats and features included on the A�qlitral Habitats and F-eaiures Inventory M�qp, as deseFibed in det.ail in unconsidered to have significant ecological value; are as follows: (1) Natural Communities or Habitats: (a) Aquatic (e.g., rivers, streams, lakes, ponds); (b) Wetland and wet meadow; (c) Native grassland; (d) Riparian forest; (e) Urban plains forest; (f) Riparian shrubland; and 1 Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (g) Foothills shrubland; and (hg) Foothills forest. (2) Special Features: (a) Significant remnants of native plant communities; (b) Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened or endangered species of plants; (c) Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened or endangered species of a*iwralswildlife; 0) Prairie dog colonies one acre or greater ever- fifty 50` ^^res in size; (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 the natural habitats or natuuland 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 shall reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance standards set forth below are achieved. The buffer zone performance standards are as follows: (a) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development. (b) The project, including, by way of example and not by way of limitation, its fencing, pedestrian/bicycle paths and roadways, shall be designed to preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats and features, both within and adjacent to the site. 2 Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees and other significant existing vegetation on the site. (d) The project shall be designed to protect from adverse impact species utilizing special habitat features such as key raptor habitat features, including nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Parks and�ef Wildlife Division ("CPW") or 41--the Fort Collins Natural Areas Poli��Department ( "NAD"); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; heron rookeries; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the r'^'^r^d^ Division. of IAV41a'ife, of IN ^ PPCPW or NAD; prairie dog colonies one acre or greaterover- fifty (50) acres in size as ineli aoa on the zatuFal abikgk 4,, a V rt„U s In„e,,,f,,,,.,, Alap ; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified i the NAPPby the NAD; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified in. N.. Dby the NAD; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothill ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and —ay wetlands . reateF than one quarter- (14' acre i of any size. BUFFER ZONE TABLE FOR FORT COLLINS NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES 1° 2 Natural Habitat or Feature Buffer Zone Standard 3 Special Habitat Features/Resources of Special Concern Prairie Dog Colonies site analysis (F) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character. (1) Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species. If the ecological characterization report required pursuant to subsection (D)(1) above shows the existence in spa natural habitat or feature of a rare, threatened or endangered species of 3 Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING plant or wildlife, speeies identified by G ivy as�a Se�ssitive, or-Speeia" Valued Species, or by state or federal ezral agencies as "threatened," roaten,1 "endangered," endgereea" "species —of ceneefr�eFsensitive, fiatur-a ceM.fRunity," then the development plan shall include provisions to ensure that any habitat contained in any such natural habitat or feature or in the adjacent buffer zone which is of importance to the use or survival of any such species shall not be disturbed or diminished and, to the maximum extent feasible, such habitat shall be enhanced. (NOTE: Some studies, e.g., rare plant surveys, are time -limited and can only be performed during certain seasons.) projeots that impact habitat areas „se by (2) Sensitive or Specially Valued Species. If the ecological characterization report required pursuant to subsection (D)(1) above shows the existence in a natural habitat or feature of a plant or wildlife species identified by the City as a sensitive or specially valued species, excluding threatened or endangered species, then the development plan shall include provisions to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to any such natural habitat or feature or in the adjacent buffer zone which is of importance to the use or survival of any such species to the extent reasonably feasible. (32) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural habitats or features that connect to other off -site natural habitats or features, to the maximum extent feasible the development plan shall preserve such natural connections. If natural habitats or features lie adjacent to (meaning in the region immediately round about) the development site, but such natural habitats or features are not presently connected across the development site, then the development plan shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, provide such connection. Such connections shall be designed and constructed to allow for the continuance of existing wildlife movement between natural habitats or features and to enhance the opportunity for the establishment of new connections between areas for the movement of wildlife. (4-3) Wildlife Conflicts. If wildlife that may create conflicts for the future occupants of the development (including, but not limited to, prairie dogs, beaver, deer and rattlesnakes) are known to exist in areas adjacent to or on the development site, then the development plan must, to the extent reasonably feasible, include provisions such as barriers, protection mechanisms for landscaping and other site features to minimize conflicts that might otherwise exist between such wildlife and the developed portion of the site. (N) Standards for Protection During Construction. For every development subject to this Division, the applicant shall propose, and the Director shall establish, measures to be implemented during the actual construction phase of the project to ensure protection of natural habitats and features and their associated buffer zones, as follows. rd Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (6) Prairie Dog Removal. Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting portions of the site within the LOD shall be relocated or eradicated by the developer. using eity „-.f:evva fne-4 ods .,S soy fffl.#, ;,, Chapter- n of City Code and, when applicable, Prairie dog relocation shall be accomplished using methods reviewed and approved by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife Division. Following relocation or eradication activities, a report shall be provided to the City that documents when prairie dog removal occurred, the method(s) that were used to remove prairie dogs, measures taken to ensure that prairie dogs will not re - inhabit the site, and confirmation that no threatened or endangered species were harmed by removal activities. Section 3. That the definition of "Natural area" contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Natural area shall mean all areas shown as "natural areas" on the City's Parks and Natural Areas Map or the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Any land that qualifies as a "wetland" pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act shall also be deemed a natural area, in addition to the areas designated as wetlands on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Any land area that possesses such characteristics as would have supported its inclusion on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or contains natural habitats or features which have significant ecological value listed in subparagraph 3.4.1(A), if such area is discovered during site evaluation and/or reconnaissance associated with the development review process, shall also be deemed a natural area as provided rovide i subparagraph 3.4. ' (G)( `(a) Section 4. That the definition of "Natural area buffer" contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Natural area buffer zone shall mean any area described and established pursuant to subsection 3.4.1(EE)I Section 5. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition "Rare, threatened or endangered species" which reads in its entirety as follows: 5 Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Rare, threatened or endangered species shall mean those species of wildlife and plants listed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as rare, threatened or endangered. Section 6. That the definition of "Sensitive or Specially Valued Species " contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sensitive or sSpecially vValued sSpecies shall mean speciesincluded on the City of Fort Collins1" of as developed • 1 updated by the Natural Areas Department.the following species:Threatened Species; OnJ.. - / .. ♦ . . 1011 . • . IF I . • • IIFkw L / tI//.mod•/11Il �lITl�l�l.fhl I .<�l�A�tl/.1 J� Section 7. That the definition of "Special habitat features " contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Special habitat features shall mean specially valued and sensitive habitat features including key raptor habitat features; includingsueh nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division of �x'o fe ("CPW") or in -the Fort Collins Natural Areas DepartmentD^'�an ("NAD"P-P-); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; heron rookeries; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the CPWr^'^r^a^ Division of AA.Til "ifea or NADP-P-; prairie dog colonies one acre or greaterOVeF fifty 50' acres in size as ireeluded on t ,.r I A.Feas lave ter- . Map; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified inby the NADPP; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified inby the NADRR; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothills ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetlands greater- than one fourth -aer-ein of any size. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this day of , A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the day of , A.D. 2016, ATTEST: 11 Mayor Attachment 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this day of ATTEST: City Clerk 7 Mayor A.D. 2016. Attachment 2 Prairie Dog Code Changes — Size Threshold Options Background Staff is currently evaluating options for updating Land Use Code requirements regarding the protection and management of prairie dog colonies on development sites. Under current standards, for colonies over 50 acres in size the developer must either protect and buffer the colony or, if the colony will be removed, replace the resource value lost to the community through some form of mitigation. However, to staff's knowledge there are no longer any colonies on private property that are 50 acres or larger in size, so this requirement is unlikely to be triggered. Staff recommends setting a lower threshold for considering impacts to prairie dog colonies to ensure that the ecological value provided by these colonies is accounted for in the development review process. Land Use Code Change Options Option 1: Reduce Threshold to a Specific Acreage — STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no specific acreage that can be directly correlated to the viability or significance of a prairie dog colony. Depending on the characteristics of a site, a colony can adapt to both small and large sites, so it is difficult to identify a threshold at which a colony can be considered "healthy" or "sustainable." However, we can observe the conditions that currently exist throughout Fort Collins. Staff in the Natural Areas Department recently conducted a coarse analysis to estimate the location and size of prairie dog colonies on private land within the Growth Management Area. The analysis included a review of aerial photography, rather than field investigation, so it provides a rough but generally representative estimate of the extent of prairie dog colonies across the city. Analysis of Prairie Dog Colonies on Private Lands (2016)* Estimated Number of Colonies 72 Total Acreage 356 ac Average Acreage 4.95 ac Median Acreage 2.24 ac Minimum Acreage 0.15 ac Maximum acreage 39.43 ac *All values are estimated based on analysis of aerial photography. Based on this analysis, more than half of the remaining colonies on private lands are greater than 2 acres in size, and at least 75 percent are greater than 0.88 acres. While the size of a colony can fluctuate greatly overtime, this distribution accurately reflects observations staff has made in the field. While the ecological benefits offered by prairie dogs are greater in an undisturbed grassland ecosystem than in an urban context, there is value in retaining prairie dog colonies within the city, particularly to support predators (e.g,. eagles and hawks) and species that are dependent on prairie dogs (e.g., burrowing owls). The majority of the existing prairie dog colonies in the city offer these ecological benefits to some extent. 11 Attachment 2 Prairie Dog Code Changes — Size Threshold Options Staff recommends adjusting the size threshold for considering protection and/or mitigation for prairie dog colonies to better match the size of colonies typically seen in Fort Collins. Staff believes this option will fulfill the purpose of Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features, regarding the protection of natural habitats and features while also accounting for the needs of proposed development. A size threshold of 1 acre or greater would account for the majority of prairie dog colonies throughout the city without placing an unreasonable burden on development projects. The draft Land Use Code provisions for Planning and Zoning Board consideration incorporate this option. Prairie Dog Colonies on Private Lands (Rough Estimate) Colonies (72 total) 45 Ell 35 30 25 w L U a 20 15 10 5 II, 1st Quartile (0.88 ac) Median (2.24 ac) 3rd quartile (6.25 ac) Option 2: Reduce Threshold to a Specific Number of Animals Another option for determining whether a prairie dog colony warrants protection and/or mitigation is setting a threshold at a defined number of individual prairie dogs. The Natural Areas Department recently updated their Wildlife Management Guidelines, which specify that the City will only consider the relocation of prairie dogs to Natural Area properties for groups of 60 prairie dogs or greater. This number was determined based on the success of past prairie dog relocation efforts and requirements in other Front Range municipalities, including Boulder, CO. This same number of prairie dogs (60 individuals) could be used to determine whether the requirements in Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 should be triggered, which would be consistent with the Wildlife Management Guidelines, though it would also present some practical challenges. First, prairie dog colony densities are inconsistent and wide-ranging from one site to another, with densities in communities along the Front Range observed to be as low as 4 animals per acre to as high as 30 animals K Attachment 2 Prairie Dog Code Changes — Size Threshold Options per acre. As such, two development sites of the same size could theoretically be subject to different environmental protection requirements depending on the density of a colony on the property. Second, counting individual animals would require more intensive field survey techniques, which could increase the cost of ecological studies for development applicants. If this option is determined to be the most appropriate, the City would need to develop and provide a standard methodology for ecological consultants to survey for prairie dogs, and more ongoing staff time would be required to verify the surveys conducted by outside consultants. This option is not recommended by staff. Option 3: Remove Threshold Entirely This option would remove any size thresholds for considering impacts to prairie dog colonies, and would instead require staff and decision -makers to consider the ecological value of sites containing prairie dogs (of any size) on a case -by -case basis. A suite of site characteristics and criteria could be used to evaluate the significance of prairie dog colonies on specific sites. Considerations would likely include: • Vegetation type, quality and diversity (e.g., native vs. non-native plant species) • Vegetation coverage and bare spots (indicating overgrazing and erosion issues) • Soil type and depth • Slope and topography • Presence of other species associated with prairie dogs (e.g., predators, burrowing owls, dependent species) Each of these characteristics could be evaluated qualitatively for a development site containing prairie dogs. However, staff has not found a set of standard criteria or metrics for determining whether a colony is "significant," "healthy," or "viable." Establishing a set of consistent, quantitative criteria that can be applied to all development projects (e.g., minimum vegetation coverage of XX%) would require additional research effort beyond staff's current capacity and expertise. The support of an academic researcher, consultant, or outside organization would be needed to complete a full literature review and any additional research to develop specific metrics. As such, this option is not recommended by staff. Option 4: Keep 50-acre Threshold (Status Quo If the current code requirement is kept as is, it is unlikely that protection and/or mitigation for impacts to prairie dog colonies will be required on any development sites in the city, as staff has not observed any colonies greater than 50 acres in size on private property. Staff contends that the 50-acre threshold no longer meets the intent of Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features, regarding the protection of natural habitats and features on development sites. Therefore, this option is not recommended by staff. k, ment q Prairie Dog Colonies (not including Fort Collins Natural Areas) � v 1.._.._.._.._.. VF .._.._.. Legend Approximate Locations of Prairie Dog Colonies (data collected 2016) City of Fort Collins r r 1i N Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 w E s Printed: December 28, 2016 NAD_1983_State Fla ne_Colorado_North_F I PS_0501 _Feet Path S:A DNSVPlanningA unentPUnninglEnvlmnmen�I PlannerNaW21 Resou¢e 1 Envlmnmental PlanniNGugesQ dapsEP_Bas AapMaste[mxd I] Is a development proposed? No City review required for removal Is the prairie dog colony >50 acres? Protect colony in place (buffer from conflicting uses) Relocate Fumigate (using City -approved methods) Prairie dogs must be removed prior to construction Natural resource protection standards apply Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Dept)* Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Relocate Dept)* Fumigate (using City -approved methods) Protect colony in place (with an appropriate buffer) If removed, replace the habitat value lost through mitigation On -site habitat enhancements (for other species) Off -site habitat enhancements (for prairie dogs or other species) Payment -in -lieu (for prairie dog mgmt or grassland restoration) Live trap & donate prairie dogs I] Is a development proposed? No City review required for removal Is the prairie dog colony >1 acre? Protect colony in place (buffer from conflicting uses) Relocate Fumigate (using City -approved methods) Prairie dogs must be removed prior to construction Natural resource protection standards apply Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Dept)* Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Relocate Dept)* Fumigate (using City -approved methods) Protect colony in place (with an appropriate buffer) If removed, replace the habitat value lost through mitigation On -site habitat enhancements (for other species) Off -site habitat enhancements (for prairie dogs or other species) Payment -in -lieu (for prairie dog mgmt or grassland restoration) Live trap & donate prairie dogs Attachment 4 City of Fort Collins Plant Species & Plant Communities of Interest List of plant taxa documented in the Fort Collins Natural Areas. Synonymy follows USDA, NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 21 December 2015). National Plant Data Team, North Carolina . * Includes augmentation, reintroduction, and ex -situ conservation. Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Priorities for Restoration* Fern and Fern Allies Argyrochosma fendleri Fendler's false cloak fern G3 S3S4 Y Documented Azolla mexicana Mexican mosquitofern G5 S4 N Documented Zone 1 Marsilea vestita Hairy waterclover G5 S4 N Documented Aquatics (Submerged or Floating) Callitriche heterophylla Two -headed water-starwort G5 S1 Y Documented Hippuris vulgaris Common mare's tail G5 SNR N Documented Lemna minuta Least duckweed G4 SNR N Documented Ruppia cirrhoso Spiral ditchgrass G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 2 Sparganium eurycarpum Broadfruit bur- reed G5 S2 Y Documented Zone 1, 21 5 Wolffia columbiana Columbian watermeal G5 S4 N Documented Zone 1, 2 Shrubs and Trees Ribes americanum American black currant G5 S2 Y Documented Zone 1 Opuntia phaeacantha Tulip prickly pear G5 SNR N Documented Vines Humulus lupulus var. neomexicanus Common hop G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 3, 4, 5 Smilax lasioneura Blue ridge carrionflower G5 S3S4 W Documented Zone 1 Grass and Grass -like Acorus calamus Sweetflag G4? S1 Y Documented Zone 1, 2 Aristida basiramea Forked three- awn grass G5 S1 Y Documented Carex atherodes Wheat sedge G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Carexbebbii Bebb'ssedge G5 SNR N Documented Carex crawei Crawe's sedge G5 S1 Y Documented Carex lasiocarpa Slender sedge G5 S1 Y Documented City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 1 Attachment 4 Scientific Common Global State Tracked ESA FC Natural Priorities for Name Name Rank Rank by Status Areas Restoration* CN H P? Status Carexsprengelii Sprengel's G5 S2 Y Documented sedge Cyperus bipartitus Slender G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 flatsedge Cyperus lupulinus Great plains G5 SNR N Documented flatsedge Cyperus Bearded G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 squarrosus flatsedge Dichanthelium Tapered rosette G5TNR S1 Y Documented Zone 1 acuminatum var. grass sericeum Eleocharis Purple G4G5 SNR N Documented Zone 5 atropurpurea spikerush Lipocarpha Smallflower G5? SNR N Documented aristulata halfchaff sedge sporobolus Prairie G5 SNR N Documented heterolepis dropseed Wildflowers and Forbs Agalinis tenuifolia Slender false G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 foxglove Agrimoniastriata Roadside G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 agrimony Ammannia Grand redstem G5 SNR N Documented robusta Besseya Wyoming coral- G5 S1 Y Documented wyomingensis drops Calystegiasepium Hedge false G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 2 bindweed Cirsium flodmanii Flodman's G5 SNR N Documented thistle Eustoma Prairie gentian G5 S3S4 W Documented Zone 1, 21 3 exaltatum ssp. russellianum Gaura Colorado G3T2 S1 Y LT Documented Zone 1, 5 neomexicana ssp. butterfly plant coloradensis Glauxmaritima Sea milkwort G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Liatris ligulistylis Rocky mountain G5? S2 Y Documented blazing star Lobelia siphilitica Great blue G5T5? SNR N Documented Zone 1 var.ludoviciana lobelia Lysimachia ciliata Fringed G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 21 3 loosestrife Lysimachia Water G5 S1 Y Documented Zone 1 thyrsiflora loosestrife Mentzelia Jeweled G3 S3 Y Documented speciosa blazingstar Musineon Slender wild G4 S2 Y Documented tenuifolium parlsey Osmorhiza Smooth sweet- G5 SNR N Documented longistylis cicely Pediomelum Large Indian G5 SNR N Documented esculentum breadroot City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 2 Attachment 4 Scientific Common Global State Tracked ESA FC Natural Priorities for Name Name Rank Rank by Status Areas Restoration* CNHP? Status Penstemon Crested -tongue G4 S1 y Documented eriantherus beardtongue Phacelia Rocky mountain G3 SU y Documented denticulata phacelia Physaria bellii Front Range G2G3 S2S3 y Documented Zone 3 twinpod Sisyrinchium Pale blue-eyed G3 S2 y Documented pallidum grass Sium suave Hemlock G5 SNR N Documented waterparsnip Oligoneuron Prarie G5 S1 y Documented album goldenrod Spiranthes Ute lady's G2G3 S2 y LT Documented Zone 1, 21 31 41 5 diluvialis tresses Stephanomeria Desert wire G5 SNR N Documented runcinata lettuce Triodanis Slimpod venus' G5? S1 y Documented Zone 3 leptocarpa looking -glass Triodanis Clasping Venus' G5 SNR N Documented Zone 3 perfoliato looking -glass List of plant taxa that could potentially occur in Fort Collins Natural Areas based on the presence of suitable habitat. Synonymy follows USDA, NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 21 December 2015). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Scientific Common Authority Global State Tracked ESA FC Name Name Rank Rank by Status Natural CNHP? Areas Status Fern and Fern Allies Asplenium Black (L.) A. Nelson G5 S1 Y Potential adiantum-nigrum spleenwort Asplenium Forked (L.) Hoffman G4G5 S3S4 W Potential septentrionale spleenwort Botrychium Prarie W.H. Wagner& Farrar G3G4 S1 Y Potential campestre dunewort Botrychium Narrowleaf W.H. Wagner G2G3 S2S3 Y Potential lineare grapefern Botrychium Leathery (S.G. Gmel.) Trev G5 S1S2 Y Potential multifidum grapefern Botrychium Rattlesnake (L.) Sw. G5 S1 Y Potential virginianum fern Dryopteris filix- Male fern (L.) Schott G5 SNR N Potential mas Equisetum Variegated Schleich Ex, F. Weber & D. G5 S1 Y Potential variegatum var. horsetail Mohr variegatum Goodyera repens Lesser (L.) R. BR G5 5354 W Potential rattlesnake plantain City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 3 Attachment 4 Scientific Common Authority Global State Tracked ESA FC Name Name Rank Rank by Status Natural CNHP? Areas Status Gymnocarpium Western (L.) Newman, G5 S2S3 N Potential dryopteris oakfern Pellaea Purple (L.) Link G5 S2S3 N Potential atropurpurea cliffbrake Pellaea glabella Western dwarf (E.Nels.) Windham G5T4 SNR N Potential ssp. occidentalis cliffbrake Pellaea glabella Simple (Butters) A. & D. Love G5T4? S2 Y Potential ssp. simplex cliffbrake Polypodium Rocky Windham G3? S3S4 Y Potential saximontanum mountain polypody Selaginella Weatherby's R. Tryon G3G4 S3S4 W Potential weatherbiana spikemoss Aquatics (Submerged or Floating) Elatine triandra Threestamen Schkuhr G5 S2 Y Potential waterwort Heteranthera Blue (Sw.) Willd., G5 SNR N Potential limosa mudplantain Myriophyllum Whorled water L. G5 S1 Y Potential verticillatum milfoil Potamogeton Waterthread Raf. G5 S1 Y Potential diversifolius pondweed Sagittaria Shortbeak Mackenzie & Bush, G5 S2? N Potential brevirostra arrowhead Sagittaria calycina Hooded Engelm. G5T5? S1 Y Potential var. calycina arrowhead Stuckenia Sheathed (Turcz.) Holub G5 SNR N Potential vaginata pondweed Utricularia minor Lesser L. G5 S2 Y Potential bladderwort Wolffia borealis Northern (Engelm. Ex Hegelm.) G5 SNR N Potential watermeal Landolt ex Landolt & Wildi Shrubs and Trees Amorpha nana Dwarf false Nutt. G5 S2 Y Potential indigo Betula papyrifera Paper birch Marshall G5 S1 Y Potential var. papyrifera Crataegus Fireberry Ashe G5 S1 Y Potential chrysocarpa hawthorn Salixserissima Autumn willow (L.H. Bailey) Fernald G4 S1 Y Potential Grass and Grass -like Achnatherum Contracted (B.L. Johnson) Borkworth G3G4 SU Y Potential contractum ricegrass Carex conoidea Field sedge Schkuhr ex Willd G5 S1 Y Potential Carex oreocharis Grassy slope T. Holm G3 S2 Y Potential sedge Carex peckii Peck's sedge Howe G5 S1 Y Potential Carex sartwellii Sartwell's Dewey G4G5 S1 Y Potential sedge Carex Rocky Mack G5 S1 Y Potential City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 4 Attachment 4 Scientific Common Authority Global State Tracked ESA FC Name Name Rank Rank by Status Natural CNHP? Areas Status saximontana mountain sedge Carex torreyi Torrey's sedge Tuck. G4 S1 Y Potential Cyperus Tapertip Torr. & Hook. ex Torr. G5 SNR N Potential acuminatus flatsedge Juncus Smallhead rush (Engelm.) Buchenau G5 S1 Y Potential brachycephalus Juncus Narrowpanicle (Engelm.) Fernald G5 S1 Y Potential brevicaudatus rush Juncus tweedyi Tweedy's rush Rydb. G3Q S1 Y Potential Juncus vaseyi Vasey's rush Engelm. G5? S1 Y Potential Schizachne False melic (Torr.) Swallen, G5 SNR N Potential purpurascens Schoenoplectus Rocky (Fernald) Raynal G5 S1 Y Potential saximontanus mountain bulrush Wildflowers and Forbs Agastache Blue giant (Pursh) Kuntze G4G5 S1 Y Potential foeniculum hyssop Aletes humilis Colorado aletes Coult & Rose G2G3 S2S3 Y Potential Anagallis minima Chaffweed (L.) Krause G5 S1 Y Potential Anemone Virginia L., (Oakes)Alph. Wood G5 SNR N Potential virginiana var. anemone alba Apios americana Groundnut Medik. G5 S1 Y Potential Aquilegia Golden A. Gray, Munz G4T1Q S1 Y Potential chrysantha var. columbine rydbergii Aralia nudicaulis Wild L. G5 S2 N Potential sarsaparilla Asclepias hallii Hall's milkweed A. Gray G3 S3 Y Potential Asclepias Slimleaf A. Gray G4G5 S2 Y Potential stenophylla milkweed Asclepias uncialis Greene's Greene G3G4T2T3 S2 Y Potential ssp. uncialis milkweed Astragalus American (Hook) M.E. Jones G5 SH Y Potential americanus milkvetch Astragalus bodinii Bodin's Sheldon G4 S2 Y Potential milkvetch Astragalus Plains Sheldon G5 S1 Y Potential gilviflorus milkvetch Astragalus Platte river Nutt. G5 S1 Y Potential plattensis milkvetch Astragalus Front range A. Gray G2 S2 Y Potential sparsiflorus milkvetch Campanula Marsh Pursh G5 SH Y Potential aparinoides bellflower Chenopodium Sandhill A. Nelson G3G4 S1 Y Potential cycloides goosefoot City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 5 Attachment 4 Scientific Common Authority Global State Tracked ESA FC Name Name Rank Rank by Status Natural CNHP? Areas Status Claytonia rubra Redstem (Howell) Tidestr. G5 S1 y Potential springbeauty Crassula aquatica Water (L.) Schoen/. G5 SH y Potential pygmyweed Cryptantha cana Mountain cat's (A. Nelson) Payson G5 S2 y Potential eye Cypripedium Yellow lady's Solisb., (Willd.) Knight G5 S2 y Potential parviflorum var. slipper pubescens Desmodium Stiff -tick trefoil (Muhl. Ex Willd.) DC G4G5 S4 N Potential obtusum Erigeron Needleleaf Rydb. G3 S2 y Potential nematophyllus fleabane Eriogonum Dropleaf Reveal G3 S2 y Potential exilifolium buckwheat Gentiana Closed bottle Griseb. G5? SNR N Potential andrewsii gentian Geranium Bicknell's Britton G5 S2 y Potential bicknellii cranesbill Helianthemum Hoary Fernald G5 S1 y Potential bicknellii frostweed Lesquerella alpina Alpine (Nutt.) S. Watson G5T4 SNR y Potential var. alpina bladderpod Lesquerella Secund Rollins and Shaw G5T4 S1 y Potential arenosa var. bladderpod argillosa Lewisia rediviva Bitterroot Pursh G5 S2 y Potential var. rediviva Lewisia triphylla Threeleaf (S. Watson) B.L. Rob G4? S2 y Potential lewisia Liatris lancifolia Lanceleaf (Greene)Kittell G4 S1 y Potential blazing star Lilium Wood lily L. G5 S3S4 W Potential philadelphicum Listera borealis Northern Morong G4 S2 y Potential twayblade Listera Broad-leaved (Sw.) Nutt. Ex Elliott G5 S2 y Potential convallarioides twayblade Lomatium nuttallii NuttaII's (A. Gray) J.F. Macbr G3 S1 N Potential desert -parsley Machaeranthera Colorado tansy- (A. Groy) Osterhout G3 S3 y Potential coloradoensis aster Malaxis White adder's- (A. Gray) Fernald G4Q S1 y Potential brachypoda mouth orchid Mertensio humilis Rocky Rydb. G2 S1 y Potential mountain bluebells Mimulus Weber's W.A. G1 S1 y Potential gemmiparus monkeyflower Mimulus ringens Square -stem L. G5 SH y Potential monkeyflower Oenothera grandis Showy evening (Britton) Smyth G5? S1 y Potential City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 6 Attachment 4 Scientific Common Authority Global State Tracked ESA FC Name Name Rank Rank by Status Natural CNHP? Areas Status primrose Oonopsis wardii Ward's false (A. Gray) Greene G3 S1 Y Potential goldenweed Packera debilis Weak (Nutt.) Weber & A. Love G4 S1 Y Potential groundsel Parthenium Alpine fever- (Nutt.) Torr. & A. Gray G3 S3 Y Potential alpinum few Pediomelum Largebract (Pursh) Rydb G4 S1 Y Potential cuspidatum indian breadroot Penstemon Slender Nutt. G5 SNR N Potential gracilis beardtongue Penstemon Larch -leaf Hook. & Am., (A. Nelson) G4T3Q S2 Y Potential laricifoliusssp. beardtongue D.D. Keck exilifolius Penstemon Mat -root A. Nelson G5 S1 Y Potential radicosus beardtongue Potentilla Southern rocky Greene G3 S2 Y Potential ambigens mountain cinquefoil Potentilla Rock cinquefoil Osterh. G2 S2 Y Potential rupincola Psoralidium Silverleaf scurf (Pursh) Rydberg G5 SNR N Potential argophyllum pea Rotala ramosior Lowland rotala (L.) Koehne G5 S1 Y Potential Silphium Wholeleaf Torr. & A. Gray G5 SH Y Potential integrifolium rosinweed Michx var laeve Silphium Compass plant L. G5 SH Y Potential laciniatum Sisyrinchium Stiff blue-eyed Greene G5 S2 Y Potential demissum grass Suckleya Poison suckleya (Torr.) Rydb. G5 SNR N Potential suckleyana Symphyotrichum New England (L.) G.L. Nesom G5 S1 Y Potential novae-angliae aster Trillium ovatum Pacific trillium Pursh G5 S3S4 W Potential Viola pedatifida Prairie violet G. Don G5 S2 Y Potential Viola selkirkii Selkirk's violet Pursh ex Goldie G5? S1 Y Potential List of rare plant communities tracked by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program that occur in Fort Collins Natural Areas. Scientific Name Common Name Global State Tracked ESA FC Natural Rank Rank by Status Areas CNHP? Status City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 7 Attachment 4 Scientific Name Common Name Global State Tracked ESA FC Natural Rank Rank by Status Areas CNHP? Status Atriplex canescens / Shortgrass Prairie G3 S2 Y Documented Bouteloua gracilis Shrubland Bouteloua gracilis - Buchloe Shortgrass Prairie G4 S2? P Documented dactyloides Herbaceous Vegetation Carex nebrascensis Wet Meadows G4 S3 P Documented Herbaceous Vegetation Carexsimulata Herbaceous Wet Meadow G4 S3 P Documented Vegetation Carex utriculata Herbaceous Beaked Sedge Montane Wet G5 S4 P Documented Vegetation Meadows Catabrosa aquatica - Spring Wetland GU S2 Y Documented Mimulus ssp. Spring Wetland Cercocarpus montanus - Mountain Mahogany - G2G3 S2 Y Documented Rhus trilobata / Andropogon Skunkbush / Big Bluestem gerardii Shrubland Shrubland Cercocarpus montanus / Foothills Shrubland G3 S2 Y Documented Achnotherum scribneri Shrubland Cercocarpus montanus / Mountain GU S2 Y Documented Elymus lanceolatus ssp. Mahogany/Griffith's lanceolatus Shrubland Wheatgrass Shrubland Cercocarpus montanus / Mixed Foothill Shrublands G2 S2 Y Documented Hesperostipa comata Shrubland Cercocarpus montanus / Foothills Shrubland G2G3 S2 Y Documented Hesperostipa neomexicana Shrubland Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Salt Meadows G5 S3 P Documented Vegetation Krascheninnikovia lanata / Western Slope Grasslands G4 S1 Y Documented Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Dwarf - shrub Herbaceous Vegetation Pin us ponderosa / Foothills Ponderosa Pine G2 S2 Y Documented Cercocarpus montanus / Scrub Woodlands Andropogon gerardii Wooded Herbaceous Vegetation Populus deltoides / Carex Plains Cottonwood Riparian G2 S2 Y Documented pellita Woodland Woodland Hesperostipa comata - Montane Grasslands G5 S2 Y Documented Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation Typha (latifolia, angustifolia) Narrow -leaf Cattail Marsh G5 S4 P Documented Western Herbaceous Vegetation City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 8 Attachment 4 City of Fort Collins Wildlife Species of Interest *Documented or potentially occurring on natural areas, *ESA- Endangered Species Act or federal listing status, *State- state listing status Document Globa State ed or Tracked by ES Stat Common Name Scientific Name I Rank Rank Potential* CNHP/CPW? A* e* Mammals Albert's squirrel Sciurus aberti G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis G4 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Documented/ Bison Bison bison G4 SX reintroduced SWAP Tier 2 Documented/ CNHP full/ SWAP Black -footed ferret Mustela nigripes G1 S1 reintroduced Tier 1 E E Black -tailed prairie CNHP partial/ dog Cynomys ludovicianus G4 S3 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Sc CNHP full/ SWAP Dwarf shrew Sorexnanus G4 S2 Potential Tier 2 CNHP full/ SWAP Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes G4 S3 Documented Tier 1 Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus G5 S5B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Northern pocket Thomomys talpoides gopher agrestis G5T3 S3 Potential CNHP partial Olive -backed pocket CNHP full/ SWAP mouse Perognathus fasciatus G5 S3 Documented Tier 1 Preble's meadow Documented CNHP full/ SWAP jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei G5T2 S1 (historic) Tier 1 T T River otter Lontra canadensis G5 S3S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 T CNHP full/ SWAP Sagebrush vole Lemmiscus curtatus G5 S1 Potential Tier 2 CNHP full/ SWAP Swift fox Vulpex velox G3 S3 Documented Tier 2 Sc Townsend's big -eared Coryhnorhinus CNHP full/ SWAP F bat townsendii pallescens G3T3 S2 Documented Tier 1 Sc Birds American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Deli American peregrine Falco peregrinus CNHP full/ SWAP ste falcon anatum G4T4 S2B Documented Tier 2 d Sc American white Pelecanus CNHP full/ SWAP pelican erythrorhynchos G4 S1B Documented Tier 2 Deli Haliaeetus S1B1 CNHP full/ SWAP ste Bald eagle leucocephalus G5 S3N Documented Tier 2 d Sc CNHP full/ SWAP Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica G5 S2B Documented Tier 2 Black tern Chlidonias niger G5 S2B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Black -necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus G5 S3B Documented CNHP full CNHP watch/ Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus G5 S3B Documented SWAP Tier 2 City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 9 Attachment 4 Document Globa State ed or Tracked by ES Stat Common Name Scientific Name I Rank Rank Potential* CNHP/CPW? A* e* Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri G5 S46 Documented SWAP Tier 2 CNHP watch/ Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia G4 S413 Documented SWAP Tier 1 T Cassin's finch Peucaea cassinii G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 CNHP watch/ Cassin's sparrow Aimophila cassinii G5 S46 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Chestnut -collared CNHP full/ SWAP longspur Calcarius ornatus G5 S113 Documented Tier 2 S3131 CNHP full/ SWAP Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis G4 S4N Documented Tier 2 SC Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus G4 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 S26, Forester's tern Sterna forsteri G5 S4N Documented CNHP full S3S46, Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos G5 S4N Documented SWAP Tier 1 Ammodramus Grasshopper sparrow savannarum G5 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 S261 CNHP full/ SWAP Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida G5T4 S4N Potential Tier 1 SC Calamospiza Lark bunting melanocorys G5 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena G5 S513 Documented SWAP Tier 2 CNHP full/ SWAP Least tern Sterna antillarum G4 S16 Documented Tier 2 E E CNHP full/ SWAP Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis G4 S4 Documented Tier 2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus G4 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 CNHP full/ SWAP Long -billed curlew Numenius americanus G5 S2B Documented Tier 2 SC CNHP full/ SWAP McCown's longspur Calcarius mccownii G4 S26 Documented Tier 2 CNHP full/ SWAP Mountain plover Charadrius montanus G3 S213 Documented Tier 1 SC Northern bobwhite* Colinus virginianus G5 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 CNHP watch/ Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 S313 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Northern harrier Circus cyaneus G5 S313 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma G4G5 S313 Documented CNHP watch Olive -sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi G4 S3S413 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla G5 S213 Documented CNHP full Gymnorhinus Pinyon jay cyanocephalus G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 CNHP full/ SWAP Piping plover Charadrius melodus G3 S1B Documented Tier 2 T T Plains sharp -tailed Tympanuchus Potential grouse phasianellus jamesi G4T4 S1 reintroduction CNHP full SC CNHP watch/ Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus G5 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus G5 SNA Documented SWAP Tier 2 City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 10 Attachment 4 Common Name Scientific Name Globa I Rank State Rank Document ed or Potential* Tracked by CNHP/CPW? ES A* Stat e* Short -eared owl Asio flammeus G5 S213 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Snowy egret Egretta thula G5 S213 Documented CNHP full Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni G5 S513 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda G5 S3B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Veery Catharus fuscescens G5 S36 Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 2 Virginia's warbler Oreothlypis virginiae G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus G3T3 SB1 Documented CNHP full T SC White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi G5 S26 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus G5 S16 Documented CNHP full Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii G5 S46 Potential CNHP watch Wilson's pharalope Phalaropus tricolor G5 S46, S4N Documented CNHP full Fish Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni G5 S3 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 T Common shiner Notropis cornutus G5 S2 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 T Iowa darter Etheostoma exile G5 S3 Documented CNHP full SC Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos G5 S1 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 E Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 1 Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus G4 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 1 Reptiles and Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens G5 S3 Documented (historic) CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 SC Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis NA NA Documented SWAP Tier 2 SC Lined snake Tropicdoclonion lineatum G5 S3 Documented CNHP watch Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum G5 S2 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata NA NA Documented NA Painted turtle Chrysemys picta G5 S5 Documented CNHP partial Short -horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi G5 S5 Documented CNHP watch Invertebrates Arapahoe snowfly Capnia arapahoe G1 S1 Potential CNHP full Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos G3 S2 Documented CNHP full Autumn springfly Pictetiella expansa G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Backswimmer Notonecta unifasciata GNR S1 Documented CNHP full Colorado blue Eupholies rita coloradensis G3T3 S2 Potential CNHP full Crossline skipper Polites origenes G5 S3 Documented CNHP full City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 11 Attachment 4 Common Name Scientific Name Globa I Rank State Rank Document ed or Potential* Tracked by CNHP/CPW? ES A* Stat e* Dusted skipper Atrytonopsis hianna G4 S2 Potential CNHP full Hairy sallfly Alloperla pilosa G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Hops blue Celastrina humulus G2 S2 Documented CNHP full Larimide sallfly Suwallia wardi G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Lusk's pinemoth Coloradia luski G4 S1 Potential CNHP full Modest sphinx moth Pachysphinxmodesta G4 S2 Potential CNHP full Morrison's skipper Stinga morrisoni G4 S3 Potential CNHP full Moss' elfin Calliphorys mossii schryveri G4T3 S2 Documented CNHP full Mottled dusky wing Erynnis martialis G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Ottoe's skipper Hesperia ottoe G3 S2 Documented CNHP full Plains snowfly Mesocapnia frisoni G5 S1 Potential CNHP full Regal frittilary Speyeria idalia G3 S1 Documented CNHP full Rhesus skipper Polites rhesus G4 S2 Documented CNHP full Sandhill fritillary eoloria selene sabulocollis G5T2 S1 Potential CNHP full Simius roadside skipper Amblyscirtessimius G4 S3 Potential CNHP full Smoky eyed brown Satryodes eurydice fumosa G5T3 S1 Documented CNHP full Stevens' torticid moth Decodes stevensi GNR S1 Potential CNHP full Two -banded skipper Pyrgus ruralis G5 S3 Potential CNHP full Two -spotted skipper Euphyes bimacula G4 S2 Documented CNHP full *Northern Bobwhite- There is some uncertainty if the birds seen in the area are native as there were reintroductions across the state historically. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 12 Attachment 4 Key to Wildlife Species of Interest Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Ranking (not a legal designation) Level Description G/S-1 Critically imperiled globally/state because of rarity (5 or few occurrences in the world/state; or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G/S-2 Imperiled globally/state because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of other factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. G/S-3 Vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21-100 occurrences). G/S-4 Apparently secure globally/state, though it might be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G/S-5 Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. GNR Not yet ranked globally. G#T# Trinomial rank (T) is used for subspecies ranked on the same criteria as G1-G5. S#13 Refers to the breeding season imperilment of elements that are not permanent residents. S#N Refers to the non -breeding season imperilment of elements that are not permanent residents. Where no consistent location can be discerned for migrants or non -breeding populations, a rank of SZN is used. SZ Migrant whose occurrences are too irregular, transitory, and/or dispersed to be reliably identified, mapped, and protected. Notes: # represents rank (1-5). Where two numbers appear in a state or global rank (e.g., S2S3), the actual rank of the element falls between the two numbers. State/Federal Status (legal designation) Level Description SE State Endangered --those species or subspecies of native wildlife whose prospects for survival or recruitment within Colorado are in jeopardy, as determined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). ST State Threatened --those species or subspecies of native wildlife which, as determined by the CPW, are not in immediate jeopardy of extinction but are vulnerable because they exist in such small numbers, are so extremely restricted in their range, or are experiencing such low recruitment or survival that they may become extinct. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 13 Attachment 4 SC State Special Concern --species or subspecies of native wildlife which have been removed from the State threatened or endangered list within the last 5 years; are proposed for Federal listing (or are Federal listed "candidate species") and are not already State listed; have experienced, based on available data, a downward trend in numbers or distribution lasting at least 5 years which may lead to a threatened or endangered status; or are otherwise determined to be vulnerable in Colorado, as determined by the CPW. E Federal Listed Endangered --defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a species, subspecies, or variety in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T Federal Listed Threatened --defined as a species, subspecies, or variety likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) listed or Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) tracking Level Description SWAP SWAP species are Species of Greatest Conservation Need as determined by CPW. Tier 1 Tier 1 species are a higher relative priority for conservation efforts than are Tier 2 species. Tier 1 species are of highest conservation priority in the state of Colorado. SWAP SWAP Tier 2 species are species in which conservation is important in stalling population Tier 2 trends but the urgency for these species is considered less than for Tier 1 Species. See the CPW State Wildlife Action Plan for more detailed information on Tier1 and Tier 2 Species. CNHP Full For a species to be fully tracked it has the following ranks: (G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5) with the Tracked state rank combo of S1 or S2. CNHP CNHP maintains information on these species so that if a declining trend becomes watchlist apparent, watchlisted species can be changed back to tracked species in the database. CNHP Partial tracking is only used for the most common plant communities in Colorado. Animals Partial and plants are not partially tracked by CNHP. Tracked City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 14 Attachment 5 Dear Members of the Board: A few of us from the Fort Collins Prairie Dog Relocation Group had the opportunity to attend your meeting on May 6 and hear the discussion about changes to the current LUC related to prairie dogs. We'd like to provide you with a little more information to consider as you weigh city staff's recommendations. The Fort Collins Prairie Dog Relocation Group took shape last year as we sought a relocation site for prairie dog colonies along Lemay Ave., between Vine and Lincoln. Many of us have enjoyed watching these colonies for years. When we saw the development signs go up, we couldn't bear the thought of seeing yet another lively prairie dog community destroyed. In January 2016, we succeeded in our appeal to the Fort Collins City Council, and space within the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area was designated as a receiving site for these colonies. We've received our permits from the city and Colorado Parks and Wildlife and will relocate one colony in the May -June timeframe and another in mid to late August. For decades prairie dogs in Fort Collins have been routinely poisoned to make way for development. We're working to end that practice and create a new precedent and process to relocate rather than kill our last remaining urban colonies. We know these animals can't stay where they are, but while extermination is the most expeditious and affordable solution, we believe it's the wrong one. We shouldn't be killing our remaining black -tailed prairie dogs when: • It's widely acknowledged that the species is in decline throughout the west due to poisoning, shooting and plague. • Relocations have taken place for more than 20 years, and current methods are thorough and effective. • We believe there is ample space within city -owned natural areas suitable for receiving the remaining urban colonies. • These colonies could augment populations supporting the black -footed ferret that have been hit by plague in recent years. • This keystone prairie species has a complex community life and language. • Many of the poisons used, such as aluminum phosphide, cause the creatures that inhale or ingest them great pain and suffering. • Relocation provides an opportunity to educate the public about the important role prairie dogs play in a healthy prairie ecosystem and demonstrate that preservation of wildlife is a community value. • Many citizens in this community want to see these animals moved instead of poisoned. At Friday's meeting Natural Areas Director John Stokes told you that an aerial survey indicates we have something in the neighborhood of 300 acres of prairie dog colonies remaining within the GMA. Natural Areas manages more than 40,000 acres of land. Attachment 5 Currently only about 2,000 acres have prairie dogs. Four thousand acres at Soapstone Prairie have been designated as a prairie dog conservation area, and right now prairie dogs occupy only about 1,500 acres there. Mr. Stokes also told you that relocated prairie dogs have only a 20-40 percent survival rate, and the cost to relocate is between $150 and $400 per prairie dog. First, while data is scant because it's very difficult to tag and recapture prairie dogs to do an accurate count, experienced relocation professionals in the region report relocation success rates —that is the number that survive the relocation process —as high as 90-95 percent. More data is needed to determine longer term survival rates. But we would argue that that's all the more reason to do more relocations. As to the cost, it's significantly less expensive to place prairie dogs into existing, vacant burrows, like those that are likely plentiful at Soapstone, than to build artificial burrows, as we're doing for the relocation to Cathy Fromme. The cost also drops depending on the time of year; the best time to move prairie dogs is in late summer or early fall when the population is full grown, numbers are stable and the animals are most easily trapped. Representatives of the Humane Society's Prairie Dog Coalition say the cost for the relocations is closer to $50 to $150 per animal, or $1,000 to $3,000 per acre. The cost to exterminate can run between $500 and $1,000 per acre. For our relocation this summer, we're making good use of volunteers and fundraising. There will be no cost to taxpayers. Going forward, we think that modest mitigation fees for developers, as some cities have, will be key to covering relocation costs. At your meeting, Rebecca Everette shared several staff recommendations for changes to the LUC. We agree with some and feel others fall short of what is needed. As representatives of a citizen group involved in prairie dog relocation and eager to see real and lasting improvement in the way we manage urban prairie dogs in Fort Collins, we ask you to consider the following: • We agree with staff that the 50-acre threshold for mitigation is arbitrary and no longer applicable given the sizes of remaining colonies. We believe the city should "eliminate the threshold and require consideration of all prairie dog colonies." Just as the LUC requires mitigation for other natural features, it should require mitigation for prairie dogs. • Given that the city has adequate space within its natural areas to receive the remaining colonies in the GMA and there are professionals available to perform successful relocations, we believe that developers should be required to explore relocation prior to other mitigation techniques and that professional relocation should become the primary means of removing prairie dogs from a development site. Attachment 5 • In the event that fumigation is necessary, we agree that the city should require the use of carbon monoxide fumigation methods and forbid the use of all other fumigants, long known to inflict a cruel and painful death. • We agree that the city should "require a report to be submitted documenting the timing and methods used to remove prairie dogs." • We believe that the LUC should be updated to reflect the current Species of Concern List and that the list, whether it is the city's or the state's, should include the black -tailed prairie dog. We reject the view that the only "value" these urban colonies have is as a food source for predators and habitat for burrowing owls and other animals. We believe prairie dogs themselves have inherent value as native wildlife worthy of our appreciation and humane management. The indiscriminate extermination of these animal communities has gone on far too long. We want to teach people about these remarkable animals, instill a sense of community pride in how we manage them, and ultimately make relocation the standard rather than the exception. To do that we believe we need a commitment from Natural Areas to provide the relatively small amount of land needed to receive remaining colonies in the GMA and modest economic incentives for developers to relocate rather than exterminate. Thank you for your consideration of our position on these issues. If you'd like to know more about prairie dogs and the relocation process, you'll find excellent information at the Humane Society's Prairie Dog Coalition website www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/prairie dog coalition/ and at www.growingideas.ty. Sincerely, Helen Taylor (970) 556-3994 Helentaylor3@comcast. net Fort Collins Prairie Dog Relocation Group Attachment 5 PRAIRIEDOG —COALITION "';*4 . THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES June 7, 2016 Dear City Staff, RE: Recommendations regarding the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department Prairie Dog Management Review Workshop, March 22, 2016, as prepared by Pam Wanek with the Prairie Dog Coalition Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Workshop and provide comments on the City's Urban Prairie Dog Management element as found in the 2007 Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines. Our recommendations for changes to your guidelines pertain to: 1. Local connectivity to statewide goals 2. Emphasis on the value of prairie dogs in urban environments 3. Vegetative influence 4. Population and landscape dynamics 5. Disease 6. Local government legal tools 7. Lethal Control 8. Non -lethal Control 9. Mitigation 10. Conclusion As a species, prairie dogs have continuously been one of the most controversial and widely persecuted wildlife species since early European settlement of the North American Grasslands. Prairie dogs have been criticized as destructive rodent pests but also regarded as an essential keystone species for healthy grasslands ecosystems. Agricultural crop conversion, livestock grazing, energy and oil and gas development, urban/ex-urban development, shooting, poisoning, and plague have decimated their numbers and resulted in a 98% loss of their historic range. Therefore, the conservation of this species will be important, not only because of the intrinsic value of prairie dogs, but for the protection of all species that depend on prairie dogs and their habitats for survival. 1. Local connectivity to statewide goals The goal of prairie dog plans should be to adopt policies and land use planning strategies that are consistent with state and local laws for the protection, management, and participation of statewide and region -wide persistence of prairie dogs and associated species, to protect biodiversity for today's and future generations. 1 Attachment 5 Black -tailed prairie dogs (BTPDs) are known to exist in 11 states across the continental U.S.' Historically in Colorado, BTPDs occupied about 7 million acres.' In 2003, the state adopted a "Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado' as a cooperative action with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to avoid species listing. The plan details objectives, population monitoring and a commitment for a shared responsibility among other states to ensure long-term viability of the prairie dog and associated species to avoid listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. This plan may be used as a basis for applying for an umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) that would apply to all landowners in the state. By securing a CCAA, the state ensures control, management and conservation of grassland species. Species included in the CCAA application would remain unaffected by a federal ESA listing as long as the CCAA terms were met. Landowners can also apply for individual CCAAs. The plan commits the participant to monitoring occupied BTPD habitat on a county by county basis every 3 years. Contained within the state Grassland Plan are 12 objectives that include but are not limited to: working directly with city and county open space departments to encourage statewide persistence and establishing a shared responsibility for prairie dog conservation along the Front Range and eastern plains.' BTPDs are classified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) as 'other small game," and by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as a "destructive rodent pest." These classifications provide little protection. In addition, landowners, (or an agent of the landowner) may hunt, trap, or kill prairie dogs when they are causing damage to crops, real or personal property or livestock. a Statewide, BTPDs are listed as a Species of Special Concern statewide and a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan. As such, prairie dog persistence and "occupied acreage" is a matter of statewide concern. Recommendations: • Adopt local plans that connect to statewide goals • Remain current on the listing status of prairie dogs and associated species by reviewing the State Wildlife Action Plan, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and CPW websites. These agencies are state funded to help local governments, developers and private landowners with guidance to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. 2. Emphasis on the value of prairie dogs in urban environments Prairie dogs are a keystone species because their impact on plant and animal communities is unique and is disproportionately large relative to their abundance; this is critical to the integrity of the grassland ecosystems 6 On the landscape, prairie dogs meet two criteria as ecosystem engineers: 1). They create a patch in the landscape with a 1 Luce, R.J. 2003, A Multi -State Conservation Plan For The Black -tailed Prairie Dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, in the United States — an addendum to the Black -tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment and Strategy, November 3, 1999. z Gillette, C.P. 1919. 10th Annual Report of the State Entomologist of Colorado. Fort Collins, Colorado. 56 pp. Retrieved from EDAW Inc., (2000) Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Study of Eastern Colorado, October 27, 2000 3 Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado 2003. http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/wholeplan.pdf#search=grassiand%20plan Retrieved 4/6/2016 4 http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-Black-tailed PrairieDogRelocationFacts.aspx s Hoogland, J.L. 2006. 6 Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, and G. Plumb. 1999. A critical review of assumptions about prairie dogs as a keystone species. Environmental Management 24:177-192 K Attachment 5 combination of conditions that are not present elsewhere in the landscape, and 2). Other species that live in the engineered patches are not present in patches unmodified by the engineer.' Research published by Magle and Crooks (2008) on 54 fragmented urban colonies throughout the Denver metropolitan area suggests that the urban prairie dogs may still provide a keystone and ecosystem engineering function; however, more studies will need to be conducted for that determination. Magle noted that prairie dog disturbance of vegetation on urban colonies was similar to disturbances on rural colonies; where prairie dogs removed grasses, reduced plant litter and increased bare ground and forbs. Similar to rural populations, urban prairie dog colonies also retained some ecological function. In conclusion, their report suggests that if future findings indicate that prairie dogs function as a keystone species in urban systems, their conservation will be an important step in maintaining functional grassland systems in urban environments.' Also, Magle et al showed in 2014 that, "Overall, rates of coyote conflict appeared elevated in proximity to undeveloped land, but these rates were highest near habitat fragments where prairie dogs were absent, and 15-45% lower within 400 in of fragments colonized by prairie dogs."9 Urban raptor studies were conducted by Dave Weber and CPW (2004) to implement an initiative to protect or replace prairie dog towns being lost to development as Denver expands. Their studies indicated that winter raptor use on urban prairie dog colonies was substantially higher than on rural areas. While it would seem that raptors would be much more likely to hunt in more undisturbed areas, this study revealed that raptors were uninhibited by urban disturbances. "The amount of urbanization did not seem to impact raptor use at all. Raptor use seemed more contingent on the number of prairie dogs within each town, more prairie dogs, more raptors." Four species of raptors were most commonly observed: ferruginous hawks 39.1%, red-tailed hawks 22.5%, bald eagles 15.3%, golden eagles 6.4%, and other/unidentified 16.7%. There was high variability in raptor use from one town to the next, ranging from a high of 12.0/hour to a low of 0.5/hour. The study included a broad spectrum of urban colony sizes from 50 to 300 active burrows. 10 Avian densities may also be higher on prairie dog colonies because prairie dogs create a vegetative patchiness that results in lower amounts of mulch and lower vegetative height, which may result in greater visibility of macroarthropods and seeds." Recommendations: • Science supports that urban prairie dogs do play a beneficial role in supplying a food source for wintering raptors • Additional research is needed to determine if urban prairie dogs and colonies may have a keystone role in the urban grassland system • To reduce conflicts with coyotes and domestic animals, urban prairie dog colonies are needed. 3. Vegetative Influence ' Wright, J.P, Jones, C.G., Flecker, A. S. 2002 An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia (2002) 132:96-101 $ Magle, S. B and Crooks, K.R. 2008. Interactions between black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) and vegetation in habitat fragmented by urbanization, Journal of Arid Environments 72 (2008) 238-246. 9 Magle, S., Poessel, S.A., Crooks, K.R., and Breck, S.W. 2014. Landscape & Urban Planning. More dogs less bite: The relationship between human —coyote conflict and prairie dog colonies in an urban landscape. Urban Wildlife Institute, Department of Conservation and Science, Lincoln Park Zoo, 2001 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60614, USA. 10 Weber, D. 2004. Winter raptor use of prairie dog towns in the Denver, Colorado vicinity, Proceedings 4th International Urban Wildlife Symposium. Shaw et al., Eds. 2004 11 Agnew, William, Daniel W. Uresk, Richard M. Hansen. 1986. "Flora and Fauna Associated with Prairie Dog Colonies and Adjacent Ungrazed Mixed -grass Prairie in Western South Dakota." Journal of Range Management 39(2), March 1986 k, Attachment 5 Prairie dogs not only support a predator/prey relationship, but their influence on the grasslands creates patches of vegetation that are dramatically different by altering graminoids (monocots) towards predominately forb and dwarf shrub (dicots) species; thus, increasing plant diversity supportive of a wide range of animal species. Studies by Detling, J. K., and Whicker, A. D. (1987) noted that these unique patches allow for a greater diversity of plant species to thrive and provide favorable habitat patches for other animals, thus increasing habitat diversity for other wildlife species. Grazing by prairie dogs removes aging plant matter and stimulates the growth of new plant tissue that generally has higher concentrations of nitrogen and greater digestibility than ungrazed plants. Burrowing and grazing activities of prairie dogs may also influence below -ground plant dynamics. Some estimates indicate that most of the energy flow in grassland systems occurs belowground and that soil invertebrate may consume as much or more plant biomass than cattle on the mixed grass prairie." Studies conducted on prairie dog occupied sites of mixed grass prairie in South Dakota noted that rapid changes occurred within the first two years following colonization but by the third year bare ground had stabilized at 35% and litter cover had decreased to less than 10%.13 Prairie dogs increase the benefit of soils to plants and soil organisms by adding organic matter and nutrient salts to soils, improving soil structure and increasing water filtration.14 Prairie dog grazing and burrowing also changes the structure of individual plants and plant composition. Over time, plant composition and heterogeneity can change. There are distinct zones on prairie dog occupied sites where the core of a colony that has been occupied the most is predominately comprised of forbs, annuals and shrubs. In transition zones, or newly colonized areas, the composition is a mixture of perennial grasses, short grasses and forbs." Burrowing and grazing activities by prairie dogs mixes soils and regulates vegetation diversity. Prairie dogs alter soil structure and chemical composition by their addition of excrement and plant material. Their activities result in the aeration, pulverization, granulation and transfer of soil. When compared to uncolonized grasslands, prairie dog colonies were richer in nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter." Vegetative studies of urban versus rural colonies conducted by Lehmer, E.M., et al. on 8 colonies in Boulder in 2010, indicated that although prairie dogs impose substantial changes in vegetation structure upon the landscape; these changes do not seem disproportionate in areas that occur outside of their traditional habitats, and they do not necessarily convert suitable habitat patches into unsuitable patches." While prairie dogs prefer graminoids over forbs, their diets will adjust to forage availability." Their diet varies with season, location on towns, and vegetative composition.19 And prairie dogs still seemed to thrive on nonnative vegetation.20 12 Detling, J. K., and Whicker, A. D. 1987. "Control of Ecosystem Processes by Prairie Dogs and Other Grassland Herbivores" (1987). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 57. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/ 13 Ibid. " Koford, C.B. 1958. Prairie dogs, whitefaces, and blue grama. Wildlife Monographs 3:1-78. 15 Slobodchikoff, C.N., Perla, B.S., Verdolin, J.L.2006. Prairie Dogs, Communication and Community in an Animal Society. Harvard University Press 16 Sharps, Jon C.,Uresk, Daniel W. 1990. "Ecological Review of Black -tailed Prairie Dogs and Associated Species in Western South Dakota," Great Basin Naturalist 50(4), pp339-345 17 Lehmer, E.M., L. Hartley, J. Lanci and C. Kolb. 2010. Evaluating the Impacts of Black -tailed Prairie dogs on Vegetation in Traditional and non-traditional habitat 18 Fagerstone, Kathleen, A. 1981. "A Review of Prairie Dog Diet and its' Variability Among Animals and Colonies" Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 118 http://digitalconimons.unl.edu/gpwdwp/l 18 19 Koford, C.B. 1958. 20 Magle, S. B and Crooks, K.R. 2008. rd Attachment 5 As prairie dogs have a tendency to keep vegetation short within colonies, prairie dog grazing behaviors may mitigate the proliferation of undesirable weedy species. John Hoogland noted that the following plants were either clipped or consumed by prairie dogs: black nightshade, brome, cocklebur, deathcamus, false pennyroyal, fescue, foxtail, horseweed, knotweed, lambsquarters, milkvetch, mullein, pepperweed, phlox, pigweed, plantain, prairie dog weed, ragweed, Russian thistle, scurfpea, skeleton weed, sorrel, spiny buffalo bur, spurge, stickseed, thistle, threeawn, tumblegrass and verbena.21 Clippinger also observed that prickly lettuce, goosefoot and kochia were either consumed or clipped by prairie dogs.22 Here prairie dogs benefit land managers by removal of nonnative weeds. Best land use practices should only focus on weeds that are problematic and not consumed by prairie dogs. Boulder County reports indicate that opportunistic weedy species were given the chance to establish themselves in the absence of prairie dogs. Weeds were highly likely to germinate each year in areas of colony disturbance, but when prairie dogs were present, they were eaten as sprouts. This not only sustains the prairie dog, but prevents the weeds from growing to heights that would exceed the prairie dogs' comfort zone. Although introduced weeds are perhaps not welcome from an aesthetic and weed -seed production point of view, the cover they provide is positive from the standpoint of erosion control.23 Prairie dogs are not only beneficial for reduction of weeds, but they also play a role in the creation of firebreaks where land managers want to control vegetative heights.24 Understanding prairie dog influence on vegetation may help determine what, if any, action should be taken to reestablish vegetation on prairie dogs colonies to reduce weeds and erosion. John Vickery, a land resource officer located in Denver, has documented certain features of native plants that prairie dogs seem to avoid: 1. Are poisonous and/or have a disagreeable taste (milkweeds, snakeweed); 2. Are foul smelling or have a strong odor (fetid marigold, cleomes, sage, rabbitbrush, pennyroyal); 3. Are prickly (rosa species, yucca, prickly poppy, prickly pear, purple three -awn); 4. Have an abundance of hairs (blazing star, golden rod, aster, vervain); 5. Are prostrate or abided by clipping behavior (bracted vervain, salt and pepper, wild parsley, wooly plantain, buffalograss); 6. Are sticky or gummy (gumweed and bee plant).zs After working over 20 years in the field on multiple prairie dog relocations and having great desire to protect native plant species, I have also observed plants that seem to withstand prairie dog presence. However, I would not necessarily recommend removal of prairie dogs to reestablish plants. Removing prairie dogs could exacerbate a weedy situation, and if prairie dogs are consuming nonnative weeds, this may reduce grazing pressure on newly introduced native species. In cooperation with funding from the City of Boulder and the Prairie Dog Coalition, Wanek and Wold, J. inter -seeded a mixture of 15 to 20 different forbs, some dwarf shrubs and selected graminoids species on plots located in five active colonies during early winter 2016. While it is still too early to tell what will occur, it is nevertheless a pioneering effort to work with prairie dogs instead of against them. It is important to recognize that many native plants thrive on prairie dog occupied sites. These native plant species are a valuable commodity that are not readily available from commercial markets. These seeds should be harvested and preserved as heirloom seeds for reintroduction into prairie dog occupied sites. Additionally, many open space sites are essentially damaged by troublesome introduced grazing grasses, such as bromes. Bromes are a cool season turf spreading grass that are virtually impossible to remove without extensive manmade interventions (herbicides, manual removal). Since, overtime, these mid -height grasses will succumb to intense grazing pressures, prairie dogs can play a beneficial role by exhausting plant reserves. However, prairie dogs 21 Hoogland, J. 1995. zz Clippinger, Norman W. 1989. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black -tailed Prairie Dog. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(10.156) July 1989 zs Boulder County Grasslands Management Plan, Prairie Dog Habitat Element, Boulder County, Colorado 2009 za Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, and G. Plumb. 1999. zs Vickery, J. ND. Vegetation Management in Urban-to-Exurban Prairie Dog colonies: Context, Issues and Native Plan `Survivors', Power Point. JVickery@MCG,net 6 Attachment 5 cannot replace the native plants that once thrived before human's altered native prairie. In these cases, it would be prudent for resource managers to inter -seed a mix of native short -grasses and forb species into the remaining stubble of bromes before erosion is allowed to occur. Here, prairie dogs have two benefits, one is the removal of an aggressive nonnative grass species and second, maintenance of desirable compatible grassland plant species. Recommendations: • Prairie dogs influence shifts predominately graminoid landscapes towards forb and shrub species • Prairie dog diets adjust to forage availability • Prairie dogs consume many Eurasian weeds • Short vegetative heights are preferred by prairie dogs making colonies useful as firebreaks • Many native plant species are avoided by prairie dogs • Commercial availability of some native plant species varies, thus, native plants on existing colonies are valuable and in some cases priceless • If prairie dogs are not desired in an area, do not mow or reduce the forage height. • Planning in advance of prairie dog colony expansion and migration with tall grass plantings, tall grass or shrub buffers can help prevent conflict. 4. Understanding population and landscape dynamics in managing prairie dogs Understanding natural behaviors of prairie dogs on a landscape will help conservation officers determine the best management direction needed to support prairie dog populations. This section will review how biological and environmental factors influence the birth, death, population size and dispersal of BTPDs. BTPDs are a highly social prey species that lives in family groups called coteries. Coteries usually contain one adult male and several genetically related adult females (mothers, daughters, granddaughters, sisters, nieces and so forth). Coteries can range in size from 1 to 26 individuals where physical coterie boundaries may range from .12 acres to 2.5 acres with an average of about 0.8 acres.26 Colonies are comprised of multiple coteries; extremely large colonies may contain hundreds of coteries. Colony density can range from 10 adults and yearlings per acre, before juvenile emergence, to 20 adults, yearlings and juveniles after emergence. Individual populations can vary in response to vegetation, habitat restrictions, age of colony and predation.27 A study of density in 22 urban colonies in Colorado indicated a range of 13 — 49 prairie dogs per acre.28 Visual counting of prairie dogs is the best method for determining populations of prairie dogs because there is no absolute correlation between density and the number of burrows.29 A metapopulation is a population of populations, in other words, a group of several, interacting local populations or subpopulations that are linked together by immigration or emigration.30 "Colonies must be connected by dispersal so that the negative impact of extinction may be counterbalanced by recolonization management." And since prairie dog colonies are typically located in swales and seasonal lowlands, they will use natural drainages as dispersal corridors, which increase the likelihood of them encountering other colonies. Potential dispersal corridors, such as drainages, should be maintained to ensure recolonization of unoccupied colonies and continual dispersal among colonies. 26 Hoogland, J. 1995. The Black -tailed Prairie Dog, Social Life of a Burrowing Animal, The University of Chicago Press. 2' Hoogland, J. 2006. 28Johnson, W.C., and S.K. Collinge. 2004. Landscape effects on black -tailed prairie dog colonies. Biological Conservation 115:487-497, 29 Hoogland, J. 1995 and 2006. so Gottelli, N.J. 1998. A Primer of Ecology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer and Associates. Retrieved from Slobchikoff, C.N., et al. 2009 0 Attachment 5 Management of other colonies will have impacts on nearby colonies.31 Spacing between colonies will be important as prairie dogs commonly disperse 1 — 2 miles, but sometimes as far as 4 miles.32 Connectivity between colonies significantly influences the ebb and flow of single species populations, metapopulations, and ultimately the species as a whole. The influence of corridors carries both positive and negative potential by providing gene flow, resource flexibility and pathways to population expansion but may also allow for disease pathways; therefore, in some cases, connectivity should be avoided.33 Understanding the function of coteries, colonies and metapopulations can help land managers create effective land use plans for prairie dogs. In some cases you may want connectivity and other populations may need to be more sequestered from plague. In Colorado, probably the largest single conservation efforts of contiguity of lands among multiple local governments are the flood plains. Since prairie dogs are known to use seasonal dry drainages as dispersal corridors, FEMA maps could be an invaluable land use tool for the purpose of creating metapopulation connectivity as these maps indicate natural drainage areas. Prairie dogs breed one time per year, typically February for BTPDs, where female estrus lasts about 4 hours. After a gestation period of approximately 34 days, they give birth to one litter ranging from 1 to 6 individuals; the most common litter size is 3. The pups are born underground and do not appear above ground for approximately 6 weeks. Prairie dogs are aged from the time they first appear from the natal burrow. When prairie dogs have been above ground for less than 9 months they are called pups or juveniles, yearlings are at least 9 months but less than 21 months and adults are at least 21 months old.34 Therefore, from a time period of about February to May or early June, impregnated females and juveniles are the most vulnerable. BTPDs are not commonly sexually mature until they are two years old. However, other prairie dogs species, such as Gunnison's, Utah and White -tails are sexually mature as one year olds. Some BTPDs females will delay conception until they are three year olds, and not all females that are sexually receptive conceive or they may abort. In these cases, they must wait an entire year to potentially become impregnated.35 The life span of BTPDs varies. Surviving the first year is the biggest hurdle; mortality in the first 12 months averages 53% for males and 46% for females. Males that survive the first year typically live two to three years and females may live four to five years. The three main causes of mortality in prairie dogs are predation, infanticide and the inability to survive the winter.36 The inability to survive the winter is generally caused by a prairie dog's inability to store enough accumulated fat during late fall, winter and early spring. Middle-aged prairie dogs are heavier and older and are more likely to survive than younger individuals.37 Infanticide among prairie dogs occurs when an adult kills a juvenile. Most killers are lactating females, and most victims are the offspring of close kin.38 Males that invade a territory with juveniles are also infanticidal.39 In some species infanticide is a response to overcrowding, but John Hoogland's documentation of infanticides occurred at colony that did not have an unusually high density.40 "This bizarre behavior [of infanticide] means that prairie dogs are sometimes their own worst enemy," opines Hoogland.al 31 Roach, J.L., Stapp, P., Van Horne, B., and Antolin, M.F. 2001 Genetic Structure of a Metapopulation of Black -tailed Prairie Dogs, Journal of Mammology, 82(4):946-959. 2001 3z Hoogland, J. 2006. 33 Slobodchikoff, C.N. et al. 2009 34 Hoogland, J. 2006. 3s Hoogland, J. 1995. 36 Hoogland, J. 2006. 37 Ibid. 38 Hoogland, J. 1995 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Hoogland, J. 2006. Pg 35. 7 Attachment 5 "Short reproduction windows, low litter sizes, and longer periods before sexual maturity make prairie dogs an exception in the rodent world and lead to comparatively lower population growth rates than other rodent species"42 Prairie dogs are not migratory animals, however, they can disperse, singly, not in groups. Most females remain within their natal coterie for life, most males remain in their natal coterie for only the first year, after which they disperse. Peak dispersal of yearling males occurs in May, June and July, a second peak occurs in February, just before breeding season.41 Incest is rare in prairie dog populations so older males also disperse after one or two years inhabiting a coterie, probably to avoid inbreeding with their daughters. Dispersals are more likely to occur within colonies than between or outside of them.44as Prairie dog colonies may also become stabilized to one area. Studies conducted outside of plague zones indicate that colonies can remain in the same approximate location for several decades to several centuries46 and prairie dogs show very little variation in burrow density over long periods. 47 In a fourteen year study of a 16 acre colony located on mixed grass prairie in South Dakota that was at least 35 years old, researchers mapped every burrow on the site and noted that although prairie dog densities would fluctuate up or down throughout the years, the physical area and number of burrows remained almost exactly the same.48 "In efforts to predict population dynamics, wildlife managers must evaluate whether colonies under consideration are old and stable or young and expanding. In stable colonies, showing little room for expansion, prairie dogs reproduce slowly. This is probably due to lower survivorship and increased competition for resources (food, suitable mates). Prairie dogs in younger, expanding colonies survive better, grow faster as juveniles, are more likely to mate at a younger age, and rear larger litters." 49 Also, according to John Hoogland, "several studies have demonstrated that black -tailed prairie dogs survive better and have greater reproductive success following the reduction in colony size, for natural or unnatural reasons. Consequently, `thinning' of prairie dog populations is often short-lived because populations can quickly rebound."" Recommendations: • Use FEMA maps as a guide for broad scale landscape planning for migration route corridors important for prairie dog dispersal and other wildlife species. • Designate corridors to be occupied and protected by prairie dogs. Some corridors may need to be sequestered from disease pathways. • Based upon the reproductive and dispersal patterns of prairie dogs, the best opportunity for management is late spring towards early November. • The best time to relocate prairie dogs is late summer into early winter. 42 Pizzimenti, J. J., and McClenaghan, L.R. 1974. Reproduction, growth and development, and bchavior in the Mexican prairie dog. American Midland Naturalist 92:130-45. 4' Hoogland, J. 1995 44 Garrett, M.G., J.L. Hoogland, and W.L. Franklin. 1982. Demographic differences between an old and new colony of black - tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). American Midland Naturalist 108-:51-59 45 Hoogland, J. (1995 and 2006). 46 Augustine, David J., Marc R. Matchette, Theodore P. Toombs, Jack F. Cully Jr., Tammi L. Johnson, and John G. Side. 2008. "Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Black -tailed Prairie Colonies Affected by Plague." Landscape Ecol 23:255-267 47 Hoogland, J. et al. 1987. 4' Garrett, M.G., J.L. Hoogland, and W.L. Franklin. 1982. Demographic differences between an old and new colony of black - tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). American Midland Naturalist 108-:51-59 49 Hoogland, J. 2006. so Hoogland, J. 2011. Personal communication, The Prairie Dog Coalition. Attachment 5 • Prairie dogs can remain in the exact same spot for decades if not centuries with very little change in burrow numbers. • Prairie dogs are not migratory; they disperse singly not in groups. • Short reproduction windows, low litter sizes, and longer periods before sexual maturity make prairie dogs an exception in the rodent world and lead to comparatively lower population growth rates than other rodent species. • Visual counting of prairie dogs is the best method for determining populations of prairie dogs because there is no absolute correlation between density and the number of burrows. 5. Disease Primary diseases of prairie dogs are sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis) and tularemia. Sylvatic plague might pose the most formidable obstacle for long-term conservation of prairie dogs.51 Prairie dogs suffer an almost 100% mortality when exposed, and there is little evidence of their development of immune antibodies. Plague was introduced into the United States ground squirrel population in 1908. Since then, the disease has spread and can infect at least 76 species of rodents, rabbits, hares, shrews, ungulates and primates. Plague is primarily a disease of rodents and it affects each rodent species differently. Plague was first documented in black -tailed prairie dogs in 1946 in Texas. The disease has since infected most areas within the range of prairie dogs." Animal susceptibility to sylvatic plague varies. Some species are highly susceptible, for example the prairie dog, and others are more resistant (mice). Resistant species may play a role as reservoir hosts. Carnivores are commonly exposed to plague by eating infected rodents or by being bitten by rodent fleas, but many are resistant to plague. Studies demonstrate that infected domestic dogs, coyotes and foxes may indicate an antibody to plague, meaning they had been exposed, but rarely die from plague.53 For relatively small areas with plague -infected rodents, the use of insecticide dusting powder to kill fleas on rodents is effective. And since plague is in many other wildlife species, the elimination of prairie dogs will not remove plague from the ecosystem.54 Plague is largely controlled by the manual application of Delta -dust. According to D. Tripp, (2016) the best time of the year to apply Delta -dust is in the fall (September or October) or early spring (February or March). While plague can be present in fleas year round but most transmission occurs in early spring and late summer after temperatures drop. 55 A sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) is indicating great promise in protecting prairie dogs from plague. Management of plague through SPV could prevent precipitous population declines that could lead to future ESA listing.56 A possible strategy to prevent large scale losses of prairie dogs to plague is the design of preserves. The risk of having preserve areas be too large is that a single plague epizootic could result in the demise of the entire preserve. Preserve s1 Cully, J.F., and E.S. Williams 2001. Interspecific comparisons of sylvatic plague in prairie dogs. Journal of Mammology 82:894- 905 "Luce, R. J. 2006 A Multi -state Approach to Prairie Dog Conservation and Management in the United States, Invited Paper, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-40.2006. ss Biggens, D. E., M.Y. Kosoy. 2001. Influences of Introduced Plague in North American Mammals: Implications from Ecology of Plague in Asia, Journal of Mammalogy:82(4):906-916, 2001 54 www.cdphe.state.co.us ss Tripp, D. (2016) Colorado Parks and Wildlife, personal comm. January 7, 2016. 16 http://www.fs.usda.gov/lntemet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5426465.pdf 0j Attachment 5 areas should be close enough to allow for animal dispersal between them, but not so close that plague epizootics can be easily transmitted," Another disease fatal to prairie dogs is tularemia.58 Tularemia, also known as rabbit fever, is a zoonosis affecting more than 150 wildlife species, including prairie dogs, squirrels, rabbits, cats, and humans. Transmission can occur from tick or deer fly bites, handling infected animals (sick or dead), eating undercooked meats of infected animals, and inhaling dusts or aerosols contaminated with the bacteria (farming and landscaping activities) of infected animals. Treatment involves antibiotic medications. Although symptoms may last for several weeks, most patients completely recover.59 Rodents and rabbits are almost never found to be infected with rabies and have not been known to transmit rabies to humans.60 And given the structure and ventilation system of burrows, hanta virus does not occur in prairie dogs. 61 Recommendations: • Annual dusting of prairie dog colonies may be required until SPV is ready for regular use. • Plague management and abatement should occur in Natural Areas designated for prairie dog ecosystem conservation. As such, these areas should maintain occupancy by prairie digs via population augmentation or relocation if necessary. • Strategic land use planning to ensure that preserves are dispersed throughout land use areas rather than pooling all large colonies in one area. 6. Local government legal tools In Colorado, local governments have primary authority to protect wildlife habitats, but state wildlife officers have primary authority over the actual animal. It is very important that local governments understand this concept and utilize laws granted to them as part of a core foundation to protect wildlife habitats. Our research indicates that very few counties in Colorado have any conservation plan for prairie dogs and of those plans reviewed, none made reference to Colorado's conservation strategies for prairie dogs. This disconnect is concerning, as local governments are granted primary authority to protect lands for wildlife under the state's local land use laws.62 Far more municipalities than counties had conservation plans, yet of those counties that did have plans, none openly stated the importance of municipal, state, federal or private landowner participation in occupied prairie dog acreage. All of these external landowners and agencies play a huge role in county -wide occupied acres and are especially important to counties as they reduce associated prairie dog occupancy costs (land purchases, maintenance, revegetation, disease management and staffing) to county taxpayers. The fact that the majority of local governments have no conservation plan is a matter of statewide concern, as the state's principal role to avoid federal listing is to ensure countywide occupancy of prairie dogs.61 61 57 EDAW 2000 Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Study of Eastern Colorado Study of Eastern Colorado, Retrieved 9/15 http://cpw.state.Co.us/Documents/WiIdIifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/BIackTailedPrairieDog/PDF/Entire_Report.pdf 58 Hoogland, J. 2006. 59 http://www.cdc.gov/tularemia 60 http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/animals/other.htmi 61 Pape, John. 2006. Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Personal Communication, P Wanek 62 Duerksen, C. J., Hobbs, N.T., Elliott, D. L., Johnson, E., and Miller, J.R. (n.d) Managing Development for People and Wildlife, A Handbook for Habitat Protection by Local Governments, Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC and Colorado Division of Wildlife for The Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. Retrieved from http://ndisdev2.nrel.colostate.edu/handbook/hand book. html 61 Luce, R.J. 2006. "Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado 2003 M Attachment 5 One of the conservation objectives of Colorado's Grassland Plan is a shared responsibility to conserve occupied prairie dog habitat in both urban and rural communities.65 However, each of these environments presents entirely different financial and landowner situations. Development in Front Range counties and cities generates large sales taxes that in many cases includes open space taxes to protect lands from development for agricultural or wildlife habitat uses.However, these rapidly developing cities and counties do not normally plan to protect large acreages for prairie dogs; and many have no vision to protect any prairie dogs. As such, most urban prairie dogs live in unprotected isolated colonies that are rapidly disappearing. Most rural properties are privately owned, and these private holdings contain the bulk of prairie dog acreages in the state.66 Rural counties typically do not share in the economic wealth of their urban counterparts. They do not have open space taxes, nor do they have funding needed to hire resource managers educated in the importance of prairie dog conservation Some private landowners have received prairie dog conservation funding from the state, but the majority of private lands remain unprotected. Conservation plans are important for multiple reasons: • They set establish that prairie dog conservation is important to avoid ESA listing; • They educate politicians, staff and the community about the plight of the species; • They reduce management and maintenance of prairie dog habitat by locating habitats in areas more conducive to natural areas and natural dispersal routes; • They reduce costs to local governments and ultimately taxpayers by having coordinated and shared financial interests in federal, state, local and commercial funding to support prairie dog conservation and habitat protection; • They engender more decision -maker support for translocations of prairie dogs into designated areas; • They identify the legal procedural requirements and responsibilities for all parties involved; • They open the door for joint funding and management of prairie dog protected areas and the development of Inter -governmental agreements; • They create the shared responsibility of all political jurisdictions within the prairie dogs range; • They support region -wide diversity, thus protecting the prairie dog and dependent species by allowing for large scale land use conservation rather than pooling significant prairie dog populations into one area; • They increase efficiency of all resources (land and human); • They support both state and federal goals to conserve the species and protect associated and dependent species. • They promote voluntary conservation -incentive programs or regional conservation programs to prevent species from federal listing According to Duerkson, C. J., et al. the most powerful laws for local governments to protect habitats are known as 1034 and 1041 Powers. "In 1974, the state enacted the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act to `clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions.' Those powers are codified at C.R.S. 29-20-101 and are sometimes known as 1034 powers. Two provisions under these powers are of particular importance when it comes to protecting wildlife habitat: `29-20-104. Powers of local governments. (1) Without limiting or superseding any power or authority presently exercised or previously granted, each local government within its respective jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and regulate the use of land by: ss Ibid. s6 Colorado Grasslands Plan, 2003. ill Attachment 5 (b) Protecting lands from activities which would cause immediate or foreseeable material danger to significant wildlife habitat or would endanger a wildlife species; (h) Otherwise planning for and regulating 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.' This language should support the adoption of specialized city, town, or county regulations to protect wildlife habitat in ways that are not specifically prohibited or preempted by state statute. Colorado also enacted 1041 Powers that are found under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 and grant local governments increased authority to adopt regulations controlling specific types of development and activity. The statute details large or broad effects on the surrounding area and then allows local governments to adopt specific criteria to regulate specific aspects of those development and activities. 1041 Powers address areas and activities of statewide interest. These interests include mineral resource areas, natural hazard areas, areas containing historical, natural or archaeological resources, areas around key facilities such as airports, interchanges involving arterial highways, major public facilities and mass transit terminals. This also includes efficient use of municipal and industrial water projects and site selection and construction of domestic water and sewage treatment and new communities. Under certain circumstances, local governments can designate areas or activities within their jurisdiction as matters of statewide concern."67 Municipal growth is typically driven by some economic benefit to annex developable land. Potential annexations of lands from counties are submitted by local governments to affected counties through what are known as three-mile annexation plans. These plans provide counties the opportunities to render comments about the proposed annexations. In some cases, annexation "wars" may occur when more than one municipal government desires the same tract of land as another municipal government. These `wars' potentially drive up the number of developments to offer the best financial deal for landowners wishing to sell their properties. Some may view these `wars' as a major driver in over developed communities and the associated hindrance of local communities' ability to protect habitats for wildlife. Additional information about three-mile annexation plans can be found under the Colorado Department of Local Affairs website: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/three-mile-plans In cases where municipalities annex lands, county government's ability to effect conservation planning in annexed municipal lands may no longer be valid. According to C.R.S. 30-28-106: (1) "It is the duty of a county planning commission to make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the unincorporated territory of the county... (2) (a) ... but no such plan shall be effective within the boundaries of any incorporated municipality within the region unless such plan is adopted by the governing body of the municipality..." It is important to keep in mind that although many local governments have their own laws and regulations, they are not sovereign entities of the state, rather they are political subdivisions of the state, existing only for the convenient administration of the state government, created to carry out the will of the state.68 Recommendations: • Connect local policies with statewide goals. • Utilize laws under the local land use act as the key authoritative powers to protect local wildlife habitats. 61 Duerksen, C. J., Hobbs, N.T., Elliott, D. L., Johnson, E., and Miller, J.R. (n.d) 68 C.R.S 30-11-101 Powers of Counties case law. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado f Attachment 5 • Keep Natural Areas designated as prairie dog areas occupied by prairie dogs. 7. Non -lethal Control — Non -lethal control of prairie dogs is definitely a safer alternative to lethal control, and in recent years many conservation groups are directing funds from lethal control methods towards non -lethal control choices. One method of non -lethal control is active relocation. While BTPD's can be removed any time of the year, there are clearly better times than others. For example, birthing, inclement weather and torpor make relocations much more complicated. Generally, prairie dogs can be moved from about June 1 st through the end of December. However, the best time to relocate prairie dogs is from September through about November 30"; relocations really should not start later than October. A Wild -to -Wild Relocation permit is secured between CPW and the local governing body. All take sites are required to be treated with delta-methrin (Delta -dust) at least one week prior to capturing the prairie dogs, as a sylvatic plague abatement measure. Active relocations may involve coterie mapping so family members are moved together, assessment of natural releasable burrows, installation of artificial burrows, pre -baiting take sites to trap animals and soapy water flushing if necessary. Additionally, there may be transport guidelines, acclimation and monitoring post released prairie dogs, and finally, reports submitted to CPW. Other methods of non -lethal control include more habitat -based methods. While these methods may not be as immediate as lethal control, non -lethal methods may over time produce better results. Some habitat methodologies include vegetation management such as delayed livestock grazing (cattle, goats and sheep); rotation of livestock tanks, deferred prescribed burns, changes in the type of agriculture crops and timing of harvest, introduction of tall, drought tolerant woodier (tall rabbitbrush, western sage, sumac, etc...). In very large areas, allowing mid -height grasses to grow between prairie dog colonies and urban developments may be a feasible alternative to dissuade prairie dogs from moving onto unwanted areas. However, homeowners may be concerned about potential grass fires next to their communities and so defensible space should be incorporated into these designs. A 200 to 300 foot buffer of mixed -height grasses next to colonies may discourage prairie dogs from moving or expanding into unwanted areas, a defensible space fire buffer may also be needed. Defensible space should include roads next to houses as well. Larimer County recommends the following defensible space for urban-wildland interface: Table 602. Required Defensible Space69 Urban-Wildland Interface Area Fuel Modification Distance (feet) Moderate hazard 30 High hazard 100 Extreme 200 Hardscaping may also discourage undesired animal occupancy. Consider using large cobble, pavers or landscaping stones. Fences such as electric, vinyl, privacy and PVC can be very effective, although some may need modifications. Even irrigation creates undesirable habitat for some wildlife. Another method of passive relocation is called Reverse Dispersal TranslocationTM or RDT. The procedure works by successively closing down unoccupied burrows thus allowing the animal to move itself out of contentious areas into more hospitable habitat (where prairie dogs already exist). This method requires receiving burrows. What it does is 69 Farmer, David A. 1997. Colorado State Forest Service, Recommendations for Improving Wildfire Safety in Larimer County, p. 27. Retrieved 4/2016 https://www.larimer.org/wildfire/recommendations.pdf 13 Attachment 5 push back colony expansion. Over time, prairie dog coteries can change in shape and size (smaller to larger and larger to smaller and extinct). Also, prairie dogs will frequently block their own burrows to protect natal nests, block off cold air, protect against predators and possibly to shift coterie boundaries. RDT progressively and sequentially blocks off burrows allowing the prairie dog to decide for themselves what coteries they belong in. Example: The ® represents four burrows that are moving out of the core colony. RDT progressively begins to block off these burrows causing prairie dogs to move back into the origination colony. This method is used instead of trapping and arbitrarily placing trapped prairie dogs into a colony. Using RDT, prairie dogs will hook up with old coterie members or move into less contentious burrows within the colony. Prairie dogs are much better at figuring out the social complexities of the coteries than humans. Burrows that are beginning g�< to expand territory. Origination Colony Before land managers decide to use any methods to eliminate prairie dogs they should carefully evaluate cost versus benefits. They should also carefully evaluate the negative effects for other species that depend on prairie dogs for survival.70 Recommendations: • Utilize non -lethal methodologies over lethal control first. Non -lethal control methods keep chemicals out of the environment and may help reduce prairie dog management costs over the long-term. • Generally, prairie dogs can be moved from about June I s' through the end of December. However, the best time to relocate prairie dogs is probably from September through about November 30'; relocations really should not start later than October. • Non -lethal methods may not be as immediate as lethal control; however, over time, habitat based methodologies may produce better long-term results. • Hardscaping may also discourage undesired animal occupancy. • Manipulation of vegetation such as introducing shrubs and mid -height grasses can help control prairie dog occupancy into unwanted areas. 8. Lethal Control Lethal control has long been used to exterminate prairie dogs. From about 1903 to 1912, poisoning killed 91 % of Colorado's prairie dogs (Black -tailed, Gunnison's and White-tailed) and over the next 11 years, poisoning killed another 31 million prairie dogs in Colorado. The idea behind these exterminations was complete eradication of prairie dogs.71 70 Hoogland, J. 2006. 7' Hoogland, J. 2006. Pg 90. 14 Attachment 5 By 1915, the U.S. Federal Government began to assist landowners in control efforts. Control activities continue today on agricultural, urban and city lands.72 From the early 1900s through the late 1960s extensive eradication of prairie dogs by landowners and state and federal agencies was largely funded with federal money." Probably the biggest driver of exterminations was the perceived notion that prairie dogs are a major competitor of cattle for food; contemporary research indicates that prairie dogs can have a beneficial or neutral effect on livestock forage. According to Collins, et al., forage competition between black -tailed prairie dogs and livestock grazing on shortgrass rangeland dominated by blue grama and buffalograss was not significant enough to warrant control measures. They reasoned that higher forage quality compensated for reduced available forage. Their results indicated that due to prairie dog repopulation rates, prairie dogs would have to be re -poisoned every 3 years and that annual maintenance control costs would be greater than the annual value of AUMs (animal unit month) gained. Thus, prairie dog control was not economically feasible.74 According to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies 2014 Pesticide Sunset Act, all individuals and businesses that apply restricted use pesticides are regulated by the Pesticide Applicator's Act (Act) and only individuals and businesses who apply general use pesticides as a commercial endeavor are regulated by the Act. The Commissioner regulates Commercial, Limited Commercial, Public, and Private pesticide applicators. The level of regulation is dependent on multiple factors including the type of pesticide being applied and the physical and economic environments in which it is applied." Regulations are necessary because pesticides used to control insects, rodents, weeds, and other forms of life contain toxic substances which may pose a serious risk to public health and safety. The regulation of pesticide applicators is necessary to prevent adverse effects to both individuals and the environment. Because pesticides contain toxic substances that can endanger the public, it is necessary to regulate the individuals that apply pesticides commercially.76 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies should always look at alternatives that utilize non -chemical approaches first and only consider using pesticides as a last resort. Since FIFRA does not fully preempt state, tribal or local law, each state, tribal and local government may also regulate pesticide use; as long as the local authority does not attempt to, directly or indirectly, regulate or prohibit pesticide application by individuals regulated under the Act or federal law. And while state regulations prevent local jurisdictions from enacting and implementing greater notification requirements on regulated applicators, local jurisdictions retain the authority. t�pose mny notification requirements upon private individuals, property owners, and the general public concerning pesticide applications." " In this case, a local government cannot prohibit pesticide use, but they can place restrictions to seek non -lethal control alternatives first before permitting lethal control. While federal and state governments regulate toxicant use, it is the role of the consumer that either directly applies toxicants or hires companies that exterminate to determine whether or not toxicants are necessary. Some questions to ask: • What measures of exclusion have been tried first? Barriers, vegetative buffers, reduced grazing? • Has extermination occurred in the past? If so, what were the long-term and short-term results? 72 Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado. 2003. 73 Luce, B. 2006. 74 Collins, A. R., Workman, J.P., Uresk, D.W. 1984 An Economic Analysis of Black -tailed Prairie Dog [Cynomys Ludovicianus] Control Journal of Range Management 37(4), July 1984 75 Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA). 2014. 2014 Sunset Review Pesticide Applicators Act, Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 C.R.S. 30-10-112-3 15 Attachment 5 • What non -target wildlife species could be impacted? • How does this chemical control the target species? Is this considered euthanasia? • What type of notifications does the state require on the property and what do those look like? • Exactly where will the notifications be posted? • Is the property fenced or is it an open field? • How close is the property to schools, open space areas, parks or other areas that may have high human interaction? • What additional notification can be provided to avoid accidental exposure? • Will the on -site applicator be an agent with necessary and relevant information for questioning citizens regarding the process or chemicals used? • Will minor children be employed as laborers? • What additional measures will be used to keep people and pets off of the property during and after toxicant uses? • Does the local government have an IPM program and are there any requirements to seek non- lethal alternatives? Products used, toxicity and humaneness: This section reviews the most commonly used methods for lethal control: aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, Kaput and Rozol, carbon monoxide cartridges, carbon dioxide, igniting underground explosive gas, and live burial by construction equipment. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) — is commonly used to kill prairie dogs, which are then used as donations to wildlife recovery centers for black -footed ferrets and birds of prey. In both cases there is specific timing, storage and procedures that must be followed by each facility. In most cases, prairie dogs will be lethally controlled by capturing the animal and then placing them into carbon dioxide filled chambers. Hawkins, et al. (2006) states that although many laboratory animals, especially rodents, are killed using CO2 according to a variety of protocols, there is currently no definitive guidance on whether and how CO2 can be administered humanely. There is also uncertainty about the feasibility of using alternative gaseous euthanasia agents, with respect to both animal welfare and human health safety. 79 Coulee, K.M, et al. (2005) indicated that the use of carbon dioxide alone did not follow the guidelines of euthanasia as the animals were clearly distressed and recommend that the use of CO2 should only be considered if it were used with a pre-anesthetic.80 Only competent and caring individuals should administer CO2. They should make absolutely sure the animal is dead prior to removing it from the chambers, as individual rodents may become apneic (temporary suspension of breathing) at certain CO2 concentrations giving the false impression that death has occurred. Standard tests used to determine death include a toe pinch, dilated pupil (lack of response to touch on eye), and absence of heartbeat; cessation of breathing is not a sufficient criterion when CO2 is used. Therefore, to ensure death, decapitation should follow after the use of CO2 to be assured that the animal does not revive. Younger animals, such as neonates, are more resistant to CO2 and may require longer exposure for efficacy.81 79 Hawkins, P., L. Playle, H. Golledge, M. Leach, R. Banzett, P. Danneman, P. Flecknell, R. Kirkden, L. Niel and M. Raj. 2006. Newcastle Consensus Meeting on Carbon Dioxide Euthanasia of Laboratory Animals, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 9 August 2006 S0 Conlee K. M., Stephens, M.L., Rowan, A.N., and King, L. A. (2005) Carbon dioxide for euthanasia: concerns regarding pain and distress, with special reference to mice and rats The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Research Issues, 2100 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA; Linacre College, Oxford University, St Cross Road, Oxford OX13PS, UK, Laboratory Animals (2005) 81 Gannon, W.L., Sikes, R.S. 2007. And The Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalgists. Guidelines 16 Attachment 5 Also, because animals may become distressed due to physical discomfort, anxiety in atypical social settings and physical surroundings, pheromones or odors from nearby or previously euthanized animals, and the presence of humans, euthanasia should be done outside of the perceptive range of other captive animals. CO2 is widely used in laboratories and in the field because most inhaled agents are explosive, for example, carbon monoxide, when discharged into an enclosed chamber .82 While CO2 may be less of a safety hazard to workers, it is not necessarily the most humane choice because it is not a euthanasia. Carbon Monoxide (CO) — are nonrestrictive use cartridge fumigants that are lit and then placed down inside prairie dog burrows. Since carbon monoxide induces unconsciousness before death, it is considered as a euthanasia.83 However, because smoke and heat emits dirty particles that are inhaled into the lungs and nasal passages it is questionable whether this is truly a humane method for the death of animals. Some local governments have accepted CO as a primary agent for field euthanasia of prairie dogs and are using PERCTM (Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Controller) machines that deliver pressurized carbon monoxide down prairie dog burrows. While we do not endorse the death of any declining species, we are encouraged that some communities have accepted that prairie dogs feel pain too and that euthanasia and care during the death of any species is a better approach than inhumane killing. Aluminum Phosphide — is a restricted use fumigant registered for burrowing mammal control in the U.S. in 1981. Aluminum phosphide reacts with moisture in burrows to release phosphine gas. The gas is absorbed through the respiratory passages of burrow residents and enters the bloodstream to block physiological processes in cells and alter hemoglobin. Aluminum phosphide is a potent mammal toxicant. At a concentration of 1000 ppm, phosphine gas is lethal to humans after just a few breaths. Primary non -target poisoning involves the exposure of non -target animals in burrows of target species. It is generally assumed that burrow fumigants will kill all animals residing in treated burrows, so it is important to verify that burrows are occupied only by target animals. Animals potentially affected by primary poisoning include non -target burrowing rodents, burrowing owls, reptiles and amphibians, rabbits, raccoons, foxes, weasels, and skunks. No secondary hazards exist with burrow fumigants because the gases rapidly dissipate. Bio-accumulation does not occur in dead animals." In poisoned rodents, phosphine gas gives rise to similar signs of respiratory irritation and pain and other forms of discomfort; displaying face -washing movements suggestive of eye and respiratory irritation, shivering, piloerection, clinging to the walls of the cage, protruding eyeballs, convulsions, and hind limb paralysis followed by full paralysis and death. In laboratory settings, animals may not start being symptomatic until 30 min after exposure, and die usually within 2 h; the range being 50 min to 3 h, depending on dose.85 However, in the field, the time between exposure and death is not well studied. Death by aluminum phosphide is not considered as euthanasia.86 87 Trade names for aluminum phosphide products include Phostoxin, Fumitoxin, PH3, and Weevil-cide. Use is prohibited on residential properties and nursing homes, schools (except athletic fields), daycare facilities and hospitals. It must of The American Society of Mammalogist For The Use of Wild Mammals in Research. Journal of Mammalogy, 88(3): 809— 823. 82 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition Copyright © 2013 by the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Schaumburg, IL 60173 83 Ibid sa K.A. Fagerstone, K.A. and Witmer, G.W., Eds. 2003 THE USE OF TOXICANTS IN BLACK -TAILED PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW Proceedings of the 1 Oth Wildlife Damage Management Conference. ss Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003. THE HUMANENESS OF RODENT PEST CONTROL, Animal Welfare 2003, 12:000-000 16 Ibid. 87 AVMA 2013 17 Attachment 5 not be applied into a burrow system within 100 feet of a building that is, or may be, occupied by humans, and/or domestic animals.$$ Aluminum phosphide can be used for prairie dog control only on agricultural areas, orchards, non -crop areas (such as pasture and rangeland), golf courses, athletic fields, airports, cemeteries, rights -of -way, earthen dams, parks and recreational areas and other non-residential institutional or industrial sites. Pellets or tablets must be applied directly to underground burrow systems and the burrows must be sealed with newspaper or soil. Prior to treatment, the applicator must prepare and provide a fumigation management plan (FMP) to the customer. Applicators must post a sign at each application site containing the signal word DANGER/PELIGRO skull and crossbones, the name and EPA registration number of the fumigant, and a 24 hour emergency response number. When used in athletic fields or parks, the signs must be posted at the entrances to the treated site and can be removed within 48 hours of initial treatment.89 Even though the state and EPA have now taken some precautions to avoid unintentional exposure to people or pets with these products, it is difficult to ascertain how chemicals work in the field as opposed to laboratory settings. According to Snider, C. several factors that influence this product are: burrow temperatures, burrow humidity, burrow length and configuration, soil porosity, wind speed and direction, and species specific behavior characteristics." Prairie dog burrows probably have temperatures of 5 — 10 C in winter (41 F — 50F), and 15 — 25 C (59F — 77F) in summer.91 According to the Fumitoxin instruction manual, phosphide gas exposure periods vary with temperatures. Not only may phosphine gas remain lethal for longer than the 2 day EPA sign warning sign minimums but it may remain toxic for up to 10 days. While we do not support any application of phosphine gas, we also believe that the minimum 2 day warning signs are inadequate, particularly on properties that are not necessarily parks but open space areas where people may hunt, hike or exercise their pets. And while local governments cannot require additional posting and warning requirements on a hired exterminator, they could require additional restrictions on the landowner; for example, larger signs and longer posting periods. Excerpt from the Fumitoxin Manual Operator Instructions (06/2013)92, below: "EXPOSURE CONDITIONS FOR ALL FUMIGATIONS: The following table may be used as a guide in determining the minimum length of the exposure period at the indicated temperatures: Minimum Exposure Periods for FUMITOXIN Temperature Pellets Tablets 40OF (5°C) Do not fumigate Do not fumigate 410-53OF (5-12°C 8 days (192 hours) 10 days (240 hours) 540-59OF (12-15°C) 4 days (96 hours) 5 days (120 hours) 600-68OF (16-20°C) 3 days (72 hours) 4 days (96 hours) above 680F (20°C) 2 days (48 hours) 3 days (72 hours)" 88 Andelt W.F., and Hopper S.N. 2012 Managing Prairie dogs, Colorado State University Fact Sheet No. 6.506, Colorado State University Extension Office 89 Ibid. 9' Snider, Carl, "Use of Aluminum Phosphide Fumigants For Burrowing Rodent Control" 1983. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 292. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/292 91 Hoogland, J. 1995. 92 Fumitoxin Applicators Manual. 2013. http://www.pestgon.com/PDF/MSDS- Labels/fumitoxin%20Label%202013.pdf c Attachment 5 Zinc Phosphide — is the most commonly used rodenticide worldwide and it acts by producing phosphine gas in the stomach.93 It was introduced into the U.S. during World War 11 when other imported rodenticides were unavailable. It is an acute (single feeding) rodenticide usually formulated into a pelleted bait or used as a coating on grain. The gas is absorbed through the respiratory passages and enters the bloodstream to block physiological processes in cells and alter hemoglobin. Zinc phosphide is highly toxic to both mammals and some birds. Non -target hazards include the direct consumption of zinc phosphide baits (primary hazard) or indirect exposure by the consumption of animals that have consumed the zinc phosphide bait (secondary hazard). Deaths can conceivably occur if predators consume undigested grain in rodent cheek pouches or gastro-intestinal tracts.94 To reduce exposure to non -target species, dead carcasses should be buried or removed from applicator sites. Zinc phosphide can only be used for prairie dogs on rangeland, rangeland and pasture, or rangeland and adjacent non - crop areas (depending on the specific product label). Zinc phosphide application is restricted to July 1 through early winter.95 Unlike fumigants, zinc phosphide exposes only those species that are in direct consumption of the bait, either from the ground or the consumption of another species that has recently consumed the baits. Additionally, dependent young in their nests that do not consume baits will be left to die. Zinc phoshide is not euthanasia. "" Kaput and Rozol - are anticoagulant baits Chlorophacinone (Rozol Prairie Dog Bait) or Diphacinone (Kaput-D Prairie Dog Bait). Both Rozol and Kaput-D Prairie Dog Baits are federally restricted use pesticides. They can be used only for control of black -tailed prairie dogs on rangeland and adjacent non -crop areas. This species is found on the eastern plains of Colorado. It cannot be used on the species found west of the front range of Colorado, Gunnison's prairie dogs or white-tailed prairie dogs.98 There are now enforceable endangered species bulletins for anticoagulant prairie dog baits for several Colorado counties. You must check the EPA website to obtain any county bulletins no less than 6 months before applications are to occur. Product can only be applied between October 1 and March 15 of the following year. (In some counties, product cannot be applied until November 1, see endangered species protection bulletins for your county). The applicator must return to the site within 4 days after bait application, and at 1 to 2 day intervals, to collect and properly dispose of any bait or dead or dying prairie dogs found on the surface. Any dead or dying non -target species of animals must be reported as described on the product label. Continue to conduct these searches for at least 2 weeks, but longer if carcasses are still being found. Carcass searches must be performed using a line-transect method that completely covers the baited area. Transect center lines must be 200 feet or less apart (less in more densely vegetated sites). 99 The purported advantage of using Kaput and Rozal is that these products do not require pre -baiting, thus reducing labor and field personnel costs. The disadvantage is that personnel or private property owners are required to monitor and dispose of any carcasses and this increases field time. According to Vyas (2013), applicators have openly admitted that they are not following label guidelines to Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. Applicators feel it is too costly and difficult to recover carcasses. Since these products are mostly used on private lands, it is difficult to completely assess how many non -target species have died from the consumption of carcasses. In one study, non -target mortalities included the deaths of two bald eagles, one ferruginous hawk, one great horned owl, two wild turkeys, one western meadowlark, two thirteen -lined ground squirrels and two American badgers. And while this list seems small, Vyas believes that these mortalities represent the "tip of the iceberg." Vyas, and many in the conservation community, 93 Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003 9a Fagerstone, K.A. and Witmer, G.W., 2003 95 Andelt W.F., and Hopper S.N. 2012 96 Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003 97 AVMA 2013 98 Andelt W.F., and Hopper S.N. 2012 99 Ibid M Attachment 5 question how the EPA and FIFRA can continue to allow the use of the product, especially when applicators have openly admitted they do not follow the product label instructions that is the letter of the law for all pesticides approved by the EPA."' During the 2006 EPA registration review for Rozol and Kaput, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) received written documents by both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the USFWS that these products should not be approved for registration for the following reasons: significant data gaps in toxicity data to non -target wildlife species including the sub -lethal exposure effects on survival and reproduction; unconvinced that poisoned animals would remain underground posing primary and secondary poisoning risks to non -target species; searching, collection and disposal of carcasses will not be conducted; reporting requirements of non -target kills by the applicator and the threat of continued use of the product and therefore compliance will be minimal; and based on the potential risks to extensive mammalian and avian predators and scavengers, including state and federally listed species, there is a lack of demonstrated need for these specific compounds.101 Despite these concerns, the EPA approved registration of these products and the CDA approved them for use in the state. Underground ignited explosive gasses and live burial — in lieu of exterminations or donations to animal recovery programs, many developers and ranchers resort to other inhumane methods to kill prairie dogs; namely the use of explosive underground devices or bulldozing prairie dogs directly into the ground thereby suffocating them to death. Both practices are not considered as euthanasia.102 The most notable device used to explode burrows and prairie dogs is the RodenatorTM which pumps a mixture of propane and oxygen into an animal tunnel and then is lit to create an underground explosion. The explosion travels at about 5000 feet per second and creates a concussion of about 10,000 PSI in the tunnels. In conversations with RodenatorTM sales staff, some of the drawbacks of the device are that it is difficult to measure the concentration of propane and oxygen in the tunnel so "you must use a common sense approach." Also, the device was never meant for use on prairie dogs because their tunnels are too difficult to collapse, additionally, there is no guarantee that the explosion kills prairie dogs and some may just become maimed.los Yet, the device is readily advertised to eliminate prairie dogs and collapse tunnels but there are no scientific studies that back this claim. Despite these inadequacies, the CDA approved this product for use in Colorado. The Rodenator may also be a fire hazard; therefore, it may be prudent to contact local fire departments regarding its' usage. In Canada, men using the device to kill gophers did not realize the device was capable of starting a blaze, they said they read the manual and watched the instructional DVD before using the device. According to sources, "the blaze spread rapidly through tinder -dry prairie grass." Several residents fled their homes, though fire crews managed to stop the flames from damaging houses. Damage has been estimated at $215,000 to barns, sheds and vehicles, while another $40,000 was spent to fight the fire (The Edmonton Journal, March 28, 2008). Recommendations: • Adopt ordinances and policies that reduce the use of toxicants on public and private lands • Adopt a notification system wherein the use of toxicants is a choice of last resort and provide a reasonable notification period prior to toxicant use. • Support private landowners that want to conserve prairie dogs or are willing to pay into mitigation funding programs for lost occupied habitat Zoo Vyas, B. Nimish,2013 Untested Pesticide Mitigation Requirements: Ecological, Agricultural, and Legal Implications. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Volume 18, No. 2, Summer 2013 ioi Colorado Division of Wildlife (2006) Response to Laura Quakenbush, Colorado Department of Agriculture, Subject: 24C Request to review ROZOL Prairie dog Bait (EPA Reg. No 7173-184), and Kaput-D Prairie Dog Bait (EPA reg. No. 72500-9). 102 AVMA. 2013. Zos Wanek, P. 2010 Personal Communication with Rodenator Sales Representative 20 Attachment 5 • Consider whether the chosen method is truly a humane decision • Local government cannot prohibit pesticide use but they can place restrictions to seek non -lethal control alternatives first before permitting lethal control. • And while local governments cannot require additional posting and warning requirements on a hired exterminator, they could require additional restrictions on the landowner; for example, larger signs and longer posting periods. • In many cases, aluminum phosphide is not a choice if prairie dog are located within 100 feet of a building that is, or may be, occupied by humans, and/or domestic animals. • While we do not endorse the intentional extermination of any declining species, we are encouraged that some communities have accepted that prairie dogs feel pain too and that euthanasia and care during the death of any animal is a better approach than inhumane killing. 9. Mitigation — CCAA, Endowment Fees, Separation of Fees from General Fund Unlike mitigation plans for wetlands, mitigation for prairie dogs is still in its infancy. Local communities are hard pressed to charge mitigation fees to private landowners for fear that this may encourage more exterminations of prairie dogs; however, along the Front Range, prairie dogs are routinely killed for development and developers often pay no mitigation. Not only are these practices inhumane, they also preclude economic opportunity costs to fund mitigation plans that are desperately needed to protect or replace local prairie dog populations. Many developers would readily pay mitigation fees for prairie dogs located on their properties if it moves the construction project along. Some urban developments are too small to support prairie dogs, and, as a result, surviving prairie dogs are pushed into adjacent properties, roadways, medians or killed on site. However, in some cases larger developments can incorporate small prairie dog populations. Each site should be evaluated for its own merits regarding BTPD mitigation or protection. Since local governments receive a tax benefit for developed properties to begin with, it may seem obvious that local governments should also play a role in supplying lands for displaced prairie dogs. Good mitigation plans by local governments can help offset habitat and local species losses. Some local governments already charge mitigation fees for prairie dogs. In some cases the monies are returned to the private landowner if more humane lethal control measures are taken, and in others, monies are collected regardless of what the developer does with the animals. Monies collected are generally used to operate prairie dog mitigation plans. The funds collected should be kept separate from the city's general fund. Local governments should set goals for their prairie dog mitigation funds. Some of those goals may include the same broad language used in Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), such as below: "• protecting and enhancing existing populations and habitats; • restoring degraded habitat; • creating new habitat; • augmenting existing populations; • restoring historic populations; and • not undertaking a specific, potentially impacting/damaging activity."104 ... U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Candidate Conservation Agreement. 2011. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa- 21 Attachment 5 To implement mitigation programs, local governments must be very clear on how the money is used and adopt court - defensible language that can be codified into ordinances. Recall 1034 Powers and that local government authority is based on habitat protection, not the animal itself; therefore, local governments must be able to quantify the value of prairie dog colonies. The Prairie Dog Coalition is cooperatively working with other agencies, including CPW to develop a mitigation tool that is very similar to the one already used for mule deer and sage grouse. However, the tool is still in the development and testing phase. In the interim, it may be possible for local governments to use the best science available now to begin a mitigation program. Most simply, attempts to quantify the value of prairie dog habitat are based upon the value of each burrow. First, costs associated with prairie dogs must be established. Take translocation fees as an example. Translocation fees are those costs to replace occupied habitat. Fees can vary from site to site, but the general range to translocate prairie dogs is anywhere between $50 to $200 per prairie dog. In some cases prairie dogs are much more costly to move and in others much less. In this case, let's assume that on average it costs about $125 per prairie dog. Based upon the best available science, during birthing months, from April through the end of June, prairie dog populations can double in size counting juveniles. However, as the season progresses, this population can drop by half. These population trends offer local government some choices on addressing timing of development. If a developer wants prairie dogs removed or exterminated in the earlier part of the spring or summer when populations are higher, they will be charged more because obviously the burrow is worth more. If they wait until later in the season, they will be charged less. Next, is to determine, on average, the number of burrows utilized by prairie dogs. Using the Johnson, W.C., and S.K. Collinge, 2004 study, they sampled 36 colonies during the months of June -August in 2000, and 40 colonies during September - January in 2001, in Boulder, Colorado. They found on average 255 active* burrow entrances per hectare or 103 per acre, and the average number of prairie dogs was 68 per hectare or 28 prairie dogs per acre. This equates to about 4 active burrows per prairie dog. At $125 per translocation cost per prairie dog, this means that each active burrow is worth about $31 ($125/4). Or on average, 103 burrows x $31 = $3,193 per acre. *active burrow entrances are those with fresh scat and does not include all burrows As referred to earlier, if counts were done in early May to early June specifically, the populations may have almost doubled because of pups, this means the fee could be up to $6,400 per acre. The City may want to negotiate this fee. For example, if the developer is willing to pay for translocation costs to City open space, which is a benefit to the City because taxpayers to do not pay relocations costs, you may want to waive the fee but instead charge fees for use of the land, say $1000 per acre. If they want to donate to ferrets or birds of prey, which is a more humane death than aluminum phosphide, you may give them a credit for this, especially because this alternative is much more costly to the developer than aluminum phosphide. Other studies support these numbers and provide a solid foundation for this mitigation tool and support a mitigation fee based on burrows or habitat lost. Finally, a science team made up of non -governmental organizations, scientists and agencies have worked together to develop a Habitat Quantification Tool (Tool) that quantifies the value of black -tailed prairie dog habitat. This Tool will be used to create mitigation transactions similar to the Colorado Habitat Exchange, currently, the Tool is available to library/pdf/CCAs.pdf 22 Attachment 5 use on one off pilot transactions as prairie dog ecosystem conservation creditors have been identified to be purchased by prairie dog ecosystem debtors."' Recommendation: • Engage private landowners and landowner actions as critical to prairie dog conservation, both from an environmental and financial standpoint. • Charge mitigation fees for loss of prairie dogs and for the use of city lands for prairie dog relocation • Realize that private landowners can mitigate costs to the city by re -augmenting previously plagued prairie dog colonies on municipal open space, reducing the cost to the city staff and taxpayers to retain "occupied acres." • Understand that all landowners within counties contribute to "occupied acres" this includes city, state, federal and private landowners. • Require prairie dog ecosystem debtors to mitigate the ecosystem debits they create by contacting the Prairie Dog Coalition to be a part of a pilot mitigation transaction with the HQT Science Team. 10. Conclusion Finally, we would like to thank your staff and the City of Fort Collins for its desire to incorporate the best land use practices for your colonies. Overall we would like to see the following: 1. Decrease defensible space around prairie dog buffer zones and incorporate mid -height grasses as a buffer against the colonies. The City currently uses a 300' cleared vegetative buffer; per Larimer County fire recommendations in the urban/wildland interface the maximum distance is 200 feet. 2. Adopt a mitigation system based on habitat and what it costs to replace occupied habitat; this should be applicable to private landowners and require or recommend participation in the conservation transactions for black -tailed prairie dogs as described in section 9, page 22. 3. Use FEMA maps to help create broad scale landscape planning for prairie dog metapopulations to protect dispersal corridors. 4. Remove the 50 acre minimum as a measure of prairie dog value; all occupied acres are important. 5. Update plans that incorporate statewide objectives. 6. Utilize habitat protection laws under 1034 and 1041 Powers. 7. Experiment with forb-based planting into active prairie dog colonies. 8. Reconsider "thinning" prairie dog populations and extermination as maintenance tools. Instead use habitat - based alternatives and non -lethal control strategies. 9. Add regulations about permitting for lethal control. According to the Pesticide Applicators Sunshine Act, alternatives should always be considered first before the use of pesticides. 10. Keep prairie dog conservation areas occupied by prairie dogs. 11. Remain flexible and open to new ideas and strategies. ... Sterling-Krank, L. 2016. Personal Communication 23 Attachment 5 24 Attachment 5 Rebecca Everette From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Rebecca Everette Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:23 PM 'lori_nitzel@yahoo.com' FW: New Wildlife Management Comment We received the comment below on the Wildlife Management Guidelines and Land Use Code changes related to prairie dog management. Your feedback is very helpful to this process, so I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. I wanted to follow up with one clarification in response to the comments below. Currently, the Land Use Code requires developers to remove or eradicate prairie dogs from a development site prior to any construction activity. The City does not permit developers to dig or disturb prairie dog colonies until the City has received confirmation that all prairie dogs have been removed or eradicated. This requirement can be found in Section 3.4.1(N)(6) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (https://www.municode.com/library/co/fort collins/codes/land use): "Prairie Dog Removal. Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting portions of the site within the LOD shall be relocated or eradicated by the developer using city -approved methods as set forth in Chapter 4 of the City Code and, when applicable, using methods reviewed and approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife." The changes to the Land Use Code that are currently proposed include requiring mitigation (compensation) for the loss of prairie dogs on a development site and limiting the type of fumigants that are allowed to be used. Additional information can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/wmg-summary.pdf. Thank you again for your input. If you have any additional questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me by email or phone. Sincerely, Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services I City of Fort Collins reverette(a.fcgov.com 1970.416.2625 direct Begin forwarded message: From: SurveyGizmo<notifications(a�surveyizmo.com> Date: July 25, 2016 at 2:30:20 PM MDT To: Zoe <zshark(afc,(�ov.com> Subject: New Wildlife Management Comment PAGE 1 QUESTIONS: 11 Attachment 5 PAGE 2 QUESTIONS: 1. Please share your thoughts on the proposed Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines. I wholeheartedly support protecting prairie dogs in the city and requiring all developers to relocate prairie dogs. If relocation is not possible, humanely euthanizing colonies is the only acceptable way for developers to move forward with construction. At this point they are just digging right into colonies, which results in much suffering for these sentient beings. 2. Please share your thoughts on the proposed Land Use Code changes. See above. I will also note that I find the city's lack of prairie dog protections to be very much at odds with what I see throughout town - e.g., the museum encourages protection and prairie dogs are painted on city property. It's hypocritical. 3. Any other comments? 4. Are you a Larimer County resident? Yes 5. How did you hear about this project? City email newsletter 6. If you would like to stay involved as the Wildlife Management Guidelines and Land Use Code changes are developed, please share your email address. We will only contact you about this project. lori nitzel(kyahoo.com ra Attachment 6 Wildlife and Prairie Dog Management Public Engagement Results August 10, 2016 This document includes an overview of the Open House and Forum that was held July 28, responses to questions posed there, as well as a list of online comments received through August 10. More information is available at: • Wildlife Management Guidelines proposed updates: www.fcqov.com/naturalareas • Proposed Land Use Code updates: www.fcqov.com/planning Open House and Forum Purpose and Format The open house and forum's goal was to get input on proposed updates to policies and share the City of Fort Collins' philosophy for wildlife protection and management, with an emphasis on prairie dog management. Poster stations (pdf) provided an overview of proposed changes to both the Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines that impact public lands and the Land Use Code that regulates development on both public and private lands (Land Use Code posters pdf). A panel discussion provided information on prairie dog management (see below). The evening allowed time for participants to ask questions and share ideas with planners, as well as to provide feedback via comment forms. Participants were encouraged to submit additional comments at fcqov.com/naturalareas . While feedback is appreciated any time, comments received by August 10 are included here. Prairie Dog Forum The panelists included: • John Stokes, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department • Rebecca Everette, City of Fort Collins Planning Services • Tina Jackson, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) • Lindsey Sterling Krank, Prairie Dog Coalition of the Humane Society of the U.S.(PDC) In their opening remarks, the panelists highlighted the following information: CPW: • Colorado is one of only 11 states with black -tailed prairie dogs. There is a significant range - wide effort to conserve them including CPW's goal to conserve 255,000 acres within the state. The state's plans are outlined in its 2003 Grassland Management Plan. The last survey that was done in 2006-2007 documented 814,000 acres of prairie dog colonies, which is well above the management plan goal. A new 2016 survey is underway. • Researchers at CPW are working to develop a sylvatic plague vaccine. • CPW is working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide land owner incentives as part of black -footed ferret conservation efforts. Prairie Dog Coalition: • The Prairie Dog Coalition's mission is to help conserve prairie dogs as they have been in significant decline. The Coalition's main goal is to focus on prairie dogs with the largest 1 Attachment 6 conservation value such as larger, often rural, areas with contiguous colonies and associated species (Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is an example).They attempt to address potential conflicts with prairie dogs by developing non -lethal solutions such as working with adjacent land owners to prevent migration within buffers, redirecting prairie dogs, etc. The Prairie Dog Coalition has recently worked with the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department on a project to relocate prairie dogs from a private site in east Fort Collins to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department: • The Natural Areas Department's management approach includes conservation in the following contexts: ■ A regional context at the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch (property managed jointly with the Fort Collins Utility Department). The intent at Soapstone Prairie is to have 3,000-4,000 acres of prairie dogs (currently approximately 1,600 acres). Prairie dog colonies are being treated for plague in collaboration with CPW. The department's capacity to treat colonies for plague is about 3,000 acres a year. ■ Urban natural area sites host about 400 acres occupied by prairie dogs. These areas are more constrained, posing significant management challenges. For a historical perspective, in the mid-2000's drought caused a lot of problems when prairie dog grazing denuded the land creating areas prone to wind erosion and dust storms. • The Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines initially were adopted in 2007 and are now in the process of being updated. One significant change being proposed is that the city, under certain circumstances, could accept relocation of prairie dogs to Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Fort Collins Planning Services: • The City is proposing updated land use code requirements related to prairie dog management on properties coming through the development review process. Two potential changes are to 1) eliminate the requirement that a private property must have at least a 50 acres or larger colony for additional protections and mitigation and 2)further restrict lethal management methods for development sites to carbon monoxide only (considered the most humane method and consistent with Natural Areas Department practice). Forum questions and verbal responses From your perspective, what is the most significant challenge in Fort Collins related to prairie dog management? 1) loss of habitat, especially in constrained urban areas where there are high densities of prairie dogs, 2) plague, which is a significant range -wide issue and may not be as relevant in smaller urban areas, and 3) interface between land with prairie dog colonies and other property owners. How do you define suitable habitat? What are your goals for occupied acres? Suitable habitat is grassland that would have traditionally supported prairie dogs excluding upland sites with rare plants, shrublands, wetland areas and grassland restoration areas. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department's intent is a 10-20% occupation of suitable habitat in natural areas. Are the population numbers for all states set by USFWS a starting point? Is there any guarantee that these numbers will insure long term survival of species? Colorado Parks and Wildlife's goal is 255,000 acres of prairie dogs statewide. The 2006 statewide survey found 814,000 acres of occupied colonies. In the 2016 survey, CPW will implement updated 2 Attachment 6 survey methods that should yield a more accurate count. CPW is also working on a sylvatic plague vaccine for prairie dogs and offers land owner incentives to maintain prairie dog colonies. Describe the difference between CPW and the city's jurisdiction. States have management authority of wildlife species except for species that migrate over state lines or are threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Prairie dogs are managed by the state as a non - game, general species. Cities cannot be less restrictive, but can be more restrictive, than the state. Prairie dogs can be controlled on private lands by land owners. Those interested in relocation must go through a CPW permit process. What are the proposed changes to Fort Collins' relocation policy? Could Soapstone Prairie be a relocation site? The Natural Areas Department got away from relocation in the 2000's because conservation goals were being met without relocation, prairie dogs were causing damage in urban natural areas, and relocation is an expensive, complicated process that requires a lot of labor and expertise. The Natural Areas Department is now proposing to consider prairie dog relocation at Soapstone Prairie under specific conditions. The Department's intent is to sustain 3,000 acres of active prairie dog colonies. Relocation of prairie dogs to Soapstone could occur if the population needed to be supplemented, and if required conditions were met including the presence of existing unoccupied burrows, and financing of all costs by private property owners or proponents. How do you determine if a site is good for relocation? If/how does relocation impact prairie dog social structures? If you give prairie dogs food, shelter and their family structure, they won't leave an area. Replicating the layout of the colony is important to relocation success. Behavioral observations should be collected beforehand to understand family structures so that they can be recreated at the receiving site. Existing burrows are helpful on receiving relocation sites if used sooner rather than later because the tunnels can collapse with time. Existing burrows can make it more difficult to replicate the same burrow and family structure layout as the donating site. In order to prevent plague, it is often required that the take site and receiving site are both dusted with insecticide. What are typical success rates for relocation? There is a lot of debate about success rates. The Prairie Dog Coalition does not collect data to measure its success rates. How does a private property owner get started with relocation? The Natural Areas Department can provide advice on contractors that can relocate prairie dogs. The most significant challenge is finding a place to put them. Private property owners will have to get a permit from the state and follow the state protocols, which are listed on the CPW website. The Prairie Dog Coalition has a website with more information. How much does relocation cost? What is the cost to developers or other private property owners? The Prairie Dog Coalition shared that relocation costs vary and a rough estimate is $100/ prairie dog. City of Fort Collins estimates $150 to $400 per prairie dog. For development properties, other mitigations could include on -site mitigation or payment into a bank that funds off -site mitigation. Mitigation costs have not been determined. Fumigation is typically under $10/burrow. The Prairie Dog Coalition and CPW have been working on an incentive program involving a habitat quantification tool to assess conservation net gain so property owners can purchase conservation credits. How is the relocation of the Lemay Ave prairie dogs going? The Prairie Dog Coalition reports that all but one nest box is being used which is a good sign. The PDC doesn't track success rates. What is the future of prairie dogs at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area? If the prairie dogs cross Taft Hill Rd, would you allow them to recolonize? 9 Attachment 6 Natural Areas is seeing good population and relocation success. Staff will continue to watch and monitor the colonies. There are areas east of Taft Hill Road that host rare plants, quality grasslands and ecological restoration sites where prairie dogs will not be allowed. At this time there is only a small amount of available habitat east of Taft Hill Road on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. Please provide more detail on the plague vaccine that is being developed. Could you describe the relationship between high density of prairie dogs and increase in plague cases? Plague is a disease transmitted by fleas onto prairie dogs and other species. Plague typically emerges in the summer. Flea density plays a role in the spread of plague; when there are higher numbers of fleas, plague tends to spread more rapidly. The more dense the burrows of the prairie dog colony are, the more rapid the spread of fleas carrying plague. Plague can kill an entire prairie dog colony. At the same time, plague may be present without effecting populations at all. CPW currently kills fleas by dusting colonies. It costs approximately $30/acre and lasts about 9 months. Research on a sylvatic plague vaccine is underway. The vaccine doesn't kill the fleas; it protects (inoculates) the prairie dogs. It is being tested at Soapstone Prairie and there have been positive results. CPW is currently ramping up production of the vaccine bait, with a goal of being able to treat 10,000 acres per year. Focus areas will be black -footed ferret conservation sites and Gunnison prairie dog sites in southern and western Colorado. What is the prairie dog's experience when fumigation is used? Carbon monoxide is considered the most humane fumigant and is recommended as the only allowable lethal control for development sites in the update to the Land Use Code. Carbon monoxide is the only lethal control method used by the Natural Areas Department. Other fumigants are allowed on private property not undergoing development review. What prairie dog education is currently available? The Prairie Dog Coalition has a goal of reaching 1,000 students per year using a wide range of strategies from puppet shows to presentations on college campuses. The Prairie Dog Relocation Group also is working on an educational video. CPW has an education section that does a lot to teach the public about grasslands, including a video. They've been doing a lot of education with private land owners related to black -footed ferret conservation and prairie dogs on their properties. The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department provided over 300 educational activities last year to 18,000 people, many of which focused on the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Are there opportunities to include Watchable Wildlife Areas as an educational tool? Fort Collins' City Council adopted a Nature in the City Strategic Plan which coordinates with multiple city departments. There are several natural areas around town that provide prairie dog viewing such as The Coterie Natural Area. Additional Forum Questions Due to time limitations, not all questions were addressed at the Forum. These additional questions were submitted on post -it notes. C! Attachment 6 Question/ Comment Response Please explain how the The relocation to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area was approved by current relocation project the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department and Colorado Parks was approved? By one and Wildlife after a public engagement process that included mailings person, by a committee, by to neighbors and Home Owner Associations within 1/8 mile of the the City Council? Why was natural area, a trailhead flyer, social media posts, a press release, an there not a vote by the article in Natural Areas Enewsletter, posts on the Natural Areas citizens near this site Department webpage, listing on electronic event calendars, emails to offered? City Council, City leadership, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, and requests for feedback were mailed to Larimer County Commissioners, Larimer County Health Department, and US Geological Survey. An open house was held on April 19 and attended by 70 people. Comments were accepted at the Open House and online; 165 comments were received; 29 concerned, 5 no objections and 131 in support. recently read in the In the update to the Guidelines that is being proposed, lethal control Coloradoan that policy will still be used, especially in urban natural areas where prairie dogs toward the prairie dogs has are near exclusion zones that host rare flora or fauna, are near changed from "management" residential developments or are in active grassland restorations. The (i.e. killing) to relocation. Natural Areas Department's intent is to sustain approximately 10%- Please comment on the 20% occupation of suitable habitat. Please note that occupation is only changes. partly influenced by the City, independent factors such as climate and disease play a major role. In certain locations, occupation may be below or above these percentages. Only carbon monoxide is used for lethal management as it is the most humane method. So, if Soapstone Prairie In the update to the Guidelines that is being proposed, Soapstone Natural Area has 3,000 or Prairie Natural Area could be a relocation site under certain conditions. less occupied acres of prairie dogs, other prairie dogs could be augmented or relocated into SSN? City of Ft Collins has an No representatives from Larimer County were present to respond as active prairie dog program, the Forum was hosted by City of Fort Collins. but does Larimer County? Is anyone here from County Government? Are the intentions of the City No representatives from Larimer County were present to respond as and Larimer County to grow the Forum was hosted by City of Fort Collins. As noted above, the the number of acres of prairie Natural Areas Department's intent is to sustain approximately 10%- dog colonies? 20% occupation in suitable habitat. The City's ability to sustain these percentages depends on some factors outside of, or only partially, within its control (for example climate and disease). What defines a "suitable The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department requires a 300 foot habitat" for relocation near buffer from residential areas. housing areas? Should there be another The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department's intent to manage drought, what is the plan to for a 10%-20% prairie dog occupation urban natural areas was set protect the prairie grasses based on experience from the mid-2000's and accounts for drought from over consumption by conditions. R Attachment 6 Question/ Comment Response the prairie dog colonies? (Such as 2007 -2009 - has photos of Cathy Fromme) Will prairie dogs be added to The list is yet to be determined, future public outreach will include the the city's list of species of opportunity to provide input on the species of concern list. special concern? Mitigation for developers is In one recent example, a value of $900/acre was required for mitigation set at $900/acre of disturbed of the loss of a prairie dog colony on a development site. However, prairie dogs. Will that cost mitigation requirements for various natural resources are determined stay the same? on a case -by -case basis and depend on the value of the resource or habitat that is lost. The City of Fort Collins has not yet determined whether a set cost would be applied for the loss of prairie dog colonies, what the appropriate amount would be, and if other mitigation options may be allowable (e.g., relocation instead of eradication, on -site habitat enhancements for other species, etc.). The mitigation strategy will be finalized throughout this process, with ongoing opportunities for community input. Could developers be forgiven The City is currently exploring this as a mitigation option for developers paying mitigation if they that could be used instead of other forms of mitigation (e.g., payment - agree to relocate? in -lieu for habitat loss). Staff is supportive of this option as an alternative form of mitigation for the loss of prairie dog colonies assuming relocation sites can be found. What other incentives could Options could include requiring contributions into a "bank" that funds you give developers to use prairie dog relocation or grassland restoration or allowing relocation in non- lethal means of place of mitigation requirements. In some cases, prairie dogs may be controlling prairie dogs? able to persist on a portion of a development site that remains undeveloped, which may be encouraged by the City in some situations. In addition, the Prairie Dog Coalition is working on a habitat quantification tool to assess habitat value, if the tool were implemented in Fort Collins then conservation credits could be purchased, which could be another option for developers. How many acres of prairie The Natural Areas Department has used aerial photography to dogs are living on private determine that there are approximately 300 acres of prairie dogs on lands in the city? private lands within the City's Growth Management Area. r Attachment 6 Question/ Comment Response Is Fort Collins doing anything In recent years, there has been significant population growth in to limit how much communities all along the Front Range, including in Fort Collins - this is development is happening in something that nearly every nearby community is dealing with. Growth the city? and development in Fort Collins can be directly tied to the quality of jobs and quality of life within our community. The community's comprehensive plan, City Plan, provides guidance for how and where development should occur, and seeks to balance the values and priorities of our community with the private property rights of landowners. In addition, the City has established a fixed Growth Management Area to limit outward growth toward other communities. While the City cannot infringe upon the inherent rights of property owners to develop and increase the value of their properties, the City does have extensive regulations that restrict the type and character of the development that occurs. Community residents are strongly encouraged to participate at all stages of the development review process, as well as in long-range planning efforts, such as future updates to City Plan. Are prairie dog den holes The Forum panel is not aware of resources to answer this question. dangerous to livestock? Is there any conclusive data? The City of Ft Collins kills the This spot may be managed by North Poudre Irrigation Company prairie dogs on their land by (private land owner), or it may be Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area - the dam off of Frontage Road we are not sure from the description. In the natural area, prairie dogs of 125 and 392. Why do they are lethally managed to maintain the current occupation rate and do that? prevent erosion and overgrazing. Written Comment Forms A paper comment form was available at the Open House that asked: • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Land Use Code changes • Any other comments? • Are you a Larimer County resident? (circle one) Yes No • How did you hear about this project? • If you would like to stay involved as the guidelines and code are developed, please share your email address. We will only contact you about this project. City of Fort Collins responses to the comments are below (comments are in bold, responses follow). If you continue to allow the killing, make it the last choice. Have people relocate first and have regulations in place for public notices to give opportunity for rescue. We vote every year to fund our public land and we should be able to fund land for the prairie dogs. This question applies to both operations by Natural Areas on public properties as well as development regulations applied to private lands: F Attachment 6 Natural Areas is recommending relocation options as well as continued use of lethal control. Details regarding the proposed revisions to the Wildlife Management Guidelines are at fcqov.com/naturalareas. Planning Services is recommending a number of changes to the Land Use Code that would require additional consideration and mitigation for prairie dog colonies that are impacted by development projects. If approved, these requirements may make relocation more attractive for some property owners and developers. However, it is important to recognize that relocating prairie dogs is significantly more costly and time consuming than eradication for a property owner or developer. All proposed development projects, regardless of whether the contain prairie dog colonies, are required to post a notification sign on the property for the duration of the development review process. Additional information about these projects can be found at any time online at www.fcgov.com/developmentreview, or by contacting the Planning Services office directly. It might be advantageous to develop a program which allows people to volunteer doing hands on conservation work in order to accomplish more without significantly increasing costs. I understand that there is a colony in town being relocated by volunteers. More of this grassroots type of involvement in conservation could go a long way. Volunteers play an important role in wildlife relocations. Relocations also require the leadership of an experienced, professional wildlife management organization. A recommendation: Look into cooperative management plans with private landowners. By collaborating and working with private landowners we have more power to persuade non- lethal management. There are private landowners in Larimer County who have entered into agreements and incentive programs with federal agencies to conserve areas for the conservation of the black -footed ferret recovery. This typically involves protections of the ferret's habitat including prairie dog towns. Biggest concern for developers is cost, so how will the city address this if non -lethal is more expensive compared to lethal control? One way to do this is for the city to offer some form of assistance. This has been done around the country, specifically with farmers and wildlife species. I cannot recall the name of the program, but I know it has had success as the farmer is essentially being rewarded for promoting healthy habitats and wildlife coexistence. As noted above, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) administers several federal programs that promote grassland -related conservation. The Natural Areas Department is not recommending that the City fund private conservation efforts for prairie dogs. Fumigation is cheaper which is what causes this huge controversy in control and management. It's cheaper because application is quicker and more convenient than relocation costs. What if we raise the price of fumigation because not only is it painful for the animal, but potentially can be damaging to the environment (other wildlife could consume). This is a cost in itself although it's not presented by money. Like I mentioned earlier, offering a reward system/credit system for beneficial and healthy practices for the environment. (Also toxins could persist in environment causing more, indirect damage, risks to humans as well.) The City of Fort Collins does not regulate cost of fumigants or cost of services in the private sector for lethal control. For two years now, the Natural Areas Department has used pressurized carbon OP Attachment 6 monoxide gas that is the most humane and environmentally benign method for lethal management of prairie dogs. The City's Planning Services staff is proposing that developers be required to use carbon monoxide treatment methods rather than other fumigants. Planning Services is also proposing increased requirements for protection and/or mitigation for the loss of prairie dog colonies, which may make relocation more attractive for some property owners and developers. Building a grasslands nature center and require schools to take a field trip there at certain age (kids are a great population to educate as they are excited and eager to learn — they are our future after all). The Natural Areas Department has conducted a variety of prairie dog and grassland conservation education and outreach for more than 20 years. In 2015, over 300 educational activities reached 18,000 people. The City cannot require local school districts to incorporate mandatory field trips/etc. Doing this could create revenue for grasslands management — with a focus on prairie dogs due to ecological importance. Education is huge; there are a lot of misunderstandings and confusion around the subject of prairie dogs. The Natural Areas Department is the largest environmental education provider in Larimer County with a team of three full-time employees, three seasonal employees, and 1,800 volunteers. In 2015, over 300 educational activities reached 18,000 people. It has been our policy since our program's early days to provide free, high quality educational programming to local school districts and the community. Soapstone already has black -footed ferrets, which are one of the most endangered mammals in North America, so there is already so much investment in a species that is a prairie dog obligate carnivore. Considering a wide array of tactics to support the grassland ecosystem that is of such conservation value at SSN is necessary. Restoring grasslands is a great endeavor that Ft. Collins is undertaking, but guidelines to determine when a restored grassland can be habitat for native species, such as btpd should be established. It says that it is unknown when btpd will be ok on restored grasslands. What's the point of doing habitat restoration if it is not to support CO native species? Grassland restorations are conducted within the urban core of Fort Collins, not Soapstone Prairie. Urban natural areas often have widespread non-native plants, developed borders, and other stressors that make maintaining native prairie challenging within the city. The City's efforts to restore grasslands are making substantial progress: to date there are 1,700 acres of disturbed grasslands and former farmlands on their way to becoming native. These areas already support a myriad of native species, including declining bird species. Nevertheless, it will take time for these areas to mature to a point at which they are sufficiently stable to support heavy grazing by prairie dogs. At this time the City does not have specific criteria to determine when, or if, prairie dogs should be reintroduced to restored grasslands. Key decision factors include: presence/absence of other species of concern/interest; boundary conditions; climatic conditions; and, ecological objectives for all natural areas managed by the City. If there is an educational program for the public to teach them the importance and need of prairie dogs, what/where is it advertised? What about utilizing say Public Radio? For over 20 years the Natural Areas Department has provided educational material, field trips, and other efforts for both adults and children alike. Similarly, the Natural Areas Department has hosted professional field trips and workshops that focused on best practices in managing urban prairie dog towns. With limited budgets, public radio advertising/sponsorship is only used to promote large events W Attachment 6 and special occasions. Very pleased that the City is opening up space to receive prairie dog relocations and changing LUC in consideration of prairie dogs. Would like to see more done to encourage and incentivize developers to relocate other than exterminate. The City could encourage developers to relocate prairie dogs through regulatory incentives. For example, reducing or eliminating requirements for mitigation of the loss of a prairie dog colony in exchange for relocating the colony instead. The City can also provide information about relocation opportunities to developers who are interested in that approach. However, it is important to recognize that relocating prairie dogs is significantly more costly and time consuming than eradication for a property owner or developer. Thank you for the dialogue and considering these wonderful creatures. Thank you for your comment. What can City do to persuade developers to relocate rather than exterminate prairie dogs? The City could encourage developers to relocate prairie dogs through regulatory incentives. For example, reducing or eliminating requirements for mitigation of the loss of a prairie dog colony in exchange for relocating the colony instead. The City can also provide information about relocation opportunities to developers who are interested in that approach. However, it is important to recognize that relocating prairie dogs is significantly more costly and time consuming than eradication for a property owner or developer. Is it possible to create an animal/wildlife sanctuary on private property? How large would the area need to be? Yes, it is possible for the private sector to establish sanctuaries on private properties within the considerations of the City's Land Use Code. Financial resources and long-term stewardship would be required to ensure the health and sustainability of the land and wildlife. As a Wildlife Biologist who understands the importance prairie dogs play in healthy ecosystems they should be equally valued by the city. The City agrees that prairie dogs are an important component of urban and regional natural areas. Ft. Collins should celebrate its keystone species such as prairie dogs — I find them endearing and the colonies are the main reason I bring my family members to visit Ft Collins!! Great! Fort Collins' Natural Areas Program serves as both a respected example to other cities looking to conserve local and regional natural areas as well as being a key factor in what makes Fort Collins such a special place to live. One of the most prominent assets of Fort Collins' natural areas is wildlife, which is an important part of Fort Collins' natural and cultural heritage. It is imperative that native wildlife be protected from exotic threats. Feral cats pose such a threat, and need to be kept from natural areas. Scientific studies show that, nationally, feral cats kill billions of native birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians annually. Natural Areas agrees. Scientific studies document the devastating impact of feral cats on native bird populations. T Attachment 6 (1). These numbers far exceed the take of native predators and are a significant factor in the decline and extinction of many native wildlife species. Even though many feral -cat supporting organizations desire feral cats to be considered protected wildlife, they are an exotic species (2) and a major problem for wildlife management (3). Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR) programs, sponsored by some organizations, appropriately provide neutering, which helps prevent unwanted reproduction. Unfortunately, many feral cats are then returned to a harsh and cruel life in the wild, where they continue to kill native wildlife. Additionally, numerous scientific studies have shown that Trap, Neuter and Release fails to reduce population numbers (4). Feral and free -roaming cats contract diseases beyond those they have been inoculated against and are subjected to traffic and other accidents, harsh weather, attacks by wild animals and dogs, and human mistreatment. Thank you for your comment. We propose feral cats be trapped, neutered and adopted whenever possible, or if not adoptable, kept in an enclosed area where they can be provided food and water, shelter, veterinary care, regular waste removal, and safety (for both the cats and wildlife). Many animal and wildlife organizations oppose abandoning or returning cats to the wild, including The Wildlife Society, American Bird Conservancy, National Association of Public Health Veterinarians, National Audubon Society, and Fort Collins Audubon Society. Consistent with the City's current regulations protecting wildlife and against the release of cats into the wild, cats should be kept out of the City's natural areas. (1)The Impact of Free -ranging Domestic Cats on Wildlife in the U.S. Nature Communications 4, article #1396 (2) The Wildlife Society, Feral Cats: Impacts of an Invasive Species (3) Why American Songbirds Are Vanishing. Scientific American, 226:98-104 (4) Trap -Neuter -Release programs: the reality and the impacts. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 225:1369-1376. Submitted: Bill Miller, Ron Harden — Fort Collins Audubon Society Board Members Current City Municipal code prohibits animals at large (see below). Sec. 4-93. Animals at large prohibited. (a) All pet animals, except birds, shall be kept under restraint. It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any pet animal, except birds, to permit such animal to be at large in the City, with or without the owner or keeper's knowledge. It's refreshing to see the City working with local and regional groups to find humane ways of dealing with prairie dogs. I was part of a group that tried very hard, 10 — 15 years ago and was rejected, lied to and deceived by City officials. Thank you for your comment. Prairie dogs are a natural part of the world — remove them and a whole ecosystem collapses. They can and always have co -existed with bison and other prairie animals. Thank you for your comment. Prairie dog colonies are much prettier than that horrid development. Thank you for your comment. 11 Attachment 6 Online Comment Form A comment form was available at fcgov.com/naturaIareas. The questions were: • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Land Use Code changes • Any other comments? • Are you a Larimer County resident? (circle one) Yes No • How did you hear about this project? • If you would like to stay involved as the guidelines and code are developed, please share your email address. We will only contact you about this project. Comments received as of August 10 include: I wholeheartedly support protecting prairie dogs in the city and requiring all developers to relocate prairie dogs. If relocation is not possible, humanely euthanizing colonies is the only acceptable way for developers to move forward with construction. At this point they are just digging right into colonies, which results in much suffering for these sentient beings. See above. I will also note that I find the city's lack of prairie dog protections to be very much at odds with what I see throughout town - e.g., the museum encourages protection and prairie dogs are painted on city property. It's hypocritical. The requirement for a colony to be 50 acres or greater is just silly. The city should take every opportunity to promote and further conservation such as through relocation or fees for mitigation when habitat or colonies are destroyed for development. I agree with the proposed change of removing the 50 requirement. I also think that the 10-20% prairie dog occupation goal has its ups and downs. On one hand it provides a minimum goal to work toward but on the other hand, once that goal is met, it can be used as an excuse to do nothing when something should be done especially with black -footed ferrets in Soapstone. It might be advantageous to develop a program which allows people to volunteer doing hands on conservation work in order to accomplish more without significantly increasing costs. I understand that there is a colony in town being relocated by volunteers. More of this grassroots type of involvement in conservation could go a long way. think we need more land set aside for prairie dog relocation. I do not agree with lethal control and think we should show / teach compassion. I like the idea of a Prairie Dog Park I like many of the proposed changes as it moves us to consider more details, I do not agree that lethal control is the best way. I think we can come up with some great solutions without killing. If you continue to allow the killing, make it the last choice. have people relocate first and have regulations in place for public notices to give opportunity for rescue. We vote every year to fund our public land and we should be able to fund land for the prairie dogs. A. Moving prairie dogs from private to public lands needs to be an option. If you don't allow this movement it will be too difficult for private landowners to find suitable properties. They'll choose the extermination option. Basically, we're signing prairie dog death warrants. B. The City's proposal to increase the current 1500 acres allotted to prairie dogs in Soapstone and Meadow Springs Ranch to 3000 acres is great. I'd like to see this increased even more in the future. A. The proposal to remove the current rule that lacks any protection or mitigation of impacts to prairie dog colonies less than 50 acres in size is much needed. These smaller colonies are viable, and the proposal that recognizes this is a good one. B. Extermination options need to be removed completely. Regardless of how "humane" we try to frame it, the fact is it is still extermination and it's a lazy and cruel way to deal with matters. W Attachment 6 Fort Collins is on the brink of destroying many of our best assets through over development. We have to protect what makes our City special. We're already overloading our roads and green spaces with housing, traffic and overcrowding. We now have to search to find a small place where we can view our foothills, due to parking garages, stadiums and residential development. We'll never get that back. Preserving our wildlife, and the open spaces and land they need to survive, is more important than ever. If we don't, we're just another congested city that went for money over quality of life, with nothing unique or special about it. appreciate the systems -based approach that the City is taking in addressing not just prairie dogs, but also ferrets, bison, etc. as our Natural Areas, in order to be successful, will need to conserve entire systems -- not just a few animal species. A diverse mix of native plants and animals are an important part of any successful approach. I enthusiastically support the City's proposal to eliminate the 50-acre minimum acreage for prairie dog colonies, understanding that smaller colonies are viable and serve an important role in preserving biodiversity. Prairie dogs are a keystone species and make possible the existence of many other species. Thank you for taking such an enlightened approach to this issue. I think it's important, as we think about managing prairie dogs in Colorado, to keep in mind just how diminished prairie dogs' populations are from what they were naturally, and to also keep in mind that we're one of just a few states that still have prairie dogs in our midst. Because they're commonly seen locally, we can sometimes fall into a mindset of thinking of them as if they're a plentiful species, when in fact there are far fewer of them than might be ideal in a prairie ecosystem. The guidelines that are proposed do seem to acknowledge this, but as we make decisions going forward, it would be helpful to keep prairie dogs' small populations in mind when (as an example) we're faced with the choice between killing them (the quick, cheap choice) and relocating them (the more time consuming, more expensive choice.) Preserving this species, including adequate population numbers to keep its genetic diversity healthy, is important and we should think long and hard before killing any of them. IN Agenda Item 4 PROJECT NAME COPPERLEAF PDP 160026 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner :1:Z0llx"21kqI;[QV►vile'llIIQkq PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a P.D.P. for a multi -family project that consists of 94 units on 2.98 acres. There would be three buildings. Two buildings are three -stories and one building is two stories. There would be a total of 110 bedrooms. There would be 147 parking spaces. The site is currently being used for outside storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, R.V.'s, etc. and includes an existing house and outbuildings all of which would be removed. Access would be gained from Shields Street but restricted to right-in/right-out only. Full access would be gained from Richmond Drive. The parcel is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. There are three Requests for Modification. The first request is to allow the length of the garages to exceed 55 feet. The second request is to allow less than 10,000 square feet for a private park or central feature and gathering area. The third request is allow less than 25 feet of buffer along the north and south property lines. APPLICANT: Brinkman Partners TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: BCS, LLC. c/o Mr. Scott Ranweiler Brinkman Partners 3528 Precision Drive, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the three Requests for Modification and approval of the P.D.P. Item # 4 Page 1 Agenda Item 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. complies with the applicable development standards of the M-M-N zone district. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with three exceptions. The first modification request is to allow the length of the garages to exceed 55 feet by 5 feet to 60 feet. The second request is to allow 2,600 square feet versus 10,000 square feet for a private park or central feature and gathering area. The third request is allow less than 25 feet of buffer along the south property line for Building C (17.9 feet) and Garage 5 (5.9 feet), and the north property line for (Garages 1 and 2 (5.0 feet). 1 inch = 600 feet Copperleaf Apartments Item # 4 Page 2 Agenda Item 4 1, Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N R-L Single Family (Chaparral Subdivision) S N-C Neighborhood Convenience Center (Grease Monkey, Duplexes) E M-M-N Existing Multi -Family (Willow Grove at Cunningham Corner) W M-M-N Existing Single Family Attached (Casa Grande Condominiums) The site was annexed as part of the larger 48-acre Werner Annexation in 1980. There has been no development activity on the site. The R.V, boat and storage yard evolved over the years as a legal non- conforming use. There have been various projects regarding this parcel brought forward to Conceptual Review in the past but this is the first PDP submittal. 2. Compliance with Applicable M-M-N Zone District Standards: A. Section 4.6(D)(1) — Density This standard requires that for parcels 20 acres or less, the project must have an overall minimum average density of 7 dwelling units per net acre. With 94 units on 2.98 acres, the density equals 31.5 dwelling units per net acre. B. Section 4.6(D)(2) — Secondary Uses This standard requires that for projects that are less than 10 acres, the PDP does not have to provide a secondary use but, instead, must demonstrate how it contributes to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area. The immediate area is characterized by both commercial and residential land uses. To the south is a neighborhood convenience shopping center that includes vehicular minor repair, child care center, convenience store with fuel sales, medical office and two-family attached dwellings. To the west is multi -family and to the north is single family detached. The project contributes to this mix with the addition of a fourth housing type that will enrich the choice of housing options in the neighborhood. Further, the proposed apartments will create additional support for the convenience shopping center and transit. These factors comply with the following City Plan Principles and Policies: "Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District." (Page 80.) C. Section 4.6(D)(3) — Building Height This standard requires that buildings do not exceed three stories. The project includes two buildings at three stories and one building at a combination of two and three stories thus complying with the standard. Item # 4 Page 3 Agenda Item 4 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection There are four existing shade trees along Shields Street (located behind the existing attached sidewalk.) One of these trees is dead. Three trees will be preserved and one tree added for a total of four trees along Shields Street in compliance with the standard. Since an attached sidewalk along an arterial street is no longer an acceptable standard, this sidewalk will be removed and replaced by a new 6-foot wide detached sidewalk per the standard for a four -lane arterial street. If this new detached sidewalk were placed in accordance with LCUASS, it would be in conflict with three of the existing street trees. Instead, the new walk will be routed around the existing trees effectively doubling the parkway width to 21 feet. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) -Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities As mentioned, there are multi -family dwellings to the west and two-family dwellings and vehicle minor repair to the south. Along the north property line there are three single family detached dwellings that are part of the Chaparral Subdivision. While it is debatable that the juxtaposition between the proposed multi -family dwellings and the single family homes to the north does not rise to the level of being considered incompatible, the P.D.P. provides buffering in the form of landscaping and the placement of two one-story garages, with pitched roofs, at a setback that is equal to the side yard setback for a single family detached home. These garages will help screen the view from two of the houses. For the third house, Building B is setback 40 feet from the property line allowing two of the mature trees to be preserved as well as placement of new landscaping. Finally, Building B has been reduced in height from three to two stories to lower the profile that is exposed to the north. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a)(b) -Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The buildings are arranged such that the 110 of the 120 surface parking spaces are located interior to the site and well -screened from view from the surrounding properties and Shields Street. For the remaining 10 surface spaces (three on the north and seven on the west property lines), these are set back and landscaped in accordance with the standard. Note that with five garages, at five spaces per garage, there are 25 enclosed spaces located along the north, west and south property lines. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) -Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The interior parking lot features 10% interior landscaping, in the form of islands, thus complying with the requirement for parking lots with more than 100 spaces. E. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Mitigation The site includes 24 existing trees in a variety of species and condition. Because the site has been used for decades as an outdoor storage yard, many of these trees have been neglected and are in varying states of health. The City Forester has evaluated these trees and a mitigation schedule has been established and summarized as follows: Item # 4 Page 4 Agenda Item 4 Preserved 8 Removed with Mitigation 11 Removed with No Mitigation 1 Dead — No Mitigation 4 Total 24 As a result, per the mitigation schedule, the Landscape Plan will feature 21 new trees that are up - sized in caliper. F. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking - General Standard This standard requires that the parking and circulation system accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycle, pedestrians and transit throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently. The site is presently served by two access points, one off Shields Street and one off a private drive to the south that connects to Richmond Drive. Both of these access points will be retained with the notable restriction that the Shields Street driveway would be limited to right -in / right -out turns only. The internal parking lot system has been designed in conjunction with the Poudre Fire Authority to ensure proper emergency access to all three buildings as well as a second point of access. There are three connecting walkways to Shields Street and one to the private access drive. Due to existing development on three sides, there are no opportunities to connect to the adjoining residential neighborhoods except via the existing access easement that connects into Richmond Drive. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(1)(a)(b) - Development Standards - Safety Considerations These standards require that the access and circulation system be safe for all modes, and that there is sufficient safety to protect bikes and pedestrians from vehicles. As noted, the access to Richmond Drive is a private access easement, dedicated by Horsetooth Commons P.U.D. in 1987, that is 40-feet wide. The easterly 16 feet is for the benefit of Grease Monkey and serves as their only access and employee parking. The westerly 24 feet are for the benefit of Copperleaf and is designed to allow for two-way traffic and a second point of emergency access. Within this 24-foot wide drive, there would be four feet striped along the west edge for pedestrians with one extra foot for safe hit delineators (flexible plastic tubing). Due to existing constraints, this four foot walkway will act as a de -facto attached sidewalk but it will not be raised concrete. Signage and striping (thermoplastic not paint) will alert drivers that this is a pedestrian zone. As with all public local streets, there will be no separate bike lane as bikes are allowed to use the travel lanes on local streets due to the low volume of vehicles. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Parking For multi -family, the required minimum number of bike parking spaces is one per bedroom and that a minimum of 60% be covered with the remainder in fixed exterior racks. The P.D.P. will include a total of 110 bedrooms and 110 bike spaces are provided. These spaces are divided between 66 (60%) covered and 44 (40%) in fixed racks. The covered bicycle parking is provided by wall -mounted racks within the breezeways of each building. Item # 4 Page 5 Agenda Item 4 Section 3.2.2(C)(5) — Walkways As noted, there are three walkways out to the public sidewalk on Shields Street; two along the driveway and one south of Building A. As noted, there will be one connection south to Richmond Drive. J. Sections 3.2.2(6)(7) — Direct On -Site and Off -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations The 2.98 acre parcel represents an infill site with limited opportunities for connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. As a result, connections are provided where feasible. The three sidewalk connections to Shields Street are direct and convenient. As noted, the pedestrian connection to the south, however, is an off -site improvement located within the westerly 24 feet of the private access easement and will be four feet wide, on -grade, extended south to Richmond Drive and protected by a one -foot wide zone with raised delineators. K. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) —Required Number of Off -Street Parking Spaces The project consists of 78 one -bedroom units and 16 two -bedroom units which requires 145 spaces. The P.D.P. provides 147 parking spaces in a combination of surface (122) and garage (25) parking spaces. Compliance with the standard is achieved in the following manner: One -bedroom units Two -bedroom units Total Required Total Provided 78 x 1.5 = 117 16 x 1.75 = 28 = 145 = 147 Although not an applicable standard outside the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone, (T.O.D.), the Planning and Zoning Board has taken a keen interest in the ratio of parking spaces (147) to the total number of bedrooms (110). In this case, the ratio equals 1.33 spaces per bedroom compared to the requirement in the T.O.D. that this ratio be no less than .75 spaces per bedroom. L. Section 3.2.2(E) —Solar Access, Orientation, Shading This standard requires that the buildings be oriented so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm on December 21 st. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis that indicates the 25-foot high hypothetical wall along the north property line in comparison to the shadow cast to the northeast and northwest by Building B in the morning and afternoon on December 21st. The comparison demonstrates that the building casts a shadow at both times of day that is less impactful than the shadow cast by the 25-foot high hypothetical wall. M. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting All pole and building -mounted lighting will feature down -directional and fully -shielded fixtures. In addition, pole -mounted lighting located along the perimeter of the site will include house -side shields as an extra measure to prevent illumination from spilling over the property line. At the time of Final Plan, the amount of illumination in the north -facing breezeway stairwells of Building B will be evaluated to ensure compliance with spillover lighting. Item # 4 Page 6 Agenda Item 4 N. Section 3.2.5 — Trash and Recycling Enclosures There will be three trash and recycling enclosures, one per building. These are adequately sized, conveniently located and evenly distributed in compliance with the standard. O. Section 3.5.1(A)(B) —Building and Project Compatibility This standard requires that the project demonstrate compatibility with the established character of the area by using a design that is complementary and if there is no definitively defined character, then the design must set an enhanced standard of quality. As noted, the area is characterized by a mix of uses and styles in the following manner: North: Single family detached homes constructed in the 1990's South: Five, one-story, brick duplexes constructed in the 1960's South: Commercial buildings constructed in the 19801s. West: Single-family detached homes constructed in the 1990's With the variety of architectural styles, the proposed site development and buildings bear the burden of setting an enhanced standard of quality. This is accomplished by the following attributes: • The site preserves six mature trees, especially the three along the north property line; • A six foot high wood fence, with masonry columns, will be provided along the north and south property lines that adjoin the residential neighborhood; • The existing masonry wall along the west property line will be retained; • One-story garages, with pitched roofs, are placed along the perimeter; • Surface parking lots are placed in the interior and screened from view; • The northerly building will be two -stories; • The three buildings feature a mix of exterior materials, articulation, and have a residential character. P. Section 3.5.1(C) —Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale This standard requires that buildings must be either 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, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property or opposing block face or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection. In response, the applicant has provided architectural character elevations that include the following attributes: • All buildings are less than 40 feet in height; • Masonry (stone veneer) is provided as an accent material; • Horizontal siding is residential in character; • Two types of vertical siding adds interest and helps mitigate the bulk; • Rooflines are shallow -pitched to lower the overall profile of the mass. While the three proposed buildings would be the largest in the immediate surrounding area, their size, height, bulk, mass and scale are proportionally broken down and sufficiently articulated to be found compatible with the neighborhood. Item # 4 Page 7 Agenda Item 4 Q. Section 3.5.1(D) — Privacy Considerations As mentioned, the height of Building B, located closest to the north property line, has been reduced to two -stories to preserve privacy in relationship to the nearest adjoining house. The applicant has provided a cross-section that illustrates the view lines from the homes to the north to Building B (see applicant's attachment). There is 40 feet from Building B to the north property line and the houses have approximately a 15 rear yard setback. Within Building B's 40-foot setback, there are mature trees that are being preserved, a pergola, landscaping and a six-foot high fence (with masonry columns at the property corners) along the property line. Staff finds that these features, combined with the distance, afford a reasonable level of privacy for the existing homes. R. Section 3.5.1(H) —Land Use Transition This section requires that when land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not possible, the P.D.P. must, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses. Staff interprets this standard in such a way as to find that the relationship between the proposed P.D.P and the adjoining uses is most pronounced along the north property line. In response, the following mitigation measures will be provided: • Building B is setback from the north property line by 40 feet; • A six foot high privacy fence, with masonry columns, will be constructed along the north property line; • Building B has been reduced to two -stories, not a combination of two and three; • Landscaping along the north property line is designed to exceed the height of the privacy fence; • The placement of two one-story garages along the north property line will act as a lower -scaled transition of building height and mass; • Three existing mature trees will be preserved along the north property; • Two new shade trees will be planted between Building B and the north property line. S. Section 3.5.2(D) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking This standard requires that all multi -family buildings face onto and connect to the public street sidewalks to the extent reasonably feasible. Where the shape or size of the parcel precludes such orientation, then connecting walkways that do not exceed 200 feet must be provided. In compliance, Building A fronts on Shields Street. The two walkways are tied to the public sidewalk. Buildings B and C, while being 228 and 230 west of Shields Street respectively, remain well connected by the internal system of walkways that are direct and convenient. Staff finds that given the size and shape of the parcel (a deep rectangle with the short side facing Shields Street), that Buildings B and C comply with the standard to the maximum extent feasible. T. Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a,b) — Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages These standards require that the rear walls of multi -family garages that are within 65 feet of a property line not exceed 55 feet in length and be articulated every 30 feet with an architectural expression. There are five garages located along three property lines that contain five spaces each. 1. Modification. Each of the five garages is 60 feet in length exceeding the standard by five feet. The applicant has submitted a Request for Modification which is attached. Item # 4 Page 8 Agenda Item 4 2. Applicant's Justification. The applicant contends that rear elevation of the detached garages will be articulated and varied to avoid monotony. This is accomplished by each garage featuring two wall plane projections with a pitched roof accent and vertical versus horizontal siding. In addition, the height of the garages is 13.25 feet which is equivalent to a one-story single family home. All garages are setback from the property line by a minimum of five feet which equals the minimum internal side yard requirement in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone district. Within this setback, there will be a variety of plant material all specifically designed to exceed six feet in height so as to be visible over the fence at the time of maturity. 3. Staff Evaluation. The placement of garages along the perimeter of a multi -family project is generally an effective site planning element since garages have a low profile and they screen surface parking lots. The five garages are only five feet out of standard. The rooflines and rear elevations are designed in a manner that exceeds the standard. The garages are distributed such that there are two on the north, two on the west and one on the south so no one side will experience more than 120 feet of the rear elevation of the garages. As noted in the applicant's justification, architectural elements have been added to the rear wall of these garages in a manner that exceeds the standard in order to mitigate the extra five feet of rear wall length. 4. Staff Finding. Staff finds that the rear elevations are well -designed and are not monotonous. Each garage is articulated by two wall plane projects, accented rooflines and two patterns of siding. This level of articulation exceeds the degree of architectural detail called for in Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(b). Staff therefore, finds that the request to extend the length of the five garages by five feet would not be detrimental to the public good. In addition, as proposed, the length of the garages, and their rear wall architectural elevations, will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan for which the Modification is requested. U. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study was submitted and is attached for reference. This study concludes: • The following intersections will operate acceptably with recommended geometry and traffic control: o Shields / Richmond o Shields / Site Access Private Drive o Shields / Cunningham o Richmond / Commercial Center Site Access (Grease Monkey) • Pedestrian Level of Service is rated as C for the six destinations identified within 1,320 feet (one - quarter mile) of the project. This rating is acceptable for this area of the City. • Bicycle Level of Service is not rated because there are no destinations areas (per the stated criteria) within 1,320 feet of the site. Rocky Mountain High School, however, is located approximately one-half mile to the north and there are bike lanes on Shields Street which conveniently connect to the high school campus. • The site is served by Transfort Route 19 along Shields Street and by Transfort Route 12 along Horsetooth Road. These two routes operate with 30 minute headways in the morning peak (7:00 — 10:00 am) and in the afternoon peak (2:30 — 5:30 pm). • The Route 19 bus stop is located near the Shields / Richmond intersection. • The Route 12 bus stop is located near the Shields / Horsetooth intersection. Item # 4 Page 9 Agenda Item 4 4. Compliance with Section 3.8,30 — Multi -Family Development Standards: A. Section 3.8.30(C) — Access to Park, Central Feature, Gathering Place This standard requires that 90% of the units be within one -quarter mile of a public or private park. For projects that are greater than two acres, if a private park is the basis for compliance, then such park must be no less than 10,000 square feet. The site is 2.98 acres and is greater than one -quarter mile from Rossborough Park. The P.D.P. provides two common areas with various amenities that act as a private park and gathering place that total 2,600 square feet, well short of the 10,000 square feet required. A Request for Modification of Standard has been submitted and has been evaluated. 1. The standard calls for 10,000 square for projects over two acres. The P.D.P. provides 2,600 square feet, a difference of 7,800 square feet. 2. The applicant has provided a justification which is attached. Briefly, this justification is summarized by the fact that the site is a small, infill site that is less than one acre over the threshold of applicability for the standard. Since the standard does not include a sliding scale, small projects are treated as being equal to large projects. Asking a 2.98 acre parcel to provide a private park or central feature or gathering space that is the same as would be required for much larger projects is neither proportional nor practical. While the maximum distance allowed to a public park is 1,320 feet (.25 mile), the P.D.P. is 3,343 feet (.63 mile) from Rossborough Park, a difference of only 2,023 feet (.38 mile), as measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial. The applicant is providing a plaza with tables, benches, grills, and pergola on the north side of Building B. In addition, a dog park with pergola and benches is provided in the middle of the site. From this perspective, the applicant cites Section 2.8.2(H)(1) as justification. First, the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Second, the P.D.P. as submitted with its central features and gathering spaces is equal to a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. This is because central features and gathering spaces are roughly proportional, given the number of units served and the relatively small parcel size, as that found on larger apartment projects such as Trails at Timberline (18 acres), Foothills Apartments (12 acres) and Bucking Horse Apartments (23 acres). 3. Staff has evaluated the Request for Modification. The parcel is located on the east edge of the square mile section bounded by Drake Road on the north, Shields Street on the east, Horsetooth Road on the south and Taft Hill Road on the west. In accordance with the City's long-standing policy of providing one neighborhood park per square mile section, Rossborough Park was developed practically in the middle of the section thus providing all residents within the square mile section a walk of approximately one-half mile or less. Residents of the proposed project will also be within less than one-half mile of the park (as measured by street frontage). In fact, there are residents of the square mile section that are located further away from Rossborough Park than the subject site. Staff, therefore, finds that the residents of Copperleaf Apartments will have reasonable access to a fully developed public neighborhood park that is equal to or better than that of residents within the square mile section that do not live within the project. In addition, staff finds that features and spaces that are provided are suitable and roughly proportional as that found on larger apartment complexes. 4. For these reasons, staff finds that the granting of the Request for Modification to Section 3.30(C) would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff also finds that given the size of the parcel (2.98 acres) and its location (at the edge of the square mile section and along an arterial street), that the P.D.P., as proposed, would be equal to a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. Item # 4 Page 10 Agenda Item 4 B. Section 3.8.30(E)(3) — Building Setback from an Arterial Street This standard requires that Building A be setback from Shields Street a minimum of 15 feet. Building A is setback from the Shields Street right-of-way 25.9 feet in compliance with the standard. C. Section 3.8.30(F)(1) — Orientation and Buffer Yards This standard requires that buffer yards along the property line of abutting properties that contain single and two-family dwellings be 25 feet. Along the north property line, Building B is setback from the property line by 40 feet and the two garages are setback by five feet. Along the west property line, the dwellings are multi -family (Casa Grande, P.U.D., Tract 1) and therefore the standard is not applicable. Along the south property line, there are five two-family dwellings so the standard is applicable. Building C is setback from the south property line by 17.9 feet and the garage is setback by 5.9 feet. As a result, a Request for Modification of Standard has been submitted for the following conditions: • Garages 1 and 2 along the north property line — 5-feet; • Building C along the south property line — 17.9 feet; • Garage 5 along the south property line — 5.9 feet. 1. The standard calls for the buildings to be setback by 25 feet. As noted, the affected buildings are setback by difference ranging from 7.1 to 20 feet. 2. The applicant has provided a justification which is attached. Briefly, the applicant contends that along the south property line, (Building C, and Garage 5) the adjoining five two-family dwellings to the south are setback from their north property line by 35 feet. With a 35-foot existing building setback combined with the proposed 17.9 foot setback, Building C would be separated from the five duplexes by 52.9 feet and Garage 5 would be separated by 40.9 feet. In addition, a new six foot solid fence combined with a dense mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs helps mitigate the transition between the existing and proposed uses. Given the context of the area, and the age of the five duplexes, the applicant contends that the proposed building setbacks are not detrimental to the public good and would be equal to or better than a plan that would be comply with the 25-foot setback but, perhaps would not be a densely landscaped. Along the north property line, the two garages are only one story in height and residential in character which results in a sensible transition that is as equally effective as a buffer yard. Combined with landscaping and a six foot solid fence, the proposed five foot setback fulfills the overall intent of the standard. 3. Staff has evaluated the Request for Modification. Staff finds that the five duplexes south of Building C and Garage 5 represent an under -developed condition given the M-M-N zoning on the parcel. Their age indicates that should re -development be considered, these structures would more likely be removed than renovated or enlarged. By being 35 feet from the shared property line, combined with the proposed 17.9 feet, there would be a total of 52.9 feet separating Building C from the duplexes. Garages 1, 2 and 5 are only one story and will be residential in character. Per the Landscape Plan, a six foot solid wood fence and a dense mix of trees and shrubs would provide an effective buffer. 4. For these reasons, staff finds that the granting of the Request for Modification to Section 3.30(F)(1) would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff also finds that with M-M-N zoning, the most realistic re- development scenario on the adjoining parcel to the south would indicate removal versus renovation or enlargement of the existing five duplexes. Further, with the 52.9 feet of separation between Building C Item # 4 Page 11 Agenda Item 4 and the existing structures, combined with the proposed fencing and landscaping, the P.D.P. as proposed, would be equal to a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. D. Section 3.8.30(F)(2-7) — Variation Among Buildings, Color, Entrances, Roofs, Facades and Walls, Colors and Materials This standard requires that for projects containing at least three buildings there must be at least two distinctly different building designs. All buildings must comply with architectural requirements pertaining to entrances, roofs, facades and walls and colors and materials. The P.D.P. consists of three buildings. The buildings are evaluated per the standard in the following manner: • Two buildings, A and C are full three-story. Building B is two-story. All three buildings are essentially similar in footprint, size and shape. • All three buildings include breezeway entrances to hallways as there are no individual entrances to ground floor units. To comply with variation criteria, each building has a different breezeway entry feature. • All three buildings feature a palette of materials and colors that are residential in character. • Stone veneer is used as the primary accent material and its placement on all three buildings varies on a per building basis. • All three buildings include shallow pitched roofs in order to minimize the overall height but adds a more residential character than if the roofs were flat. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: Two neighborhood meetings were held with the most recent on January 3, 2017. The summary to the first meeting on July 20, 2016 is attached. A summary for the second meeting will be handed out at the work session. As expected, issues related to traffic, generated both by the project and at a larger neighborhood -wide scale, were raised. Concerns regarding building height, privacy, setbacks, landscaping, fencing and overall compatibility were discussed. 6. Conclusions and Findings of Fact: In evaluating Copperleaf P.D.P., Staff makes the following conclusions and findings of fact: A. Multi -family dwellings area permitted use in the M-M-N zone district and the P.D.P. exceeds the minimum required density for a parcel of less than 20 acres. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with three exceptions. C. With regard to Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) — Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages — Perimeter Garages, staff finds that granting the Request for Modification to allow the five perimeter garages to be 60 feet in length would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, the Modification would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that would otherwise comply. This is because the Item # 4 Page 12 Agenda Item 4 garages are residential in character, one-story, pitched roof and articulated in a manner that exceeds the standards required in Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(b). D. With regard to Section 3.8.30(C) — Access to Central Feature and Gathering Place — staff finds that granting the Request for Modification to allow 2,600 square feet versus 10,000 square feet would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, the Modification would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that would otherwise comply. This is because given the size of the project at 2.98 acres; the amount of common area and amenities are commensurate with the number of residents being served. Also, the residents are located within a distance of a public neighborhood park that is comparable with other residents within the square mile section. E. With regard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) — Orientation and Buffer Yards — staff finds that granting the Request for Modification to allow a building setback of 17.9 feet Building C and a range of 5.0 to 5.9 feet for Garages 1,2 and 5 would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, the Modification would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that would otherwise comply. This is because along the south property line, the nearest dwellings are 35 feet setback from the shared property line and the extent of landscaping and fencing provides a transition that accomplishes the buffering envisioned by the standard. For Garages 1, 2 and 5, these structures are well -designed, residential in character and style and are setback from the property lines a distance that is equal to the minimum sideyard setback in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board make a motion to approve Copperleaf #PDP160026, based on the Findings of Fact of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial - Big Picture (PDF) 2. Aerial - Close -Up (PDF) 3. Applicant's Planning Objectives (PDF) 4. Applicant's Modifications (DOC) 5. Copperleaf Landscape Set (PDF) 6. Copperleaf Site Plan (PDF) 7. City Plan M-M-N Purpose & Policies (PDF) 8. Transportation Impact Study(PDF) 9. Citizen Comment E-Mail (PDF) 10. Architectural Elevation - Building A (PDF) 11. Architectural Elevation - Building C (PDF) 12. Garage Elevations (PDF) 13. Copperleaf Plat (PDF) 14. First Neighborhood Meeting - July 20, 2016 15. Architectural Elevation - Building B (PDF) 16. Two -Story Cross Section 1-3-16 (PDF) 17. Shadow Study (PDF) (DOCX) Item # 4 Page 13 1 1 1 o 1 It I Fill Y. .y. � O /. ., i r. � t Or d�r0a f ' u © dj 1 Ip 1 --- ® or; it - - � I r t t J _ _ 1 WI'*' O f r T I 1 ep 141111111 ddd Y toy ... , j•�, � �} 11 � / ,k' � � -� _- } �-...� I f f ,F.- 3 � p -J ma i Attachment 3 Mal August 24, 2016 3425 South Shields Statement of Planning Objectives The 2.987-acre site is located at 3425 South Shields. The proposed use is for the construction of three multi -family apartment buildings containing 93 units in one and two bedroom configurations. The site is zoned MMN and the project will be subject to a Type II Planning and Zoning Board review. The unit breakdown is as follows: 70 one -bedroom apartments 23 two -bedroom apartments 145 parking spaces required 146 parking spaces provided Approx. square footage: 1 bed average = 644 square foot 2 bed average = 848 square foot 70 one -bedrooms @ 644 = 45,080 sq. ft. 23 two -bedrooms (ED 848 = 19,504 so. ft. Total 64,584 sq. ft. Vehicular access for the project will be from Shields Street via a private 24' drive that loops through the site. The buildings are organized around the perimeter of the drive. The site design will incorporate pedestrian access and connectivity. It will utilize landscaping to enhance the buffers between buildings and the surrounding neighborhoods. Uses surrounding the property consist of the following: South: Existing duplexes and Grease Monkey West: The Casa Grande Condos North: The Chapparal Subdivision East: Shields Street and Willow Grove Village at Cunningham Corner The project will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as required by the City Code. Architectural compatibility will be achieved by incorporating design elements from the surrounding neighborhood such as building materials, horizontal lap siding, vertical siding and board and batten siding in contrasting colors. In addition, there will be stone veneer accents. The roofs will consist of asphalt shingles. Attachment 3 (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan. The 2435 South Shields PDP meets the following applicable City Plan Principles and Policies: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.2 — Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment The project, although not in a Targeted Redevelopment Area, will provide a compact urban redevelopment project that is in an ideal location and is within walking distance to many destinations. Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 6: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 6.1 — Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Policy LIV 6.2 — Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods The project provides an opportunity for redevelopment of an existing underutilized site and the design of the buildings will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 — Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations The PDP provides much -needed multi -family rental housing to give residents an option for affordable living. Principle LIV 10: The city's streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 — Incorporate Street Trees The project will provide an attractive streetscape with street trees and attached sidewalks. Principle LIV22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community. Policy LIV 22.1 — Vary Housing Models and Types Page 2 Attachment 3 The project incorporates 3 different building types for variety in the streetscape. Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1 — Density Policy LIV 29A — Mix of Housing Types The 3425 South Shields PDP has a density of 30.8 d.u./acre, which meets the minimum density. The project provides a mix of housing types within the overall neighborhood context, which contains single family, townhomes, duplexes, multi -family and commercial. The residential apartments provide a lower cost housing choice for Fort Collins. Transportation Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles will be promoted. Policy T 8.1 — Support Active Transportation Policy T 8.2 — Design for Active Living Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 — Transit Stops Policy T 10.6 — High Frequency Transit Service Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities The location of this project is convenient for alternative modes of transportation. There are on -street bike lanes on Shields Street and transit stops on nearby Casa Grande and Seneca Streets. Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. There are several mature existing trees currently on the site. An on -site meeting was held with the City Forester and a tree inventory and mitigation plan is included with the submittal. Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. The residential units will be owned by the building developer/owner and will be for rent units. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. n/a Page 3 Attachment 3 (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The rationale behind the project is to prove a for -rent project targeting an product that the market desires. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. The submitted documents reflect the applicable criteria for the proposed apartment use. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. See (ii) above. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. The neighborhood meeting was held on July 20, 2016. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project is called 3425 South Shields Street PDP. At the PDR meeting, the project was called 3425 S Shields St - Multi -family - Preliminary Design Review, PDR160006, Round Number 1. Page 4 Attachment 4 October 25, 2016 Re: Copperleaf Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.8.30(F)(1), Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) and Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code. Background The 2.987-acre site is located at 3425 South Shields. The proposed use is for the construction of three multi -family apartment buildings containing 93 units in one and two bedroom configurations. The site is zoned MMN and the project will be subject to a Type II Planning and Zoning Board review. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) Code Language: 3.8.30(F) Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings. (1) Orientation and Buffer Yards. Buffer yards along the property line of abutting property containing single- and two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet. This provision shall not apply to structures within the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district and the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) district. Requested Modification: The property is located within an infill site, surrounded on two sides by existing single family homes and townhomes. Due to unique challenges with the narrow site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required 25' buffer to the north, drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and buildings. Because of these factors, the landscape buffer yard along the south property line is 17.9' wide south of Building C and 5' wide south of the proposed Garage 5. Further, Garages 1 and 2 on the north property line, are also within 5' of the property line. Given the above, the applicant requests that Building C and Garages 1, 2 and 5 be located closer than 25' to the existing single family attached property to the south and closer than 25' to the existing single family property to the north. Justification The granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified and 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 for the following reasons: Attachment 4 • The 1-story garages with pitched roofs are 20' wide and are set back 5', de facto creating the 25' buffer. • Full tree stocking has been added to the south side of Building C using and combination of ornemental trees, columnar spruce and shrubs. In addition, there will be a 6' solid privacy fence. • The project is maintaining the 25' buffer yard on the north property line abutting the single family homes and is providing enhanced shrub and tree screening to mitigate the impacts to the neighbors. • The intent of the required 25' buffer yard us ro protect single family dwellings from potentially large multi -family buildings towering over properties, blocking views, etc. However, in this case, the single family attached homes are 35' from the proposed Building C, almost twice the required buffer distance. Modification to Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) Code Language: 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages To add visual interest and avoid the effect of a long blank wall with no relation to human size, accessibility needs or internal divisions within the building, the following standards for minimum wall articulation shall apply: (1) Perimeter Garages. (a) Length. Any garage located with its rear wall along the perimeter of a development and within sixty-five (65) feet of a public right-of-way or the property line of the development site shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in length. A minimum of seven (7) feet of landscaping must be provided between any two (2) such perimeter garages. Requested Modification: The applicant requests that the rear walls of all garages be longer than 55 feet. Justification The granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified and 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 for the following reasons: Attachment 4 • The project provides adequate off-street parking, which is desirable and necessary for the residents. The off-street spaces help reduce on -street parking demand, therefore reducing potential impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. • The intent of the required 55 foot maximum length is to add visual interest and avoid long blank walls. The rear walls of the garages will be articulated with a band of vertical 2 x 6 lap siding painted in a contrasting color. Modification to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(a) Code Language: Section 3.8.30(C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development projects shall be located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter ['/41 mile) of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development, which distance shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street. Such parks, central features or gathering places shall contain one (1) or more of the following uses: (1) Public parks, recreation areas or other open lands. (2) Privately owned parks, meeting the following criteria: (a) Size. In development projects greater than two (2) acres in gross area, such private parks must be a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. In development projects with a gross area of two (2) acres or less, such private parks must be a minimum of six (6) percent of the gross site area. (b) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. (c) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. (d) Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple -use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to utilize. (e) Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the City, be acquired by the City (through dedication or purchase) or be privately owned and maintained by the developer or property owners' association. (f) Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park. Requested Modification: The property is located within an infill site, surrounded on three sides by existing residential development and a major arterial street on one side,. Due to unique challenges with the shape of the site, meeting the requirement for 10,000 square feet of park, central feature or gathering areas is infeasible. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a modification. Justification 3 Attachment 4 The granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified and 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 for the following reasons: • Although the project technically does not have 10,000 square feet of highly visible park space formed by streets, the plan achieves the following: An outdoor plaza containing a pergola with picnic tables and bbq grills nad seating areas A centralized dog park with outdoor seating and shade structure Connecting walkway and pathways throughout the site • Rossborough Park is located '/z- mile away, however other single family homes in the area are the same distance away • The project size of 2.9 acres barely meets the threshold of needing to meet the code standard. • The project provides 2,600 sq. ft. of qualitative outdoor passive space. 4 Plant List KEY ptt Mlp CCYYJM IWIE BOTYFLINI! MN. 1E 9 163% re Ui. ow pumarwoula GL XHSBO B 122% CFEENSPIRELUNDEN TW mW 'GrewWa' A am 110NEYLCCul Bmim cb]I.Iatrecaiihm mx. BWM. eL% ExTxEEs. 1E P At% BLUE SPRUCE Pee prgem Y.. MORI SPRUCE y 13 Will Pvza syes'CugneW' IFAsnGulEl gBMMENTAL 1REES- Is 9 IBA% CRABAFPIE, SPRING SNOW WIS NOR Spiry SmA' A 82% FIAME MILE Mrr}aeY,'FYn• 3 6,1% LIAC, JMMFSE TREE Sim latlaMA EYERORyEENSIPIIB3. 31 1p 31 JUNIPER ismil NET SMabP ONOUgR yEIIY- la ® 35 ELRRNRGOILEM Rlixiaiaun Pvu Nipwe ® A - CHOMECIERRV n•x�I• °G NO SUMAC THREE UCAF Rxs Ntbla Q 11 PANTEE BVIID6 Pruni a CeneVl Panty _ SAJOCHERRY Owes 49 - CALLFINC£R P YMNIDLLA PgerellblMvxe. CakNryrS PEREWMLSIOMSSE3. ]IM Ne1nu�HesaeN WPNps e AB CAIMWWKNERSLOW LCW 0 81 - OAYLILY Ihnemcalls'Comes, Boer 0 in - GROS6, BLLE AVEIU HeIIGotrlWnse�lyHnnrs 0 ]BB GRASS FEATHER REED CaHrnagr is a'.Ll bin ON Fwrs1N p 51 - GNASS PMi Eralxeralerive ® 119 CAMS, PURPLE M OEN MwMs aYenls Pupsa[ea' 145 GRASS, OKVSBLUES PMpm HrPpnIOW % LI - SWITCHCAA55 Bles' ixrsnREn ias[uasun amwipx [M REFER TOSHMiu MR MORE umrwnox [onus ON TOMB) Legend /`ssr STEELEMER RRNGATEDTURIF RATUREsoo RECEIVE MIN 2 In'-V FABRIC �.J EDEFETRNGFREETOREMRU epEINECAOaSHET 3 Enron MLEX X TREE TO RE REMOVED mi iGROUP K�pEaN9RaaaINa�B9N� CW AbnPtnAsre a 9A SQ.ME Patlutl,W ®il3 na iBGTup.W Copperleaf Fart Collins, CO Brinkman Partners 3528 Precision Drive suRe 100 Fotl Collins CO 80528 7ARus124,2016 6 Foot Privacy Fence I A 6 CEDAR TOP AND BOTTOM TERM TAPE WHII CAP BETWEEN BOARD, TYPICAL _1 FRANTSUIPSEVE &2UP A Dog Park Fence 'PRESSURE TREATED TOP AND BOUTOM 'BESSURE -R-ATED CENTER SUPPORT General Landscape Notes SPECIES AS DEFINED By THE ANDERSON ANSOCURION OF GRACE FREE EADAEROPRIATETOTE VABAM * FRIGATIM ALL MESDARE AREAS WANYIN THE SEE SICIPLADING FUND SHRUB BEER AND FEEL AREAS SHELF BE RRIGATED RAM AN ��TIC INSULATION SYSTEM THE IR REAL ON �NM�AWIMING�WIT ALL TURF AREAS SHALL MU�;,AR µ � �µ� : � .EAFPaOMoB`YTHECIr HTHE � °� , IRRI�T��MSxLLBEADJUST-DTo„EET * THROLSOIL TO ME MAXIMUM � �D�. TUCHMALTHAT IS REMOVED DURING DAUSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SMALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS BELL R NO DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WTH CITY C DDE SECTION 12 122 THE SOIL NALL -ANDECAPE ABBAS BE LYING PHTS)Ixa _ -- _ _ OF AT SNc __ - N OF SOIL AMENEMENT PER DIL(HAISD SUBMITTED TOTHE CANYTIMCALL �M MILAN. OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND TU_ S D L AMCNDCD CONSISTENT NITYTTEREQUIREMENTS * IN�A�TIMANDG�� ALL STALIT UP INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICUUTRAL PRACTICES INA Mi DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK EXTUASILISHMENT AND HERALTH" GROWTH ALL ��MM FOR EACH PHASE MOST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE UNTAYA IDNNIUSTBEBECUR-DAIT�ANIRR�OCABLEL�ER 04' CREDLY PMFM�E BOND. OR ANDERSON AGRODUANT ROSE 12M UP THE VAKILATION! OF PRE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR MY BREAKING IN SUM PHASE * �lW�M THEIR AND NEGETAMON. RRIGATION SUNTEMS. FEMALES WALLIS MEN O� �E ELEMENTS AITH THEME 'I MAL PLA MY SHELF BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF ME PROTECT IN THE SAME BARNEY AGE GREECE BUILDING MCFERALS AND � SIR E DETAIM THE APPLICA IN A CHAMBER OR S LUCCESSORS IN INTEREST STATUR BE MIWLY AND ��LYR�ONSIO�MR�ERE��RMIWE�EOF��D�NG�ME�lN�CONDITION ALL LANDSCAPING STALL BE MENTANED FREE � DISEASE SOUNDCONDITION 7R��MEW ���EE�MEW�TU�ORIS�HE�SE�MOVED OFFELLY BE PROMARLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE AFTH THE REQUIREMENTS OF MERGE PLANS RREETBETHATEENTREESSANDIFLUBLIPWATER, SANITARYANDSTARM SEWER MIN LINES �(IWIM BREETMETSWENTREECANDFUSLIPLYMATER GUNTARY AND STORM SEVEN SERVICE LINES ELEAMON RAxD Br.+RUNES 4 MET BETAMEEN USERS ADD GAS USED �wa�mw.x FEEL 9 ALL STREET TURKS SHELF BE PLAGED A MINIMUM EIGHT IBI EmS6OPDRMiwAvs AND AFFECT HER me SBlrotlrlAL 10 PRACEMENIT OFALL LANDSCAPING SMILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WILD THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITTERILAAS SPECIPRED By THE CITY OF FORT COOPER] MOSTRUCTURESORLAMECAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN ON SMITH BE ALLOWED MATTHIM THE RON DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR BASEMENTS WILD THE RECEPTOR OF DECIDUOUS TREERB PROVIDED THAT THE LAMBERT MUNUCH BATILEASTO FROM MAINE ANY MINGUES WiTHIN THE NIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR BASEMENT MUST BE REST MORE THEM 42 IN HEIGHTANDOVAN OPEN DESIGN 11 COMM�CP�SP�����D�NG�INMG�DFWA� SMELT MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ANAL ENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ME REQUIRED TO SEMIWMNED�APR����MS�MTICN THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND ON 2' TIME MY FIND C x A ONE WAY GATE HINGE �ODS�m ACCESS CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SPACED UP ON RENDER PC SHOP EURNAWINGS TO BE No T CENTER HID MINI LRAPSYC' NO IE OR APPROVED By FRO PROX OWNERS REP HEADER SUBEGRADE PER SOILS REPORT DEPTH PER STRUCTURAL DRAMMINES P OF ROOT CHOSEN UP ME I AMY FROM Epw E �ExMAN Exsx PaacF NOTES I MET SEES DEREENDS ON MINCE HI AND VAND UORDS SEE MANUFACTURER POOL SIDNIGGIRMIT 2 VALUED SHOWN ME BE USED FOR l�ALMT"N INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS * COLOR AND FINISH GRAPH APPRODED By CONNER OR OWNERS REP STOP DRAWINGS FOR APPRODAL By FARMERS REP Street Tree Notes I A PEREAT MUST BE OBTAINED CONTRA CITY FORETTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NO-ED ON THIS PLAN ARE P ACTED RKARK OFANAY MIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND -ORB MEDIANS AND BUYER FIT PDO'ERTY' A.PAPPROVETEmCATIwANDSEMgTO HE PLANTED FAILURE TO ONLY I TH S PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY 0 FORT BFLUOR CODE 3UB.E TTOPLAYotiR�1DOCAR AND ,A..LSORESULT INRRPLABLIxD ME LANDSCAPE 'LAN A"ROVAL OF STREET TREE CALLING IS REQUIR-D BE OR- FINAL APPROVAL D ERH PLACE 3 STREET LAVEDISECLASUNG INCLUDING STREET TREES QUELL BE SEL-CT-D IN ACCORDANCE RUTH ALL CRY CODES AND POT C ED PERFORMED BRA CKYOF FORT COLLINS OPENED ARBORS WHEDE R-QUIRED By CODE ACRES- -REES SHALL BE SUPPLIED i SUBJECT TO APPROVAL By -YE CITY FOREST-R STREET TREE LOCATIONS My M�U�ED -0 ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCAL DNS U-1 MSEPARATIONSeETMEENTIBBELL STREET SIGNS AND S-REET LIGHTS STSE-T TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE _YTENT FEASIBLE QUANTITIES SIT DAN ON 'LAN MUS_ BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED SKILLS CITY 70 KEPT SE'ARA ONSTAMMUCARDS THERE SHALL BE NO CRT OR FILL OVER A FOUR INCH DEPTH MUSED A �IFIED AROODINT OR FORECEPER RG - CLY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS -BEE PRUN NO ADD REMOVAL SLAT B-PER DRMEDEVABUSENESS • DUE NO THE -OBSTRUCT ONSTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT TU_ APPLICANT QUELL PR_VEN_ THE C FARM OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STDBAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MA ERIALCUCLAS PAINTS OLS3OLENN ASPHI MOTORS ORAN 0 HERVA ERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE AREA TREE WITHIN THE DEC LIN- OF AN PROUSCUSID TREE OR GROUP D TREES LARGE PROPERTY AREAS -OBTAINING PROTECTED THESE AND SEPARATED CASH CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CMAYBE SEEDBEDS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUEARINGABSECTION MAI ABOVE Tins MAYBE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T POST STAKES MAXIMUM OF FIFTY QU FEE- ARAa AND TING RIBBON OF P.. EPROS SAETOaTAE ALONG E OUTSIDE PERIMETERS DP SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED TIES CREMATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE BELL R NG ON DEEPER THAN SIX (6) _ - URRppwc ER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM PLE PACE OF THE TRHES RALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING EE(OTHERBARK)µo IS SPERVEDEFRROM:'� DIAMETER ATB M�tioax: AASS DESCRIaED w ME CHARTBEEiOW "U �ED"�RATOR�HE�(l�H� ARGER EARNED FROM FACE OF TREE WEED AS 1 x LTREE usxOAn Swat BE CM.IP1ETED MRSIDE CFTESCfF�IRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1-.IULY 31) OR CONDUCT PROMPT cF MERGES ENSMING NO ARRESE Nms I�m Durauv F AL Min. DFOMPORT WfEY MTE0. xD�' GUE WGIERSETrtE mIL TOMBETIONTLER TFMDAOF SECTION ErslMDsw SECTOR MOVEMENT FOR GRAUNDCOPAR DA OF FOOTBALL WIFERAMETUANDIVINERAMBECUMPLETERY FAIR SHRUBS �mmm�l��TION GROUND COVER& SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL IF DED =111 =L 1; CONIFER TREE PIANTING DETAIL URGE TYP NOTE THEYERE B�EM� STAKE Hydrozone Table ZONE AREA WATER USE GALLOM LAW, BUYER BE 3GMAD QCUI GET Landscape Legend 'fir STEEIREDGER OlY MN WIrW MY pi•NGLIa1W 0 WIM IIIBa� a LINETURwl w,..�Aw. IF Atl 2ruli �•u«icE,.nws ELLB AD SERNIGHE OHS a 122% o�aErenPE UINDEP nu.>.uwMPI. AS BE arMlr • s2u w nxmT, MVLIE •tl AT xralr wIEA4ir vEMLLaE win, aP Is M"L OMEN 2 ww auevPlrE MM•M.wM Lv m IF IN LEtlYM Ia 211 PwuLn Y�wnwu 3tl r r® 6/+muiEl .LMoo. IL a vo% wrawearnroww w.W'aMRexv v w r.I.w FIy BIECYIEx EDEME2lr Np GM HER Pnc2PVIE uilEvin a.v ED HER w.E.. sEov2eaLr Pro w v4uEMxMEu a Ew auc..w.vEuE aMRa mrsum 2Y m IPeE.. •Iree in # 32 .w•m Sx ET UMMur'RiNtI Ev r Ea.M arise MEN ® ^E`LwsuMENELcvr.ro 2E omM2raxvw RUMM.•Im AX E Ea.e. ® • oonE<rEwry mw.�.M. m HE saEM 0° aB w.'.cmIEELw Rlu.nxuu HE a EREM FAILEYMEMEN MM v.EUB Dr WnEa EUL�nMExE KMO (] D SEE RW PInM�MMM'M•T S r !win FRUI EUIEDEC Exp KEYNp 40 mJmu w4 HENRY RED WiYi' • Ma BORROW, WILIKERELOWEPOieiY UMS IS 2 IGER WELL PxFD • EL 6MSs.FM1EEn PEED vmro�e W v Y IGI wEunwrzD Ennwr p M G s.PMPM SUNK 01Nennie Itl f IpEp wLLLROOrtD ® BEAR BUBBLE KIDDER 2 WE" ROWNTIC ;a ASSUMM ;aEn w.m BEEN, GRESS BURR E WELL POSTED ilIGROUP �BEm�eMB�Ewr����PMm WOMUTanAve I rtr W06'4.5191 Patlntl,W 9513 ves Masup.w Copperleaf Fort Collins, CO Brinkman Partners 3528 Precision Drive Surte 100 Fort Collins CO 80528 Staff Comments 10011.16 August 24, 2016 Landscape Notes, Details & Schedules SM1eel Numbed �i oE: L3 G 111GROUP btrx<aMrearelpaN�.NalustraMT Tree XTree To Be Removed EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE COMMON NAME BOTANIC NAME SIZE COMMON TO BE REMOVED MRicnTION REQUIRED REASON FOR REMOVAL of nFtvuRrE) rC efleap. Gearal d,UAA 7 FAIR YES ES 2 PROPOSED SIDENA1KCONFT1M Tenitpear Co * Dal Far Pai mom.:ai 2A, GOOD YES ES 25 PROPOSED BUILDING CAINIFILIGHT e Juncens MY GOOD YES ES 1 5 PROPOSED BUILDING CAINIFILIGHT .s Darral inenzal a- GOOD YES ES 1 PROPOSED BUILDING CAINIFILIGHT Darral FIF Pai inenzal * A.. 01. Bei anal Have GOOD YE3 10 E PROPOSED SIDENA1KCONFL1M al 7 GOOD YE3 ES 1 PROPOSED DRIVE mxaw'r 11 Strear. Par FALLS pi POOR NO NO E 12 Strear. Par FALLS pi ESE GOOD NO NO E 13 Strear. Par FALLS pi Ur GOOD NO NO E 10 Strear. Par FALLS pi GOOD YES ES 3 PROPOSED SIDEAVALICCONFLICH um _ PROPOSED SIDEwuncoNFucF Pop Pripulas IRA 245- GOOD NO NO I NOTE ALL MAE INEEMOVAL SHOM SHALL HE COMPLEMED OUTSIDE CHILE RUNIGBIRD NEMING GABON HER 1 JUMANORAMPNEYMTREWNALOTEDOFLUE NOTE ME�MLLBE�INED�LEMSEDM�RISTPR�RMWN�RUCTIONTODUERMINE��DITIO�L�ME�MBEREMONED SCP1E 1'=3QV NORM M IENCES 8 TIGATI OND BREAKDOWN DECIDUOUS REMOVE CONIFEROUS REMOVE aralmounpi l B MM13 xa TEGRAOUS Copperleaf Fort Collins, CO Brinkman Partners 3528 Precision Drive Suite 100 Fort Collins CO 80528 Staff Comments 10.1116 August 24, 2016 7Treeitigation Street NnMber: L3 or L3 V 1 Oe�l � 89BO LLS BUILDING BUILDING C I I I I II I I I II LA I 733 TOB �6#—"}- _TSIDEAALx ICI -J --- ASIDEWALK} III sBII: ^1 BUILDING TxcRE,EPAx A A ASKINGSKINGYP s r.1 i A tiRE Awl p FENCEDDMARK me I F �EMOVALK �f Af l ARTS 4`7 12 BIKES {� Isy— b � A �N Jl BBK PROPERTIES , LLV RGHFgTCTII �TEJ/�'II I WIDE (III FTwrslc STRIP WITH MEEEE x HITENEELINEALMS / LtlONE_ L I I EMBNNG ExLE��1�1 ,I�- I I ---__ / — RICHMOINVE Site Plan Legend Legal Description: MOMENT FEE PROPERTY LINE CmnPACTPAKINGmncE BIKERACK AC CONDENSER PAD TRANSFORMER ® TRA6X,RECYCNxGENCLOSUNE Q NGXT PoE Planning Approval BY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAND SERVICES OF THE CITYTHE COLLINS. COLORADO THIS SAVOR AD., Owner's Certification of Approval: if I I F—I a l I GREASSE MONKEY - III III CONEDITIoNS DRRESTWLTMURE SETLATIN on MID MEANT nE rXAr IMEAcfEPr THEIN NUMBER WHEREOF UP HAVE HEREUNTO SET MR HANDS AND SEATS THIS THE III NO ARVALCERTFIcnE STATEOFCOLORADOi COUNT "OFF THE FORACCONG INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE E BY PRIMED NAME) AT COMMISSION EKPIREs. rvOTunTNBLIc (ASKS O� 41YNo F�u SCALE 1'-30'-0' NORTH Vicinity Map: PROJECT LOCATION It BOTTOMING NORTH SAW, OFF MB san Jul Or 11 0r miny,xxmnnl "iss ' e sae o a a MAKw Vs LL LL g D. HOFSEroo IT ROSS ,a s a a G 44 Site Plan Notes: I REFER TO THE SUBDIVILEGIN FLAT MID UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACH LOCATIONS ANERES AND DI MENSIONS OF ALL FAVEMENTS, LOTS TRACTS STREETY, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS TMDEE�HT Pury MUST BE COMPLETED IN ME PHASE UNLESS B. OFAPPLICABLE - INCLUDE LANGUAGE FOR ANY MODIFICATONSAND CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH OWSQAj 6 ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM NEW NOM ADJEENT RTY AND PUIC EFFECTS OM1FUSH SUFFICIENT SCRENHGBLTHEN REE3ANDSNG SCREEN WALE WARNING PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING PMA SWNJT AS CONDUIT, METERS E ERSANDPLUILDINGMBING POINTS SHALL FEECBE LNSCREENED OR OTHER PAINTED EDTYOUNGEMNi6UCX OTHER T. ALL LIMIT RE RIWITH THE IM5ROI3oHiiCAHiDi£ PEMREMEN1uPROTNi4 f TE DEVELOPMENT M ND WITCITY OF FORT OCCURS LIGHT AND POWER UFRULFFY -0MENT SHALL USE A CONCEALEFT GPABILm SO AS TO MIH MIZZETEUPHIM LLY SOE$PPILLLDIED LDGHT, GLARE ANDIGHT SOURCE DVNN ECESSMYSHALL E SHARP CUT DIFFUSION IF SIGNAGEPND ADDRESSING ME NOT PERMITTED WITH THESE IT FAIL PLANS AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY UNESSA ECIFIC VARIANCEIS GRANTED BY THEPRIOR To N CmSIGNS MVSi COMPLY WON CITY SIGN CODE FIRE HYDAP PROVED MUST MEET OR FFCES PICUMEALI TEME AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILOINfd MUST PR 10 ALL SIDEWALKS AND RTS FORM TO CITY PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DWV�E INNIERSECTONS AND STANDARDS TRAELL CESIGNATEDPCCGESSPB PARKING SPACES, ACCEPOLANNE N ALL A µESSIME RpNES MUST PARKING LOPE NO MOM THAN 120IN DIRECTI N OFT RAVEL AND WITH ONO MORE 1 48 CROSS SLOPE 11, PRIVATE COCOVERMIS AND RESTRICTIONS HNS RESTRICTIVE CCOVENANT IMPOSED AN LANDOWNERS WITTHE DEVELOPMENT MAY MET BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVIxGTX E EFFECT OF POORAGINGLIMITING THE INST4UTONOF ER XNEAPE LANDUCAPI NO. GTCOLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED MUST UPON MY ES7MLI SHED ROOF wM CLOTHES DART BF LOCATED IN BACK KAREN OCOwcvwTRaLEn BE PLANTS)STTNx NRF HICCHTPORTIONH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING NTAPORTIINDIVIDUAL.IgN OF ANYINDIVIDUAL.LOT 12 ANY DOES GED CURB GUTTER AND SIDEVISALK EXISTING SIOMAIIB CURRY AND GUTTERS DESTROYED. PRIOR TED DAMAGED OR CONSTRUCTION ETLL 'W REMOVED MO CONSTRUC IN PROV MTENTSM ANDPOR PRIMOF THIS E O THE ISSVAILE OF THE EI ART LERT FICATEI NSE WAR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF OGOCMTµ COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER 3 Land -Use Statistics GROSS LAND ARI 130121 SEA AD CAROUSE MU.11FAWCY TOTALSEEDMONS To GROSS DENSITY 3L40DU IMINE NUMBER OF SPACES CROWDED ADASPACES uF9N0x1 12XZRWRA3E SEEPAGE BICYCLEPASUNCIPERNEDINCOM HOSEEMBOOMS 110 TOTAL REBUFFED SCALE PARKING SPACES PROVIDES FIDEDIRALKS V4WP COVERED OSPACEREGIVI TOTAL 110SPARCES irIGROUP WOMRaTh]uBF�9i�'m� WHOM0SAw m TBKEWII &�gap,lD 0i13 xa iBGlwp.uc Copperleaf Fort Collins, CO Brinkman Partner: 3528 Precision Drive Suite 100 Fort Collins CO W528 SI Cornrnl 10.26.16 Revised 12.28.16 August 24, 2016 7Sten SM1ee[ NumbeF. or: 1 Attachment 7 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN) Purpose: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. A typical Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1- Density Housing in new Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. The minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be seven (7) dwelling units per acre. Policy LIV 29.2 - Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood -serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods may include the following: • Princ/pa/uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots (under 6,000 square feet), duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live -work units, and multi- family housing. • Suppordng uses: Non -retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks and recreation facilities; schools; small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed -and -breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units stacked above retail or office space; and live -work units. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. Policy LIV 29.3 - Neighborhood or Community Commercial District Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed - Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street. Policy LIV 29A- Mix of Housing Types Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood's transitional, higher -activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate low- and medium -cost housing with higher -cost housing and non-residential uses. Policy LIV 29.5 - Transitions Encourage non-residential uses and . larger buildings of attached and multiple -family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods. CITY PLAN Attachment 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Ranweiler, Brinkman Partners Cathy Mathis, TB Group Nicole Hahn, City of Fort Collins r�'"Y FROM: Matt Delich��z ;6 �aJ' DATE: August 22, 2016 4vna. SUBJECT: Shields Apartments Transportation Impact Study (File: 1661 ME01) This memorandum constitutes a transportation impact study for the Shields Apartments. The Shields Apartments site is located west of Shields Street and north of Richmond Drive, and is shown in Figure 1. The current site plan for the Shields Apartments is shown in Figure 2. The Shields Apartments is proposed as 94 apartment dwelling units. Access to the Shields Apartments site will be via a right-in/right-out access to/from Shields Street, approximately 350 feet north of Richmond Drive and to/from Richmond Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Shields Street. The scope of this memorandum was discussed with Nicole Hahn, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations. Since the trip generation is expected to be low, a memorandum analyzing impacts was requested. A base assumptions form and related information is provided in Appendix A. Existing Streets Shields Street is to the east of (adjacent to) the proposed Shields Apartments site. It is a north -south street classified as a four -lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Shields Street has a four -lane cross section adjacent to the Shields Apartments site. The existing geometry at the Shields/ Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections is shown in Figure 3. There is a raised median in Shields Street, between Richmond Drive and Cunningham Drive. At the Shields/Richmond intersection, Shields Street has northbound and southbound left - turn lanes and two through lanes in each direction. The Shields/Richmond intersection has stop sign control on Richmond Drive. At the Shields/Cunningham intersection, Shields Street has a southbound left -turn lane and two through lanes in each direction. The Shields/Cunningham intersection has stop sign control on Cunningham Drive. The posted speed limit in this area of Shields Street is 40 mph. There are bike lanes along Shields Street. Richmond Drive is to the south of the proposed Shields Apartments site. It is an east -west street classified as a collector street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Richmond Drive has a two-lane cross section with no center Attachment 8 median lane. At the Shields/Richmond intersection, Richmond Street has all eastbound and westbound movements combined into single lanes. The posted speed limit in this area of Richmond Street is 25 mph. Richmond Drive is approximately 47 feet wide, with parking. The Richmond Drive approaches at Shields Street can allow right -turning vehicles to bypass left -turning vehicles, depending upon the location of the left -turning vehicle. Existing Traffic/Operation Recent peak hour traffic counts at the Shields/Richmond and Shields/ Cunningham intersections are shown in Figure 4. Traffic counts at the key intersections were obtained in July 2016. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Since the traffic counts in Figure 4 were obtained during the summer, the traffic volumes on Shields Street were factored to reflect a school time condition and are shown in Figure 5. Historic traffic counts at the Shields/Horsetooth and Shields/Casa Grande intersections were used to develop the factors used to adjust the traffic on Shields Street. Using the volumes shown in Figure 5, the current peak hour operation at the Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The Shields/ Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection techniques from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM). A description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) is also provided in Appendix C. This site is in an area termed "low density mixed -use" on the Fort Collins Structure Plan. At unsignalized intersections in areas termed "low density mixed -use, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service D overall and level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/collector, arterial/local, collector/local, and local/local intersection. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. As can be seen in Table 1, the Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry. Accidents Accident data was obtained from the City of Fort Collins for the Shields/ Richmond intersection for a five year, eight month period (6/3/10 to 2/3/16). At the Shields/Richmond intersection, there were 25 reported accidents: nine rear -end accidents, ten accidents involving turning vehicles, three right-angle accidents (one accident involved a bicycle being struck by a vehicle), two side -swipe accidents, and one accident involving a vehicle striking a fixed object (DUI involved). The number and type of accidents at the Shields/Richmond intersection are typical for these volumes and this traffic control. This intersection is not considered to be a "high" accident location. // LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 Trip Generation/Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment These apartments will be marketed to the general public. They are not intended for specific client types (students, elderly, etc.). Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation for the Shields Apartments. From this reference, the equations for Apartment (Code 220) were used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 2. The trip generation resulted in 694 daily trip ends, 50 morning peak hour trip ends, and 69 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip distribution for the Shields Apartments is shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows the site generated peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Background/Total Traffic Projections Background traffic projections for the short range (2021) future horizon were obtained by factoring the Figure 5 traffic volumes on Shields Street by two percent per year. Figure 8 shows the short range (2021) background peak hour traffic at the Shields/Richmond, Shields/Cunningham, and Richmond/Commercial Center -Grease Monkey intersections. The volumes at the Richmond/Commercial Center -Grease Monkey intersection were synthesized based upon the various land uses that access Richmond Drive. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed Shields Apartments were added to the background traffic volumes to produce the total traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2021) future. Figure 9 shows the short range (2021) total peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Operation Analysis Table 3 shows the short range (2021) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections. The Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. Table 4 shows the short range (2021) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Shields/Richmond, Shields/Site Access, Shields/Cunningham, and Richmond/Commercial Center -Site Access (Grease Monkey) intersections. The key intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. Geometry Figure 10 shows a schematic of the short range (2021) geometry. According to Figure 8-4, LCUASS, a right -turn deceleration lane is not required at the Shields/Richmond intersection or the Shields/Site Access intersection. // LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 Pedestrian Level of Service The Shields Apartments site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Shields Apartments site. The Shields Apartments site is located within an area termed as "all other areas," which sets the pedestrian level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories. There are six destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Shields Apartments: 1) the commercial area to the south of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site, 3) the residential neighborhood to the north and northwest of the site, 4) the residential neighborhood to the east of the site, 5) the commercial area to the southeast of the site, and 6) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Destination area 6 (Skyline Acres) was developed in Larimer County. It is a large lot residential area, whose residents choose not to have sidewalks along Richmond Drive. The continuity measure would be achieved when sidewalks are built in this area. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are no destination areas within 1320 feet of the Shields Apartments site. However, Rocky Mountain High School is approximately 0.5 miles from this site. There are bike lanes on Shields Street, which conveniently connect this site to that school. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 19 along Shields Street and Route 12 along Horsetooth Road. Routes 12 and 19 operate with 30 minute headways in the morning peak (�.7am to 10am) and in the afternoon peak (�.2:30pm to 5:30pm). The headways are 60 minutes during midday and evenings. The transit service is acceptable. There is a bus stop near the Shields/Richmond intersection for Route 19 and a bus stop near the Shields/Horsetooth intersection for Route 12. These bus stops are accessible via the existing and future sidewalks. Conclusions It is concluded that the Shields/Richmond, Shields/Site Access, Shields/ Cunningham, and Richmond/Commercial Center -Site Access (Grease Monkey) intersections will operate acceptably with recommended geometry and control. No further transportation analyses are required at this time. // LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 N Shields Apartments CU 0 0 9ha Richmond 1 Horsetooth U W N t SCALE: 1 "=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 —// J DELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 SITE PLAN N SCALE: 1 "=100' Co w a� Co Figure 2 _//IDELICH �7.# rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 iingham hmond m U) -Denotes Lane EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 3 DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 co co co N r co N Co N J d7 CD 13/17 0/0 - 27/32 r a) Ln r � r r co r � L(7 00 O � r N t U) WNTAMMINA RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Cunningham Richmond Figure 4 _// IDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 ti 00 N r Co co N N N J d7 C\O 13/17 0/0 - 27/32 r N u7 r N r r M 0 r � ti O N � r N t U) RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FACTORED TO REFLECT A SCHOOL TIME CONDITION Cunningham Richmond Figure 5 _// IDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Richmond (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT E F WB LT/T/RT E E NB LT B B SB LT B B OVERALL A A Shields/Cunningham (stop sign) WB LT/RT C C SB LT B B OVERALL A A TABLE 2 Trip Generation for the Shields Apartments Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartment 94 D.U. EQ 694 EQ 10 EQ 40 EQ 45 EQ 24 /J t—DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �7 1 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 0 SITE 9ha� Richmond v a� 10% 30% Horsetooth OR 0 N SCALE: 1 "=400' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 _—// JDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 Al �U O N L !_ E O U SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC iingham hmond Figure 7 _// IDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 T U Y N 0 0 U Q O O O U U_ 2/3 20/20 11/11 N O r c.0 co N O N N 1r 1 CO N 75; U-) O N Z 13/17 0/0 - 27/32 N 0 M O r O co r rn LO r � r co c+) co U) m Cn SHORT RANGE (2021) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Cunningham Richmond Figure 8 DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 T U Y N 0 O U Q O O U) U U_ 2/3 20/20 11/11 N O r c.0 co N O N N 1r 1 CO N 75; LC') O Z a� c N U �U N !_ E O U 13/17 0/0 - 27/32 N 0 M O r O co r rn LO r � r co c+) c+) co U m L Cn SHORT RANGE (2021) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Cunningham Richmond Figure 8 DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 TABLE 3 Short Range (2021) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Richmond (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT F F WB LT/T/RT F F NB LT B C SB LT B B OVERALL A B Shields/Cunningham (stop sign) WB LT/RT C D SB LT B B OVERALL A A Richmond/Commercial Center- Grease Monkey (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A OVERALL A A TABLE 4 Short Range (2021) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Richmond (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT F F WB LT/T/RT F F NB LT B C SB LT B B OVERALL A D Shields/Cunningham (stop sign) WB LT/RT C D SB LT B B OVERALL A A Richmond/Commercial Center- Site Access (Grease Monkey) (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A OVERALL A A Shields/Site Access (RT-in/RT-out) RT B C OVERALL A A // LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 �71 rASSOCIATES Attachment 8 - De �U O N L !_ E O U SHORT RANGE (2021) GEOMETRY iingham hmond Figure 10 _// IDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 9 Ted From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Schwende, Sarah Burnett Thursday, October 20, 2016 4:37 PM 'Frank and Kathy Schwende' Ted Shepard RE: Project Status for: 3525 South Shields Street Multi -Family Res. Dev. Thank you for providing your feedback regarding the proposal for a multi -family development near your home. I'm including Ted Shepard, Chief City Planner, who is coordinating review of the proposal in case he has additional information for you, and so that he is aware of your comments. When the applicant submitted their application, they used the name "Copper Leaf'. The site is located at 3425 South Shields Street. The applicant formally submitted their initial set of proposed plans on August 25, 2016, and staff provided comments after reviewing the plans. The applicant then submitted a revised set of proposed plans for staff review. Staff provided comments back to the applicant for the revised set of plans in mid -September. The applicant will need to submit a third set of plans for staff review; these have not been received yet. The documents submitted in the first two rounds of review are available at http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?vid=185&cmd=search&scope=doctype&dt=SUBMITTAL+DOCUMENTS&dn=Current+Planning &p=PDP160026. The final seven documents are from the second submittal; the rest are from the first submittal. Additional information regarding the project is available by using the search tool at http://www.fcgov,com/developmentreview/proposals/, and entering "Copper Leaf' or "3425" or "160026". Thanks, Sarah Sarah Burnett City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Development Review Liaison 970-224-6076 sburnetttg'D_fczov.com Your neighbors are connecting online. Have you joined NextDoor yet? -----Original Message ..... From: Frank and Kathy Schwende [mailto:wttyy2010@yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:40 PM To: Sarah Burnett Subject: Project Status for: 3525 South Shields Street Multi -Family Res. Dev, Dear Ms Burnett, 1 Attachment 9 Would you please provide me with a link or a description of the status of this project? I tried to use the development status database but got no results searching on the project name "3525 South Shields ...:' which was the proposal's name on your July 6 document informing residents in the affected area about a neighborhood meeting. Again, my concerns for this project: 1. Three floor apartments would need to be configured in a way that did not infringe on existing single family home privacy. 2. Every effort should be taken to encourage residents to utilize mass transit and active modes of transportation to reduce the impact of increased motor traffic noise in our neighborhood. This needs to involve pro -active marketing (not reactive) of Transfort services, as well as increased level of service for routes 12 and 19 which service the Shields and Horsetooth corridors. Residents adjacent to this project are justifiably concerned about the impact of yet another 100 unit housing development in our neighborhood (Village on Horsetooth is another project under review in the same neighborhood). We are concerned about the likely deterioration of our property values by poorly developed projects. Thank you for your consideration. Frank Schwende 3314 Sharps Court 2 = cn ■ Tf,° wwm� ._�_._ -.091do lftmm_ Ime ME IMEN "ll , ■■ MEN WAM ■'■ I�,, NI'■■I „ „ „ I,■■ 4,11 mi ■ )I,�;� II �Wli���1�Hii'=�111 111'11111 —� 1 1 ML. .111 .in ■. 0�0 ui = cn bpi rro 'i11� k 11 �Ilfill i1 .r.._..11 ram =�_ 1 r �� r 1 r 11 -� 11 W i 1 1N w 3U Q SYMBOL KEY Front Elevation 1/8" = V-0" Rear Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" > HORIZONTAL SIDING > VERTICAL SIDING BOARD AND BATT SIDING VINYL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES > STONE VENEER (DRY STACKED) Side Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" Side Elevation 1/8" = 1' 0" 3425 SOUTIISIIIELDS SUBDIVISION 8/22/2016 FILE NAME 2MR0d866U8 Knox all proem by they, ur.... in, that the mdkwMa wner(a) of the bilaeing described Imo: A p... ad of lab being part the South...Culw (SEI/a) of Sel Twenty-.... n (27), Toroenlp Stevens North (LJN.),I t ar Range Sixty-nine Weet (It 68W) of the BAY M1incipal Meridian (filch aPFIA s I), City of Fart Calllne County of Larimq State of Calwaea and being more pwticulany described ows COMMENCING at the Southeast cane, of aold Section 24 and assuming me East line Ole SEI/e ring Marty 0011'18 Woe, as demarcation as daemon on this plat, being o Pia 9...i.g of the Colorado State Plane Coaninole System, North Sam, North Amerittn Datum 1983/2011, a aletmw of 2653.32 feet with or achy trends canto iced herein Amive tnerel THENCE North 00,'11'18' Writ alone the East line of did So < o distance of 663,23 feet. ENCE North Gg'33'3C elect a line parallel x twly of. Cis measured at o rigat angle to the East lice of mid Si and to the POINT CE BEGINNING'. THENCE Path 89roldi meet a distance of 50663 fin: THENCE Xanh GPI1•l e- whet a distance of UTM feet MEXCE South 8955'34-foal o distance of 506.63 feet to o line wall with and b.00 feet Weataly of,, as measured at a right angle to the East Ilse of ditl SEI/N MENCE South Bell'1B'East along Bald pwallel line a delta," of 251 her to the POINT OF BEGINNING. me im above heard" neat cmbnae 2,987 acn4 mate or lees) fn ".maned am ine.d.........s n set BCS, LLD how mu..d the abase ..mea Ida to be SOUS! Sail s 9JEDINSION, lsutbje... to is ad mid and alge¢of-wayanin to be record c.` Neung w Indicated m Pie Plot The Hants and oil of this Plant Mall win with of land, The Owner aces hereby dedicate and coney to the City of Fat Collins. Caoraae (number IDGE far PAR.. .... rarer,. a permanent right -of -war for beet purposes unit the Suss ents'w Iaia aaa designated an cols Pb4 broader, however that (1) asummme by the he City zemenm ao assmuan of Cooperate ads not i rn me City a out( to dedicated. end fS ....star by the Otv of the dedlmllan a drams does not Impose uaan the to Treadleimage ga n N ony tmces ed tg lRight to wranIt aneoopera u . exercise mem nx,Urights Owns ns the right tose the Easements r purposesthat do not ia p interfere with the lull pneobmarketed; e t of the rights hereby hat". The City haible far EoMmonce of it, a d for re ownedbyI� n me mwimenm lent by sae a °swim o a i.at an °,nee car yeas a t th duty oi'lmmmena of the Eaeemets, or of Improvements dedication, the Easements that ar not owned any theCity wawa. will --actor, the surface of Pc e me Eowmmte Sin itary condition ifenu, i man" with any applicable d, wi .an.. ar other legal regms rement Except in min ... Is permitted F an npgawd Man of wlapment or ag mmt onto me City, Owner will net metal an the Eowmmte, or permit the Instollotlan on the Eawmentle of any building, stmctus, impmv mt fin "n ing x wok, tree w her landscaping (other Man aural oa customary graww and other team a cow) 1, the event saw cbrtdlm re mtdlea in the Eoxmeni the City. has theright too re a Oman to banned, such oblalabtiv from a E... menLL f Mner " ar gMsmces, a City may re,aw we n adm wiPmt say lubfi\y or obfiill for re eploment thereof,, and mange me Oman Now al ra be such a If the City mooaea nmobstacles. e City x d not to remove the not be fae fair obstacles Mm any damage to the etacles or any other property which any ore attached. Me rights granted to a Cry by this Plot more to the benefit of the City, gMt,. Ikmaeea psmlltee and m1gns M, Mn.r n... by w d gumanews m City, fa , maps of two (z) year. frown of aampleXo and first occota con by me Cur ai m improvements w r, the weer. and complete maintenanceand rpoir of the eels to be constructed In active with the o,WWment wim X ski of this Plot IDls w anty, and accordance with me City Land Use Cane ea/or me nenthal Lana Use Regulation sappr¢cee e.The novnlee all to the street, and all other appurtenant alluttures and ameai\iw lying within the ots-of-bke Ea, t, and other public p treating. Sunni irmatiodn, all curbing, sidewalks Failed drainage PIPR c drainage al ping. My mainterronce and/or repair required an unites shall he ma;atel with the canine sinky mmpaal, or ent fLee 0w era wit maintain ,°id Improvements in manner that w compliance o .totem ace mum of °conwctlea are,, safety requiremts and ao o eotprotecton regal requirements of ice City. me 0.nw en real aad r, , to rbe c ,acted and repaired. all damages to veld Improvements are idling hmm denlW eat -mil r binding -"fatal atllNtl¢ n e asset ma (wary body to correct a y damage, amin thirty a^p asp written node thereof, Ran wi damage, may be membid by the City and all matt m c vgu, ruedea o and paid by the Meer. Me Cry oaf have any other rime one darkness an a blaw. Any damages whim ocarrea e price to me ma rof said •two (2) . nua ea mod, areunimpaired a at termination orb mid pud shall human me re,porroph , of ice Mner. neiaerotim M the wl of this final Plat and other wwable msiaenwn, me owner saw h co dun h y aqe to hula rut y nnbm lave eat a 0w ('Tynermmto o be coning cupmt" me d iof o with the d m Tel nwhepmee by the City or is pmvemmte to a construct" m connection mm P. ahMep an which o inn amain f this pint, awn any bin all aaime, of the v Boom h awns a aOwne bfur a more and c err Cie of public Improvements of a Ww<r as Owner aa.r repairs " nna,mn nmm en mike ere hnra �a mpsNbwm:ma is without Imimidge One within to a,em`iu ao another Imm pooh, ore -trains. •g from wlle and bridges Martin Ins right -of -forty, Easements and other Public hold th a; City hainag from ludes dewaed emaelgn nand w rmatruinship, darer Tea caused to t h Coty of one epee eeries f nce n workmanship, 1p. as wxl oh mrxro dew any a marl ar .e<uIo became,Ill w Seasonalo. g g Further, me owner w erne mat n e title to ton. one a win he/She t simple psop y h e for a e Owner a 'mtengin during ma marrbgreea m y n Na/ees ring only and ea cany ou •d damages sew Ung rro iddere eon sing or buildings, techniques aria doe wit Clan N me construction Hon or one anaiur, tlmalet uc\um w nullm qe, the matter ry of courses of r<ate p peaty s, and awn naval ryeM, and am and enr other matter e haver ,rote Owner all m the fight tog unite this paragraph Sort be Oil ley of [one Owns wl further warrant Mn[ afire me rigs[ eb may aeN Ibna °"wdingthlo aele Pla\. All pesm, take nonce that the Owner has exceeded certain aocummte pertaining to age OesNWment who create certain rights and obligations a the "lopmmt the Owner and/w outromumt Owners r all a pMioe o the OewlVmem site m f whim obligations constitute primnism ea mmnem that. along with me obligations under is Plat. runwith the lea. The said may elm o M (man may N er mint Agre hat, Sim cape C Landscape Plant Ii I✓o went (Carol , the al fi F(a'n"R becmtewral "am mod by xnm sons mere to a enr In the o o me Real me mCityM onand en role be aarxr wammm by all p.,.ar interested °, ppranaemg aovacanian ar me Dewapmm< one Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado Data COUNIy The foregoing instrument moos acknowledged before me by as of the , day o! , 20_ My commission Opine MNw my bona and official mei. (SEAL) Date MW COUNTY OF j Tat foregang monument was ocknordial a berate me by as of Mis , May or , 20_ My mmmk"Im .Wire. histmim my ham and ai awl. (SEAL) AMORNFYq N I hereby certifybat the NSubaiviem Plot has been duly executed as required purdant to Section Z23(C)(3)(o) Movie (a) Indexes Ls 6f the LeCame Law Ce of the CityClal Fort Cand mat of px.me sign no this Subdivision Plot on behalf of corporation or often entity are duly ouroerbord signatories under the laws of me state of Wlweae. This Cntil is based upon Use raves of the Clerk a b Uwal of Loam„ County. Crowed, n of m of ..... to, ar th oration alec°wred by m rough reeawmle mwl;r and Is limited a namadz etnr and 2z.XC)(3))(t of the Lea we Code's Adore,,: 16e9641 No OMIER. SCSI LLC 1803 MESANEW LANE FORT COLUNS. Co 80526 ENGINEEN IMERNEST CONSULTXG GROUP MIKE OBERIANDER 1218 ASH SHEET. UNIT A MNDSGR. Co BOi50 PHONE; (970) 674-3300 SURVEYDR: KING SURVEYORS STEVEN PARKS 650 GARDEN DRIVE INDOOR. CO 80550 PHONE: (970) 686-5011 By 0e City Engineer of Mae City of Fort Collins, Colorado this day of City Engineer By We Dbecbr of Plan. in Ache City of Fart Cdlns. Call this day of CURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I. Steven Pa*% a Colorado Ucwe Professional Land Surnyw, do hereby elate that this Subdivision Pet was prgarea from on actual w under my wwmmd wperesion. that the m entatian as she found o and that me fwigwmnngl ° to rip, eat[ Ilan min .... C Ins to me beet r my pmwwgb Ica end biller. PRELIMINARY Steven Parka - On BMalf Of King Surveyors Land oyoM�aProfessional A 20Communist and Right of Way was grunted to the City of Fart Calins by the document recwaea August 15, 1985 at Re eptlan No. 8504032C Me language In this document Malcolm an.: moment and right -of -nay to Install, operate, maintain, mean. reconstruct, genenuct, replace, Inspect and .move at any time and nmm time to time public Ica s..tagether x a rlgpt-ol-way far a "n any dolman that this document disks not sufficiently McMome a Public IgM-al-Way as day area ` wetly being used a easement calf molybdenum with the aedcatien of the Rlghl-of-Way, ,hewn Forme. NONGF ALL RESPONGENUMES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSWUCOON OF ME PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR Dyl LOCATED ON ME RPROPERTY IS MEYSUBJECT CE MIS LL TH FLAT SHARE BORNE BY E OYMERS OF PPROPE COLLECT VELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASUCIIAMON, IF APPLICABLE F•THE CUY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO ODUGABON OF DPERAMON. MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/Op DRIVIES NOR SHALL ME EOCITY Ill ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH BRUTE ANOOUDRIVELSOR LAND USE TABLE LOT 1 2.821 ACRES 94% RIGHT OF WAY 0.166 ACRES 6% TOTAL 2.989 ACRES 100% BAGS OF Assuming the East line or the Swtneo[1 Quarter of Sweden 27.. TME. R69W, as betlng North OM 11 Be W Ia Mat, sing a did Bwring of the Ca wnea Stale None CoommmeaSystem, North Zone. North. American Datum 1983/2011, a distance or 2653,32 feet Mtn all other two ga wntoinea h...n elders, thereto. Me Nn..I prior ... m ore m i mal herein are based upon the -u. s. saner Far Mi Acmrking to inroad lore ma meet cmm any legal action based a any defect F this rve awilein r e ,tenon utter ,ou fist it elect. n M may any action based open any defeat In bey be commenced min than n pare from the at a e Fortlfcatlm anwn .neon (13-80-105 CR.s. i01 i) Mi Tis aney its..n et NOTE a title wo by King Sune,vv to determine ownership n mmmum, of memo not constitute al informallm regarding a rights -of -my and this of rcwb. King in Bole \ere`ef Oi"inch id .onolel anwnmltmenl umber rem dated as prepared by 9 to PLAINIT ocip NOTE The subject pmpMy is I, flood aone'x', -aedemonstrateddemonstratedd tow be aiae the oaam ch.... an.. of Iib complain' per City of Fart Coffee va fegn.dm and per FEMA flow map C8069CMW revised e dlMay 2, 2012. For further Informaean, mil dry of Fort Cases Utlnae, pnax (970) 221 Tat entire property M In time MCI MMium Density Mlaed-U" Negnbwndd district. moos w o private c of resource e Mng eWipmmlr nr landscaping that are allowed by Sxlbine 12-120 - I2-122 M the City Coca*, ■ � � I z r.� 11 11 e V pit ��,�..�'�' L►����j S 1�2�w�zm VICINITI MAP (NOT TO SCALE) 1-=20 DRAVIN Bch CHECKED BY: SP 0 O O cI n li Li O A Q ocil Iti O OU �\ O O Cry � U z r� z fey to N Vr W G\ O v fn ai V Q III a4 ii N_ 1 O CO Wit r N O z lG0i z �m F 0 m - J KU W 04 S O om co Umom F- Q Z O Y— N z N n N) PROJECT 9 20160486 1 SHEET 1 OF 2 mpm;pjmlm "JFL( CROUNCIF CONIbM/N/UMS NO. SUP1 1T NO. GSA CRAN06 (YINSOCALR UM$ SILSPE NL NO, 18 DEBAR NIT LS 32444 LOTL AVOI CHAPARRAL PUD III IL m gj F m `"M $I RII al Ip :I I i8 L19 I _.. L L-11(AFC I I I I + I 1 \ I, \ eIN 1 13 I� I �Cti L I _.-tl6 .,.� I GAS Ir �24' � I a' —I m 811 kFI, W; K,II m �1<^; al . EPP, I m ._ IIIYELL Bw'vusnc ILLEGIBLE (N RE LOTS, J9LRU (' "/ YELLOW MAS LS 989 HORN /ONSPUO NMA6M,P&S LEGEND ----- EASEMENT LINE ---- SECTION LINE — RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BOUNDARY LINE BL BUILDING ENVELOPE AGE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT U&GE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOUND ALIQUOT CORNER AS DESCRIBED ■ MONUMENT AS MOO AS RIBED SET24. ECAS H A BGAPR RED FIGNEGIGC STAMPED AS. LS 383" O LLLCUUTED POSITION LorzBL 2 ClIWPURRI 3425 SOUT" SHIELDS SUBDIVISION Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado LOT/S,BLOCKS LOTI), BL0.^A'1 LO 11, BLIXK3 CHAPARRAL PUD CTGPARRALPUD FOUND �P'DZBAL PHo S89'55'34'E 504.63' CHAPAR AC Prm BE3 N07 A PAART OF BLANKET LTY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT I ABA2rB'I— / ET I$ NOEPSUNUTY AMID Im DRAINAGE EASEMENT JIA I a I 21'CAF�1 s885Y31"E 18&OD' J I I }I I 25' I Cil g -N99S---S YI'WI--T.]6-'----------- - — — — — N PI LOST of ]28902 SQFFrACRES Al n•uE KETAACRES pal AND DRr ACCESS, UTILITY T _ 1 D d2NXACE EASEMENT sfi9xs'v'[ rnx'__ 25 �21'EAE� ... _. 1... _..._... NB9'S5b4'W 158.50' oI IIa li a NOT A PART BLANKETACCESS= $ DRAINAGE UTILITY AND 1 DDAINAGE EASEMENT AM.r r L1d� I CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CH BEARING CI IBM' 50.00' 2192 22' 18.20' S7913'I5W C2 910' 2500' 2192-22' 91 N79'33lYE C3 9A8' 26.00' 20153'57` 9.43' S79-37'10-W C4 17.36' BUSY 1953'22' 1]27F 479107'13'E C5 DOW MOO WI 31' 11 AT S4414'12YN C6 15.71' MCI) 90M'W 1414' N44TEG W CT I5.PY 10000' SOUKAW 14.14- SGRYG 'W CB 15J1' 10,00' 901001 14.14' N450C28'E C9 15:71' IOOO' WOY'OY' S4455'WE CB 7,85' SCO' I MIDI 7,07 S43V4'26-W oil 14.11' 9OO 9PW'W 12J3' N44'55'36W 02 23UM' 1500' 9DW'W 21Z' N443534"W C13 23.58' 1500' 90C0'OY 1111' N45"4'26-E C14 23 G 1500' 9OW'M' SS1' GR455'34'E CIS DOM MOD MIDI 21,21' 54591'16'W 7DUI LLOK,TL'LiXJTlI NAMONS'PUO LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH Ll NOSW'28'E 23.00' L2 50004'26'W 23 Or' 13 NO31I 23.00' L4 SOOO4'26"W 23UOY 0 NWtl4'26A 1&00' L6 N8955'34'W &00' US NWpC26"E 28 18 S0955'34'E 8.00' L9 NMINMYE LIO NOOII 21,00' L11 NI34-W 9.00' L12 NOYV426"E 23 NO' LI3 NEW 34-E 9.00' L14 NOYWhB"E 20.00' LIS S0004'26-W 23.00' T N0855'N W 6x0O SBT3S35W 9110' GTE) BE4 2 NOT A PART OE I AMID ACCESS, UTILITY MD ACCESS,, DRAINAGE EASEMENT rG2 CI--~ ___ _______ NMWJ4M' 610l I Y,Lb' 56955'WE 8300' X ry v'w rxv m' I I% I r sress'JI2 ex re_ _ ___J Ia/I \ � ..._... 6ZT. .._. HB955'L'W 6050' �18' 26RIGHT DE WAY N a By THIS A S ],220 SQF. 0.166 ACRES DeEAE �25'—I m I � ;x R I mI iW RES sI 5 NOT A PART OF BLANKET S. UTLITY AND ACCAGE EE K, p DI EASEMENT $; II 1P ORAMAGB EASEYENI DEC GO.ISkSX0ROD: ; &RExa u Bm5a3 I I I I I 13' I MRO£ I S\ -____ } N/9 gJ'18'y/ NOr A PARTS BLANKET ACCESS, UTUTY AND 90, 1r1E) L `_ '--__I 56955'34'E es D]' 15, DRAINAGE EASEMENT III L2I r _ / 0 55_31'E fi].00 SBB _..._.,.J off ll.A3' N89655'34"W 504.63' LINE TABLE USE BEARING LENGTH L16 N00%WM'E 23,00' LO SB855'A"E 2300' L18 N09WWW 2300' L19 S6955'14'E 2300' ISO N893634'W 2300' L21 50955$4'E 19.19 US N00%PVWE BUOY 03 S0004'26-W 1886 L24 $6951 us N8P55'3TW 2400' IM 310'SY 09"E 2fl 33' L27 NWVB'S1'E 2532' 08 5499B'4fE 23.10' US N41'2YISE DISK LID S2B0]'43'E 284J' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L31 N41112 2SW 20.18' LT2 51514Y 8"W L39' G13 NGOYI bSE 16T 1 20 10 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET SCALE: Ift=20' FOUND 3/i BRASS TAGJ llt4f7A IN CONCRETE, L5 32444 HORSE/YIOTH NAL 1RESB EAST QUARTER CORNER SECTION n. Tw .]N.0 Rbe FOUND 3lle ALUMINUM CAP ON /G FORM, CUDGELS: IN MONUMENT SON I 2T RIQR OF WAY EASEMENT REC, NO, 85040E2 -SEE SURGYCRS NOTE- I PRELIMINARY SLere: Po:Xa - P: 81 Of Kn9 SuI Ctl1m60 UI Pml®mel Lane SI p W m I SOUTHEAST ECTON 27 LONGER T,74, FOUND 1/ - AL INUMCAP XIGH EDu0 z RISKS, ALUMINUM 159 IN MONUMENT BO%I148], 1985 DATE: 8/22/2016 FILE NAME 201809885UB SOALE 1'=20' DRAWN MY, CHECKED BY: SIP 0 O � M O � O LL O I OU NP 1 (�l O w RED I I � z �v U H� cad V' I o q W v N O Q e3Q yy a I �Lj91 ii (N > j O m OfQ N U z v�i Z 7n J~m W 041KU 4 Z 0 R N U woz F Q WN� 0 O N W Z CRI N TO TO /_X=1TitXM[! NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 3425 South Shields Multi -Family LOCATION: 3425 South Shields DATE: July 20, 2016 APPLICANT: Mr. Scott Ranweiler, Brinkman Partners CONSULTANTS: Jim Doyle, TB Group Chad Arthur, Infusion Architecture Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer Project Description The project consists of developing a parcel of land that is currently being used for outside storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, R.Ws, etc. at 3425 South Shields Street. As proposed, the project consists of 94 apartments divided among three buildings on approximately 2.89 acres. The number of parking spaces at this time is estimated to be 151. The parcel currently contains an existing house and outbuildings all of which would be removed. The easterly building would be three stories. The westerly two buildings would be a combination of two and three stories. Access would be gained from Shields Street and Richmond Drive. The parcel is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. 1 /_iMITitMM[! Questions, Comments, Concerns 1. Would bikes be able to go south to the convenience center via Richmond? A. Yes, there is connecting driveway that provides direct access from our site south to Richmond Drive. 2. We live north of the site and there are existing mature trees that help block the traffic noise from Shields. Will these trees remain? A. We are aware of the existing trees. Our intent is to save the healthy trees along the property lines that will not conflict with the proposed buildings. 3. I'm concerned about providing an excessive amount of landscaping that will require heavy irrigation. As a community located in a semi -arid environment, we need to be sustainable and not waste water unnecessarily. A. We intend to plant only those types of trees and shrubs that have proven to be suited to our local climate. By using drip irrigation, we think we will be using water wisely and yet still be able to establish a proper level of landscaping that we have all come to expect from new development and to comply with the Land Use Code requirements. 4. I'm not seeing a lot of open space. Will you be providing a play area for children? A. We intend to provide an area for grilling and dog -walking but no playground equipment. 5. Will you be installing an earthen berm along Shields? A. No, we are not planning on a berm. Instead, per the City requirements, we will be installing street trees in the parkway (area between the curb and sidewalk). 6. Will you be removing the existing house and outbuildings? A. Yes. We have already received permission to remove these buildings by the Historic Preservation staff as these buildings have no historic significance. 7. What do you mean by "detention area?" A. A stormwater detention pond refers to the low spot on the site where stormwater runoff will be directed. This pond will store the rainwater temporarily, or detained, not permanently in which case the water would be retained. These detained 2 /_iMITitMM[! storm flows are held back until the storm subsides and then the water released slowly over a period of time so as to not cause any downstream flooding. All sites that are redeveloped in such a way as to increase the amount of impervious surface (parking lots, drives, rooftops, etc.) are required to construct stormwater detention ponds with controlled release rates. Ponds are typically sized to accommodate the 100-year storm and then release the water at rate that does not exceed the pre -development historic release rate. The stormwater system is reviewed by the City's Stormwater Utility. 8. Can the pond be placed anywhere? I see an open space benefit to the pond be strategically placed to help buffer the existing houses. A. No, the pond must be located at the low spot where the water naturally flows. Otherwise, you can't get the water to drain downstream. 9. 1 would like to see families accommodated so the project is attractive to more than just college students. If you provide an active playground, perhaps you would attract families with children. A. Our target tenant is not college students. We have constructed student -oriented apartments near campus and such buildings require a much different design. These apartments are designed for young professionals and others who are post college. 10. 1 live along the north property line and would encourage you to put as much open space, and an active playground, along the north. 11. In contrast to the previous comment, I also live along the north and would prefer that you not put an active playground along the north. I prefer a solid fence. 12. Have you considered building condos versus apartments? Across Shields are condos called Five Oaks Village. Your project would be more compatible if they were for owners, not renters. A. We have indeed considered condos but the timing is not right. We are constrained by first time buyers being required to have larger down payments relative to their incomes. We are constrained by the lack of a construction defects law which helps mitigate the trend in class action lawsuits being filed against developers of condominiums. We see the for -rent market as being the most viable at this time. 13.1 see a lot of asphalt and parking lots. You have provided no place for kids to play. I would like to repeat that you need a playground for children. A. Thank you for your comment. Our marketing research indicates that we will likely not have a significant number of families with young active children choosing to 9 /_X=1TitXM[! rent units within this particular project. Such families will be pre -disposed to finding an alternative project in which to rent an apartment. 14. What is the distance of Building One from the north property line? A. Approximately 25 to 30 feet. 15. We live to the north and have been in our house for 17 years. The lots along your north property line are small with small backyards. It seems intrusive to put a three story building in such close proximity to our houses. I'm concerned about privacy and your tenant looking down on us. It concerns me that as we enjoy our backyards, we will be disturbed by your tenants. A. We understand your concerns. Please note that the building in question will only be three stories in the middle. The east end will be reduced to two -stories to match the houses. As mentioned, we will try to keep as many existing mature trees as possible to help with privacy concerns. 16.Our neighborhood already bears the brunt of traffic associated with Rocky Mountain High School. In addition, the Fort Collins Housing Authority is proposing a new multi -family development on West Horsetooth Road just west of Kingston Woods near Seneca Street. The traffic is already heavily congested and this project (and others) will just make it worse and will change our way of life. We need a new traffic signal at Shields and Richmond. And, you need to know that in order to get out of our neighborhood to go north, the signal timing at Shields and Casa Grande is such that we have to wait at least two minutes to get the green light. This proposal has me very concerned. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Since the intersection of Shields and Richmond is so close to the intersection of Shields and Horsetooth, the City will not install a new signal at Richmond. Such a signal would totally disrupt the north -south traffic flow on Shields which carries far more volume than Richmond. An alternative to using Shields / Richmond would be to take Richmond to Horsetooth. 17.1 would like to see a project that is age -restricted to those 55 and older. 18.1 would prefer that the project be constructed for owners, not renters. 19.Are three story buildings permitted by zoning? A. Yes, the site is Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (M-M- N) which permits three story buildings. 20. What would be the square footage of the one -bedroom apartment? 10 /_X=1TitXM[! A. At this time, we estimate about 620 square feet (plus or minus). 21. Is there a demand for student -oriented housing this far south? A. As noted, we are not targeting CSU college students. 22. What do you mean about the lack of a construction defects law? A. In the last several years, there has been an unusually high number of class action lawsuits statewide brought by condo ownership governing boards against builders and developers of condo buildings. Consequently, insurance companies have raised their rates for condo projects to a level that is cost -prohibitive. The state legislature has tried to address this issue in the past two years with no result. Consequently, several Denver Metro communities have passed their own construction defects law but Fort Collins has not. The issue is acute as the percentage of condo construction on a statewide basis has dropped significantly. Our company will not construct a condo project until this problem has been addressed. 23. What are your lease rates? A. At this time, we estimate that a one -bedroom will be $950 and a two -bedroom will be $1,150 per month. 24. Will the north -facing units on the north building include balconies? A. We plan on some units, but not all, having balconies. As to the north elevation of the north building, we don't exactly know yet. 25. How high are the floor levels of the second and third floor? A. The second floor will be about 12' — 14' feet and the third floor will be about 18' — 20' feet above grade. 26. Will you keep the existing cottonwoods? A. We will try to keep the healthy ones. 27.On what side of the building are the entrances? A. All buildings will feature two breezeways that run the entire width of the building. This allows access from both sides. In reality, the side facing the parking lot will likely be the most heavily used. 28. I'm concerned about privacy. I like to keep our windows open in the summer and now I'll have to close them. Ron /_XM1TitXM[! 29. For the building facing north, how many units will face north? A. As noted, this building will feature two stories on the ends and three stories in the middle. With one unit per floor, there will be seven units facing north (two on each end and three in the middle). 30. We live on the north and our stormwater flows south. And, our backyard fence is in really bad shape. Would you consider building us a new fence? A. We may consider a fence such as a typical six foot solid wood that you see in most neighborhoods but I can't commit tonight. 31. Will you be raising the grade of the site? A. We are not in the floodplain and we are not planning on basements so the only grade work will be to raise the first floor one to two feet to achieve positive drainage away from the foundation. 32. Will the developer be required to build a southbound right turn lane on Shields? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: No, a southbound right -turn lane will not be needed. 33.1 live in Kingston Woods. With the City not willing to install a signal at Shields and Richmond, from what I gather, if we want to go north on Shields, we are being encouraged to take our local streets to Horsetooth and then turn east to the Shields / Horsetooth intersection in order to then turn north. Is that correct? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Yes, that's correct. This is because there is considerably less volume on Horsetooth (west of Shields) than on Shields (north of Horsetooth). Also, as you know, Kingston Woods is also served by Seneca Street which provides access north to Casa Grande which takes you to the existing signalized intersection with Shields. These are the two ways to go north on Shields during peak times. 34. Having said that, we need more green time for Casa Grande. 35. Does the City have crash data that includes when R.M.H.S. is in session? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Yes, we have crash data on a year-round basis for Shields and Horsetooth. Our goal is to have an overall traffic system that benefits the entire City based on traffic volumes. For this reason, we must prioritize the through traffic using Shields as a north -south arterial street by giving this traffic flow more green time than Casa Grande. We can make some slight adjustments to the green phase for Casa Grande but we must do some analysis first before committing to a solution. 9 /_XMITitXM[I 36. How much new traffic is expected for this project? A. Our traffic study based on the number of proposed units is that there would be an estimated 600 new trips generated by these apartments. Approximately 10%, 60, would be entering the roadways during the peak times. 37. We have another congestion problem during peak time — northbound Shields traffic that wants to turn left (west) onto Richmond does not have enough stacking capability. Left turn vehicles then que back and block the inside northbound through lane. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of this condition. Our observations are that this only occurs during peak time. Please note that it is not feasible to lengthen this turn lane due to the volume of northbound traffic on Shields during peak. 38. What can be done about the congestion during peak times? I see lots of near - misses. The congestion needs to be addressed. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Congestion during peak times is an issue on a city-wide basis. Every year the City widens various intersections to include new auxiliary turn lanes. For example, as we speak, right turn lanes are being installed on both north and southbound Shields at the Drake intersection. We advise that if possible, avoid travel during peak times or find an alternative route that you may find to be less stressful. 7 SYMBOL KEY 4 O HORIZONTAL SIDING VERTICAL SIDING BOARD AND BATT SIDING S�u az O VINYL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS Trua e..e,e m ID C O ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES 6 STONE VENEER (DRY STACKED) i m m O MECHANICAL SCREEN mi m gO SPLIT FACED CMU 5 STEEL GATE W/ North Elevation METALPANEL 118 — 1 -0 DARK GRAY 8 PAINTED TRIM 16• c 0 c 12 .� INN North Trash Elevation o v4•• = r-a•• F I �ne.,. A m W 0 m DARK GRAY I1r S 0 PAINTED TRI HZ 0 161-00 _ N I0 m m V 00 J W A�' I W m F South Elevation a o 1/81, 11-01, iiii: South Trash Elevation 0 N 1/4••=1'-0'• a DARK GRAY M 6 6 O 3 PAINTED TRIM 5 6 (3 r 12 3 12 a 101-01, �3 � o TNa e.. ® r...: ae.. wee: War Se[ - ® East/West Trash Elevation s„�: West Elevation East Elevation A=3 1/81• = 1' 0'• 1/81• = 1' 0•, of 4 BUILDING B 5' WALK RETAINING PERGOLA DRAINAGE 8' FOOT EXISTING WALL CHANNEL PRIVACY RESIDENCE FENCE 40' FROM BUILDING +/- 15FROM TO PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE TO EXISTING HOUSE COPPERLEAF CHARACTER ELEVATION TWO STORY SCALE:1 "=10'-0" 0' S 107 W 12.21.16 111GROUP vmrepeae+enre i dtr.*g � �sam KI M4 M Tfl 9]OSIIS®t B11otl.CO�806t3 TBO�us 9 am Building Shadows 9 am 25 ft Wall Shadows 3 pm Building Shadows 3 pm 25 ft Wall Shadows NN Pre,pram,,ina name, t is fla, set ssWeouofUtah acoe me wn, orisolaental, _ v mx fatblow me and nmamdd[ iu Lom eves bus atIondJaJmpeaI of soar loanst stems is memo rghtt of I plume pe<Wiv m the site wepracticed W1111 RTJe bI we marble, ammgx e,'aemm optimal mTld the newt to mW a� u00 an and S00 collIIiiMIT lelon Dec mber to araeashe rvmhme dame occur enure dear.nlit a I• Een eon drehumme Up 900 emend par nePer laFIST.on December thetotemnt propoas1Adamon111no aostml ofthis Incowine Us mcempre Plan Israentx dhnolexenxiaele aheeeard Ind PORmvee axiemGemtaedurai byl optrine, m,pcopeaandmasss Thv.am6mL ueeafotdto Indonesia potmual imPa<t of sNde cammq� hmean.,tmrwn and lira. �) Ganasranaahe amaedelndal rhall Feanipped <m00ppnYm e¢nmmna@utidemGmpnme mlv mnanmaamme mmuemanehpr me. Q Satyr Omm� dRile mdIll Lom.At IenuugSndemmor, ore , r tear thm WealmsIfml -,II a,madue UMw m mete-mean-ra,io-rnaemial ananrmm4mw cnotn,m to me aefi�mofa "ally miamdlpf m ameu o pram@ she p,emm for aalm merenmgm. Aetna to stamens The dam a of are do door Via (a I, hme uetle. n<nlaLopm oo space and landsmpw� rhall be mxmee ma aniam. some mstimum eves reaemle. m wweai a� ram, o-h, I for flamed mW mun far aly-mimted,o0nnp um lateral m<affair a rotor collector or reaction recalls, of plotidme for pro declined mlined ha xalnneem nr Wa Lmltlmexm We vrnieatmdem the berm 0r9 W,a. act oopm NET .. on Landless 21 E SFdiy Il) TLephrsvel demnlr ofine deal0pmea plmaM1164 mmemavmnm Wmlha,ble. 1,ma,madNpa nn matlxmm xtrvetm wj nr p,oper� m,nme eh,a tiro -we he<aaq.p man,6 r, T an Do mbu2 all the pr R his t ownwo bon the lln MG hlg s me3Wp \1ST, OeawW omme pa ontroll To[,Tr a dram fllmda6 bys dear L : Dstm L :Lamm W, d T started Ot aln D o,n. () The i of ran ahJI to malwtM in m abntlual pan, I onduwe me potentml impacts of mesa s1 mepoumd "',,m wpwa drams'rhadieg round create for The, adjjacent prepen¢x in man, of bm Its; mdieW aman, Ltwg areas,nmdom amnt. um, andmr coaemdu,wcn benefit film ease to mwisla Shane rowed ba' exmmnr vet rm be beet and n rot grommet A4muunarthad Us ht,I,, Upon apar a pamm�m,TheUe, onnionmaf&,S npsode anilbwode,ne ladmnlbl may as rnashmbe a xhJe nr a vnm f, n plan aeamP dra r,mdam of wa s lira. m Fanamntstwaode a set map elms abbe proposed mel cla,MeassenNanmax mmbwNl aid requirements forplau u ad froth in twit 5¢tioo. , plain n IJba dearly idmtifi and duaae Ns' modifications meaMUaho ph""mtlmexadrw wands meelm sill betty mrOmPLxhme pap,e of par, Sertim Js aplantirh mmphex um me medasax of mid Somalia. (E) Res, n Cn,rnin in approd,nFaltemthe plan do ion maker start fiod last the proposed distant aPine SaImpWhermry epu0aea of th¢Semm eg0nlld m better This,a Plan saes rOmpLn nim me NotluN offt im Intendrus, me RORrM n amo ePlaq In derision m,an shill ad, am azroumxhs Its, eMaeYiae demp mhmnsoeigttu,hood mammy and co diry,foam grmato yfg stems, and preseal mJiy memod , mpgaphir "m idom in tle rib.. (WNo.165,119W916^11,16W;Drd`No.087r2002§5, dpi Qd No, 031, 2Wf§10, bI5101;f No. 025, M13§I, A=5 /_ii . I'TitXMFO SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: LOCATION DATE: APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: Copperleaf Apartments P.D.P 3425 South Shields January 3, 2017 Mr. Scott Ranweiler, Brinkman Partners Mr. Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners Cathy Mathis, TB Group Randall Johnson, Infusion Architecture Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer Project Description This is the second neighborhood meeting. The project consists of developing a parcel of land that is currently being used for outside storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, R.Ws, etc. at 3425 South Shields Street. The project has been revised since it was continued from the November P & Z hearing. As now proposed, the project consists of 94 apartments divided among three buildings on approximately 2.89 acres. There would be 110 bedrooms. The number of parking spaces is 147. The parcel currently contains an existing house, outbuildings and outside vehicle storage (including R.Ws, campers, boats, etc.) all of which would be removed. The easterly and southerly buildings would be three stories. The northerly building has been reduced to two-story. Access would be gained from Shields Street and Richmond Drive. The parcel is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. 1 /_ii . • I'TitXMFO 1. Changes Made Since November: • The number of bedrooms has been reduced from 115 to 110. • Building B has been reduced to two -stories, not a combination. • The shadow lines of Building B have been reduced. • The north elevation of Building B will have five units, not six. • There are no breezeways or unit entrances on the north side of Building B. • The trash enclosure in the northwest corner has been deleted. • The scope of the outdoor amenities along the north property has been reduced. • Two options are presented with regard to the setback from the north property line of Building B. 2. Can you review the status of the trees? A. The trees have been inspected and evaluated by the City Forester. As you are aware, being an outdoor storage lot, the trees have been neglected for decades and some are dead or dying. There are 24 existing trees on site. We will preserve eight existing trees. Eleven trees will be removed with mitigation and five will be removed with no mitigation. We will plant 68 new trees. For any of the existing trees that are to be removed and have been determined to have value per the City Forester, 21 new trees will be up -sized as mitigation. The other 47 new trees will be planted at the standard caliper sizes required by the City. 3. Will you be keeping the three Siberian Elms along the north property line? A. Yes, even though these are not considered an attractive species, their height and spacing creates shade and helps buffer Building B. 4. Is the access to Richmond Drive paved? Is it a public street? A. Yes, it's paved, and no, it's a private access easement, not a public street. 5. Will it be re -paved to accommodate the new project? A. No, not at this time as the pavement appears to be in good shape. Brinkman will enter into a maintenance agreement with Grease Monkey, the underlying property owner to address long term maintenance. 2 /_ii . 1'TitXME: 6. Will the building facing Shields be three-story? A. Yes, and you may recall from the November P & Z hearing that one board member suggested that if Building B were reduced to two -stories, he would have no objection if Building A increased to four -stories. 7. Will there be a southbound Shields right -turn lane into your site? A. No, but our driveway width will be wider than normal to accommodate cars turning from a through lane. 8. Does the estimated number of southbound right -turns trigger a right -turn lane? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: No, based on the number and type of proposed dwelling units, the number of southbound right -turns (12 during peak) does not meet the threshold for constructing a right -turn lane (40 during peak). 9. How are these estimated numbers derived? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: These numbers are based on data derived at the national level by the Institute of Traffic Engineers based on years of sampling. 10.Are there any proposed improvements to the Shields / Horsetooth intersection? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: No, the data indicates that the overall impact from this project, as proposed, on the intersection is less than 1 % of the total trips during peak time. And, we've looked at crash data and this metric remains constant after entering in the number and type of proposed dwelling units. 11. With the proximity of Rocky Mountain High School, the traffic on Shields feels very congested. During peak times, turn lanes are backed -up. A. City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of the conditions related to high school traffic. Since the last neighborhood meeting, we have been monitoring the Shields / Horsetooth intersection and we find that it currently meets the City's adopted Level of Service standards (rated on a scale of A — F). In addition, please note that we have factored in the trip generation from the Village on Horsetooth (one-half mile west on Horsetooth) as well as our standard estimated increase in city-wide background traffic. Based on these factors, the proposed project does not impact the Level of Service at this intersection. 9 /_ii . I'TitXMFO 12. What is the L.O.S. at Swallow and Shields — it seems very congested? A. We are aware that there is heavy traffic during times when the high school is in session. 13.1 recall from the November P & Z that all buildings were to be reduced to two - stories? A. That is not our recollection — only Building B was recommended to be reduced in height, and, as mentioned, one member offered that Building A could go to four - stories. 14. The project is still too dense. The dwelling unit per acre ratio is too high for the neighborhood. A. We are aware of your concern. Our thinking goes back to the fact that the property is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The property is along an arterial, at the edge of the neighborhood, and next to a commercial area zoned N-C, Neighborhood Commercial. Our parcel is only 2.98 acres which is relatively small for a parcel zoned M-M-N. Finally, as we have been discussing here tonight, we think our project has been revised to mitigate the impacts associated with multi -family housing. For example, the garages are placed at the perimeter which effectively blocks light, noise, and traffic. All the surface parking is interior to the site. We are a local developer and our projects are well -managed and well -maintained. 15. When was the property zoned M-M-N? A. Response from City Planner: The site was zoned M-M-N in 1997 as part of a city-wide rezoning to implement City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. I have handed out an explanation of the purpose of the M-M-N zone, along with an excerpt from the City Plan Principles and Policies that describes how these zones are distributed city-wide. Generally, as noted in the preceding response, these districts are intentionally located along arterial streets, on the edge of neighborhoods and in close proximity to commercial areas. Being along a transit route provides an opportunity to use the bus instead of a vehicle. Multi -family housing offers an opportunity for residents from a variety of socio-economic levels to live in all parts of the City. 16. For a big picture perspective, what is the volume of traffic on Shields Street? A. City Traffic Engineer: About 25,000 trips per day. 10 /_ii . ITITI M O 17. Thank you for removing the trash enclosure in the northwest corner. Has it been relocated elsewhere on the site? A. No, it has not been replaced. We will provide two trash and recycling enclosures but we will have to increase the frequency of pick-up service to compensate. 18. Can you restrict the hours of pick-up? A. Yes, we can set the timeframe for pick-up with the hauler so it is during normal business hours. 19.1 appreciate reducing the height of Building B and preserving the 40-foot setback at the same time. This will benefit us who live across the property line to the north. 20. Will there be any parking on the north side of Building B? A. No. 21. Will there be six dwelling units per floor facing north in Building B? A. No, we have re -arranged the units so that only five units per floor will face north, not six per floor. 22. Will these units have entrances facing north? A. No, the north side of Building B is totally enclosed. Unlike the other two buildings, there will be no common breezeways facing north. Entrances will be internal to the building. This will reduce the activity level facing the neighbors to the north and northwest. 23. I'm concerned that your tenants would not be willing to pay extra for the garage spaces leaving garages unused and then you won't have enough surface parking. A. We will price our garage spaces to make sure they are fully utilized. We will have our management staff monitor usage so that the surface parking is not impacted. Our experience is that the garage spaces will be fully leased. 24.Along the west property line, Casa Grande has a decorative concrete wall that is leaning. Would you consider joint funding for the necessary repair? A. Yes, we will consider this. Ron /_ii . ITITI M O Two Options - Area North of Building B: In designing the site, and considering the public input, the design team offers two options on how best to treat the area north of Building B. Here are the two options and feedback is needed on how best to proceed. Option One: This option preserves a 40-foot setback between Building B and the north property line. Please note, however, that this option includes a patio, pergola, grilling area and benches. We are showing two grilling stations and two patio tables, four chairs per table. These components are primarily due to comply with the requirement that, as a multi -family project, we must provide a central feature or outdoor gathering area. (Exhibit provided showing 40-foot setback.) Option Two: This option shifts Building B 15 feet to the north so that the setback is reduced to 25 feet but there would be no outdoor gathering features. If desired, we are willing to increase the fence height to eight feet. (Exhibit provided showing the 25-foot setback.) (Note: the response to these two options was not immediate and was the focus of the most of the remaining discussion. Ultimately, the response favored Option One.) 25. How big would this patio be? A. The patio would not be as large as previously shown. Per our latest site plan, the patio is not a perfect rectangle but measures 63' x 23' for a total 1,450 square feet. The north side of the patio is screened by pergola and by the proposed six- foot high solid wood fence (with stone columns at the property corners consistent with previous plans.) 26. Will this patio area be illuminated? A. We can adjust the lighting so that it does not spill across the property line. 27. Do you have experience with these patios in your other projects? A. Yes, our experience is that our tenants enjoying grilling during the warmer months but then take their food back to the unit. We do not see tenants hanging out for extended periods and we do not see partying. 28. Do you have a rule in the lease about late night partying? A. Yes, we have provisions in our lease about not disturbing fellow tenants. 29. Do you have 24-hour on -site management? 9 /_ii . I'TitXMFO A. No, we have found this not to be necessary. In lieu of on -site management, we have a management service that is on call 24 — 7. As we have emphasized, we are not marketing to college students. Our location, amenities and pricing are not geared towards college students. Rather, our tenants are active professionals who are attracted to the outdoor Colorado lifestyle. Our projects tend to attract lots of single people. In terms of management, we will staff a leasing office during business hours and we have property management staff tending to matters on a daily basis. 30.1 think you'll find that price is not a deterrent for college students. 31. Thank you very much for presenting us with the two options. You have explained the rationale behind each scenario given the site constraints and needing to comply with City standards. Perhaps we can give you a definitive response towards the end of the meeting. In the meantime, there may be more questions. 32. How is the number of parking spaces determined? A. We are required to provide 1.5 spaces for every one -bedroom unit and 1.75 spaces for every two -bedroom unit. Based on our bedroom mix, we are required to provide a minimum of 145 spaces. We are providing 147. As noted, 25 spaces will be in the five garages. 33. What about a two -bedroom unit with two occupants, both of which have a car? A. Our experience is that while that may be the case for some of the two -bedroom units, it is not true for all. For example, we have a number of two -bedroom units leased by a single person who wants the extra room for an office. 34. What is your construction schedule? A. We would like to begin site work in May followed by vertical construction. All told, it will take 12 to 14 months from start to finish. 35. Is construction activity restricted by hours? A. Yes, we must comply with the nuisance section of the City's Code. Hours are restricted to between 7.00 a.m. and 7: p.m. 36. What are your lease rates? A. We are anticipating that a one -bedroom would lease in the range of $600 - $1,000. A two -bedroom would lease for about $1,200. 37. Will you be constructing fire walls between the units? 7 /_ii . ITITI M O A. Yes, and the buildings will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 38. Do you allow pets? A. Yes, with rules and regulations. We require a picture of all pets so we know which ones are allowed. We provide pet waste stations in the common areas. 39. Will there be an H.O.A.? A. No, we are the single owner, these are not condos. 40. Is you management staff on -call? A. Yes, as noted, on a 24-7 basis. 41.You will need at least one space per bedroom. A. Our ratio comes in at 1.33 spaces -per -bedroom. 42. What about tenants squeezing in more people to split the rent? A. We monitor this very closely. We find that our tenants are diligent about reporting these extra occupants as it may impact parking. We are very strict and such a situation constitutes a violation of the lease and the risk of eviction. As a result, we don't seem to have a problem with this. 43. What is your typical lease term? A. 12 months. Response to the Two Options: The group of property owners to the immediate north and northwest of the Building B appreciate the two options that have been presented. Thank you for giving us the time to discuss and arrive at a consensus. As noted, there are pros and cons to each option. While we are concerned that there is an active area that accompanies the 40-foot setback option, we see a greater benefit gained by the extra setback distance. We think that the activity will be relatively normal and generally at the level that would be comparable for other neighbors. If a party gets out of control, we can call the 24-7 management staff. The pergola and privacy fence will help buffer the expected activity. By reducing the height to two stories, at a 40-foot setback, the project is less impactful than before. As a group, we support the 40-foot setback with outdoor amenity area as proposed. 0 Attachment 19 From: Travis Neidert [mailto:travisneidert@outlook.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:19 PM To: Scott Ranweiler <scott.ranweiler@brinkmanpartners.com> Subject: Copperleaf Plans Scott, I was happy about the changes to the plan presented at the neighborhood meeting last night. A lower Building B is very good news. Please send me the drawings of Building B (both versions) to share with my wife. Just to restate: My neighbors and I prefer the 40' setback with patio area. Of course the smaller the patio, the better. A pergola or vine trellis would be very nice. While I was hoping that 1 or 2 of the northwest mature trees would remain, the mitigated trees are the next best thing. Assuming the plans presented at next week's hearing are the same as last night I have no significant objections to the project. Travis Neidert 3364 Laredo Lane By -Laws and Rules of Procedure Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins, CO Article I - Introduction Section 1. These by-laws and rules of procedure have been adopted by the Planning and Zoning Board and shall supersede any by-laws or rules of procedure previously in effect. These by-laws and rules of procedure are designed and intended to inform all residents of the City and other interested persons about the operation of the Planning and Zoning Board. These by-laws and rules of procedure meet the requirements for the adoption of same as set forth in the City of Fort Collins "Boards and Commissions Manual," and are intended to be applied in conjunction with all of its requirements and provisions. It is hoped that through the use of these by-laws and rules of procedure that the Planning and Zoning Board can effectively carry out its obligation to the City Council that each and every matter to come before the Board will receive a fair and reasonable hearing. Board". Section 2. The official title of this Board shall be the "Planning and Zoning Article II - Membership and Officers Section 1. The Planning and Zoning Board shall be comprised of a membership determined by the charter and codes of the City. Section 2. The officers of the Board shall be a Chairpna_R and a Vice —Formatted: Strikethrough Chairman. No officer shall be eligible to serve for more than two consecutive terms in the same office. Section 3. The election of the Chairman and Vice-Ch the regular meeting of the Board in January of each year. shall be held at Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Section 4. The D + f r + Planning Director of the City of Fort Collins Formatted Strikethrough shall serve as Secretary of the Board. Section 5. A vacancy in the office of Chairman shall be filled automatically by the Vice-Chairp�&R and a new Vice -Chair shall be elected at the next regular Formatted: Strikethrough meeting of the Board from among the members. A vacancy in the office of Vice- Formatted: Strikethrough Chairp4ag shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board by election from among Formatted: Strikethrough the members. The officers so elected shall serve until the next annual meeting in January. Article III - Duties of Officers Section 1. The Chairpiag shall preside at all regular, special or adjourned Formatted: Strikethrough meetings of the Board and shall, subject to these by-laws and rules of procedure, decide Planning and Zoning Board By -Laws Page 1 all points of procedure unless otherwise directed by a majority of the members there present and in session. Section 2. The Vice -Chaim shall assume the duties and responsibilities of . Formatted• Strikethrough the Chairp4a44 in the event the Chaim is absent or unable to perform The Vice- Formatted strfkethrouah Chair , with the Chairpi4ag and staff assistance, is responsible for an orientation Formatted: Strikethrough program provided for new Planning and Zoning Board members. Formatted: Strikethrough Section 3. The secretary shall keep or cause to be kept all records of the Formatted: Strikethrough Board and shall transmit all appropriate records to the City Clerk to become a part of the official City record. The Secretary, subject to the direction of the Board and its Chaim, shall prepare or have prepared all correspondence of the Board; receive and Formatted: Strikethrough file all matters referred to the Board; send out all notices required by law, ordinance, these rules or as requested by the Board; scrutinize all matters to insure that these rules are complied with; prepare and keep calendar, dockets and minutes of the Board's proceedings; retain in the records the original papers acted upon by the Board; keep all records, files and indices required by the Board. Article IV - Meetings Section 1. The Secretary shall prepare or cause to be prepared an agenda for every regular, adjourned or special meeting of the Board subject to the review and approval of the Chairp4ag. Formatted: Strikethrough Section 2. The regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the third Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Fort Collins, Colorado or, after timely notice, at such time and place within the City of Fort Collins as the Chairman shall designate. The regular monthly Work Session shall be held during the week on Friday, unless otherwise scheduled, preceding the third Thursday of the month. Section 3. The regular meeting in January of each year shall be considered the annual meeting. Section 4. Any regular meeting may be adjourned and reconvened at a time and in a place determined by a majority of the members there present in the session. Section 5. Special meetings may be called by the Chair�eaag, or by the Formatted: Strikethrough Secretary at the request of two members, provided that notice of the same including a listing of all items to be considered shall be delivered to each member of the Board or to his or her residence at least forty-eight hours prior to the time set for such meeting; providing further, however, that announcement of a special meeting at any meeting at which all members are present shall be sufficient notice of such meeting. Formal action taken at a special meeting called in accordance with this rule shall be considered as though it were taken in regular meeting for those, and only those matters referred to in the call for the meeting. Section 6. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public, except those executive sessions as are authorized pursuant to Section 2-71(b) of the City Code. Planning and Zoning Board By -Laws Page 2 Section 7. All meetings of the Board shall require a quorum to be present and in session before official and formal action can be taken on any matter. A quorum is defined for the purposes of these by-laws and rules of procedure as any four members. The Vice -Chairman shall preside in the absence of the Chairman Where both the Formatted Strikethrough Chairpnan and Vice-Chairjman are absent, those members present through a majority Formatted: Strikethrough vote shall select a member to preside over that meeting. Formatted: Strikethrough Section 8. The Chairman may from time to time call work session meetings Formatted: Strikethrough for the purpose of receiving information, hearing presentations and discussing Formatted: Strikethrough information provided, however, that -no formal action may be taken. Formatted: Strikethrougn Section 9. Voting at a regular, adjourned, or special meeting shall be by a roll call vote. Section 10. Any member shall request of the Chairpnan to be excused from Formatted: Strikethrough the discussion and voting on any matter before the Board in which the member feels there is a personal or financial conflict of interest. The Chairman may require a member { Formatted: Strikethrough to be excused from the discussion and voting if in the Chairman's opinion a personal or __-( Formatted: Strikethrough financial conflict of interest. A majority of members present and voting, excluding the Chairman, may require the Chairma,q to be excused from the discussion and voting if in __- Formatted: Strikethrough the majority's opinion a personal interest exists. Any such exclusion shall be noted in Formatted: Strikethrough the official minutes of the meeting. If needed to help constitute a quorum, such excluded member may remain present in the chamber. If not needed to constitute a quorum, such excluded member must depart the chamber. Section 11. The order of business for all meetings shall be the order as it appears in the agenda except that the Chairman may under special circumstances rearrange the order of business unless otherwise directed by a majority of the members present and voting. Section 12. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept minutes and keep the same recorded to date, showing all important facts pertaining to each meeting and hearing, the vote of each member upon each matter and the record of those absent or abstaining, and such other details as the Board or its Chairman shall direct. The minutes of each meeting shall be approved by the Board at its next regular meeting. Section 13. The Secretary shall prepare or cause to be prepared the transmittal of official and formal actions of the Board to the City Manager's office for scheduling before the Fort Collins City Council. Article V - Committees Section 1. There shall be no standing committee of the Board. Section 2. The Chairman may from time to time create such ad -hoc committees as he or she may deem appropriate for special study or review unless directed otherwise by a majority of the members present and in session at any regular, adjourned or special meeting by the Board. Section 3. The Chai shall appoint a committee chai ;man shall appoint all ad -hoc committee members and p}an which shall be a member of the Board, provided, Planning and Zoning Board By -Laws Page 3 Formatted: Strikethrough -{ Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough however, that no member shall be required to serve on more than two committees simultaneously or as chairs of more than one committee. tFormatted: Strikethrough Section 4. Any committees created under this Article will be required to file a final report with the Board and shall be deemed to be disbanded upon the filing and acceptance of such report with the Board. Section 5. The Chair and Vice -Chairs of the Board will automaticall, become ex-officio members of all committees created under this Article. Article VI - Amendments Section 1. These rules may be amended by a majority of the members present and voting at any regular meeting provided that notice in writing has been given to each member at least ten days prior to such meeting or provided such amendment was read at the last preceding regular meeting of the Board. Section 2. Any rule of these by-laws and rules of procedure may be suspended at any regular, adjourned or special meeting by a majority of the members present and voting at any regular meeting. APPROVED by the Board at their '� �a�°2008January 12, 2017, Meet+eghearing. Planning and Zoning Board By -Laws Page 4 Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough City of F6rt Collins Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax MEMORANDUM To: Christine Macrina, Boards and Commissions Coordinator From: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Date: January 5, 2017 Re: 2016 Annual Report: Planning & Zoning Board Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick and Vice -Chair Gerald Hart were elected in January. Planning and Zoning Board held 12 regular hearings, taking action on an items per meeting. The agendas ranged from one to eight items. The Boar The Development Review agenda items for the year totaled: 1 Overall Development Plan; 23 Project Development Plans; 0 Additions of Permitted Use; 7 Modification of Standard (to Project Development Plans); 0 Re -zonings; 6 Annexations totaling approximately 109.8 acres; 4 Major Amendments; 7 Site Plan Advisory Reviews; 4 Extension of Final Plan. d The Board provided recommendations to the City Council on the following items: • Various Revisions to the Land Use Code Relating to Dust Prevention and Control • PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District) Pilot 1 year Extension • Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment (Alternative Process for City projects) • Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for the 1-25/SH 392 — Corridor Activity Center Design Standards 0 Downtown Parking Community Dialogue • Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for Outdoor Vendor Requirements • Town of Windsor 1-25/392 Design Standards • West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor • Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for Short-term Rental Regulations • Maverik Annexation and Zoning • Mountain's Edge Annexation and Zoning • Majestic Place Annexation and Zoning • East Prospect ROW Annexation and Zoning • Cache la Poudre Annexation and Zoning • Rennat Annexation and Zoning • 2016 Update to the 3 Mile Plan Planning and Zoning Board Decisions appealed to City Council: • Landmark Apartments Expansion — Decision Upheld • Brick Stone Apartments — Decision Upheld