The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/25/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Ken Summers, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron City Attorney City Manager City Clerk Adjourned Meeting September 25, 2018 6:00 p.m. Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented. NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details. 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 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. • CALL MEETING TO ORDER • ROLL CALL 1. Montava Planned Unit Development Pre-Application Hearing. (staff: Jeff Mihelich, Rebecca Everette; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to allow the prospective applicant of the Montava development project in northeast Fort Collins to receive preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the prospective Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan and to assist the developer in determining whether to file a PUD application. City of Fort Collins Page 2 The order of the proceedings at the public hearing will be: 1. Director’s Overview 2. Prospective Applicant’s Presentation 3. Staff Response to Applicant Presentation 4. Public Comment 5. Applicant Response to Public Comment 6. Staff Response to Public Comment 7. Council Questions and Discussion 2. Public Hearing and Resolution 2018-083 Approving the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 Consolidated Service Plan. (staff: Josh Birks; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider approval of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 Consolidated Service Plan (Service Plan). The developer of the proposed Montava Development has submitted the Service Plan to support the proposed development of approximately 988.5 acres located in the northeast portion of the community near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development is anticipated to include 2,000 single family homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office, 88,900 square feet of retail. The project has committed to provide 10 percent of housing units in a mix of for rent and for sale affordable housing. In addition, the project will deliver all units as US Department of Energy Certified Zero Energy Ready along with other commitments. A Metro District with a Mill Levy Cap of 60.00 mills has been proposed to support the project. City Council conducted a public hearing on the Service Plan at its September 4, 2018 meeting, but continued further consideration of the proposed Service Plan to its September 18, 2018 meeting and then again at the September 18 meeting to September 25, 2018, to allow additional time to refine the Public Benefit commitments and other legal aspects. The Service Plan submitted for consideration by this review includes refinements to performance assurances and commitments. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 25, 2018 City Council STAFF Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Montava Planned Unit Development Pre-Application Hearing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to allow the prospective applicant of the Montava development project in northeast Fort Collins to receive preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the prospective Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan and to assist the developer in determining whether to file a PUD application. The order of the proceedings at the public hearing will be: 1. Director’s Overview 2. Prospective Applicant’s Presentation 3. Staff Response to Applicant Presentation 4. Public Comment 5. Applicant Response to Public Comment 6. Staff Response to Public Comment 7. Council Questions and Discussion STAFF RECOMMENDATION None. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Pre-Application Hearing In accordance with Land Use Code (LUC) Sec. 2.1.6.B, prospective Planned Unit Development (PUD) applicants are afforded the right to an optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review with the Planning and Zoning Board (for projects 50-640 acres in size) or City Council (for projects >640 acres in size). Such review is intended to provide an opportunity to present conceptual information to City Council regarding the proposed development, including how site constraints will be addressed and issues of controversy or opportunities related to the development. In the preapplication review, the developer should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and affected property owners. The prospective applicant for the Montava project has requested such a hearing and the Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director has determined that the project in northeast Fort Collins would have community wide impact. 1 Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 2 The Montava developer previously held a pre-application hearing with City Council on December 13, 2017, which is permitted for complex development projects under a separate section of the Land Use Code. The initial pre-application hearing was more general in nature, while the September 25 hearing will focus on the PUD Master Plan more specifically. At the December 13 hearing, Council discussed and provided feedback on the potential metro district and governance structure, contribution to needed transportation improvements, approaches to conserving agricultural land and promoting urban agriculture, protecting natural corridors, Nature in the City opportunities, night sky protection, housing types and affordable housing, multigenerational amenities, provision of child care, renewable energy production, use of industrial and employment lands, and water supply and service challenges. The full December 13 hearing can be viewed online: <https://fortcollinstv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=DwfcrGG6ScCC#>. PUD Process and Review Criteria The PUD process and regulations were adopted by City Council on July 17, 2018. The process is optional for development projects greater than 50 acres in size to be developed in multiple phases. The PUD Master Plan is intended to provide an overall vision for long-term development of a site, including the project phasing and the elements for which the applicant has requested entitlement to specific land uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering standards. The Master Plan must have sufficient detail to serve as the overall guiding vision for the long-term development. After a PUD Master Plan is approved, each subsequent development phase is subject to the Project Development Plan (PDP) process. PDP applications would be evaluated for consistency and substantial conformance with the approved PUD Master Plan. Major components of a PUD Master Plan application include the following: • List of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested • Overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses • Transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation • Location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for preservation • Architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing architectural design intent • Phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase • List of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan PUD applications are reviewed for conformance with the following criteria in Land Use Code Sec. 4.29.B: 1. The project must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable: a. Diversification in the use of land; b. Innovation in development; c. More efficient use of land and energy; d. Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; e. Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and f. Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. 2. Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. 3. Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. 4. Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. 1 Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 3 One advantage of the PUD process for an applicant is the opportunity to create a vested property right for specific land uses, densities, development standards and variances from engineering standards. As specified in LUC Sec. 2.2.11.C.2, the term of the vested property right is generally three years unless the City and developer enter into a development agreement that vests the property right for a longer period of time, as appropriate. Council shall adopt any such development agreement as a legislative act. Plan Amendment Process In order to accomplish the goals of its PUD Master Plan, the Montava applicant also plans to request amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Master Street Plan. The process for amendments to adopted subarea plans, including the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, is outlined in City Plan and includes the following procedures: 1. Citizens and development applicants may submit requests for plan amendments, and such amendments may be processed concurrently with development applications 2. City Council is the decision-maker for plan amendments, with recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board, staff, and any boards and commissions that have a legitimate interest in the proposed amendment 3. City Council must find that the plan is (1) in need of an amendment and (2) that the proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and its related elements The process for amendments to the Master Street Plan includes: 1. Technical analysis and review is conducted by various City departments, including travel demand modeling and consideration of relevant Transportation Master Plan and City Plan policies 2. City Council is the decision-maker for Master Street Plan amendments, with recommendations from the Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and staff Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Guidance The 2009 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan describes the vision for this area of the community as: “…an area of Fort Collins known for its impressive views of the mountains and recognized for its successful and innovative community design. This subarea will be distinct and attractive with a comfortable, town-like atmosphere that residents and businesses identify with and take pride in. Neighborhoods, parks, schools, shopping district and business centers within this subarea will be connected and served by a variety of travel choices including vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes…” Other key elements of the subarea plan’s vision and policies include: • Mixed-use neighborhoods composed of a variety of housing types and prices ranges • Commercial centers and amenities in close proximity to neighborhoods • A new community commercial district with a small town-like pattern of streets and blocks and pedestrian focus • Network of streets and trails that are attractive, safe and pedestrian-oriented • Range of job opportunities for the area, community and region on industrial and employment lands • Access, mobility and connectivity for all travel modes, with strategically located transit hubs • Preservation and enhancement of existing natural features, historic resources, and scenic views • Schools, parks and recreation opportunities linked by a greenway network • Well designed and attractive landscaping, signage and lighting with high-quality and innovative building design 1 Packet Pg. 5 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 4 In 2016, City Council reviewed the vision and framework plan for the Mountain Vista subarea. In their work session discussions, Council reinforced their support for a land use framework that integrates open lands, including agricultural production, parks, natural habitat, and stormwater areas with new residential neighborhoods, public facilities and employment areas - with particular focus on agri-urban development, affordable housing, and implementation of Nature in the City goals. Northeast Community Park In addition to providing feedback on the proposed development, staff is seeking Council’s guidance related to the future Northeast Community Park, which would be incorporated into the Montava development. The Northeast Community Park is intended to be a regional park that serves the entire community, similar to Twin Silo or Spring Canyon Park. Staff seeks Council input on the following topics as part of the pre-application hearing: 1. Alternative Park Delivery: The developer would like to construct a portion of the park as part of the initial phases of development. To accomplish this, the developer proposes that Park Planning & Development funds to be set aside for property purchase ($5-7 million) be instead used to construct a first phase of the park. As development occurs, and as park impact fees are collected, the City would pay back the developer for the cost of the land. 2. Reduced Park Size: The Parks & Recreation Policy Plan lists Northeast Community Park at 100 acres. The applicant currently proposes an 80-acre park instead. 3. Phased Park: The total cost of an 80-acre park is estimated at $30 million. A first phase project ($7 million) would build a very small portion of the park, with the remaining park to be constructed as fees are collected. This approach would likely require 20+ years to build the park completely. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Unknown at this time. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notification of the hearing was conducted in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 2.1.6.C and Sec. 2.2.6.A-D, as applicable, including posted and mailed notice not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing. If the Montava developer proceeds with a PUD application, two neighborhood meetings will be required: the first meeting held prior to the application submittal, and then a follow-up neighborhood meeting after the initial round of development review has been completed. ATTACHMENTS 1. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) 2. Applicant Packet (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6 September 25, 2018 Montava PUD Pre-Application Hearing Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager ATTACHMENT 1 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Purpose of Hearing • Pre-Application Hearing for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) • Raise awareness of pending PUD submittal • Hear from potential developer • Ask questions and provide preliminary feedback to both applicant and staff 2 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Agenda 1. Overview 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Staff Response 4. Public Comment 5. Applicant Response 6. Staff Response 7. Council Questions & Discussion 3 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 4 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) PUD Process • Optional for development projects >50 acres • Projects 50-640 acres  Planning & Zoning Board • Projects 640+ acres  City Council • Two neighborhood meetings • Significant coordination among City departments and external agencies • Subsequent development phases follow standard development review process, reviewed for conformance with PUD Master Plan 5 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) PUD Master Plan Benefits of PUD: • Generates additional public benefit and high-quality design • Provides overall vision for long-term development • Ensures consistent, coordinated development over multiple phases Plan Includes: • Uses, densities and development standards • Transportation network • Open space network • Preliminary utility information • Architectural concept plan • Phasing plan 6 1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Plan Amendment Process • Montava PUD would require amendments to: • Master Street Plan • Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • Processed concurrently with PUD process • City Council is decision-maker 7 1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Agenda 1. Overview 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Staff Response 4. Public Comment 5. Applicant Response 6. Staff Response 7. Council Questions & Discussion 8 1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) City Plan Conformance A community built on Fort Collins Values Normally a developer will have a concept for what they want developed, then they will take the city regulations and contort them to fit what the developer wanted to build in the first place. That is not how we began Montava. This project stands on the shoulders of all that Fort Collins has been, is, and wants to be. We took the decades of work that have gone into City Plan, the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan, the Climate Action Plan and more to inform what the land we are developing needed to be. We started with the end in mind, and worked backwards. If you read through any of these plans you will see how this is true. The chart that follow is just a high level example of the dozens of City Plan Policy’s that Montava was build around. ATTACHMENT 2 1.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Housing Types How to build a new community that looks old Blending Housing Types/Sizes Building houses is essentially an outdoor factory. The more efficient you can make the factory, the faster things get built and the more profitable it is. That is why the trend in community development over the past few decades has very little creativity and variety. It’s driven by manufacturing economics. We have set out from the beginning to create a community plan that provides the kind of housing mix you see in downtown Fort Collins. It’s based on what is called the Transect Plan. The closer you get to the town center, the more dense the blending of housing is per acre. The farther away you get, the looser this gets with larger lots and housing types. Every transect however has a blend of almost every housing type. The %’s shift from one transect to the other. Large Single Family, Medium Single Family, Small Single Family, Micro Cluster, Cottage Courts, Townhomes/Condo’s, Small Multi Family, Medium Multi Family, Live/work, and others. All blended together to create the fabric of an old downtown feel with new home value. Our housing type book is attached. This is not normal. It is not easy to do. It is exceptional, extraordinary, and very challenging. But that is one more aspect of Montava that will make this Fort Collins community unlike any other. 1.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA Building Types Summary Fort Collins, Colorado 1.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn b 9/18/2018 Development Program ................................. 1 PUD Distrcts Map .................................................... 2 Unit Mix by PUD District ....................................... 3 Building Types ............................................. 5 Large Single Family House .................................... 6 Medium Single Family House ............................... 7 Small Single Family House ................................... 8 Micro Single Family House (Cottage Cluster) .... 9 Townhouse ................................................................ 10 Small Multi-Family Building ................................ 11 Medium Multi-Family Building ............................ 12 Live/Work Building ................................................. 13 Mixed-Use Building ................................................ 14 Shop Building ........................................................... 15 Employment Building (Office) .............................. 16 HF2M Max Moss Jeff Drinkard Sam Drinkard DPZ Galina Tachieva Matthew Lambert Dylan Wassell Heather Wassell Chris Ritter Michael Mabaquiao Michael Huston Martin Serrano BHA Design Bruce Hendee Angela Milewski PROJECT TEAM CONTENTS 1.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn 9/18/2018 1 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1.b Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2 9/18/2018 PUD DIStRICtS MaP 0’ 400’ 800’ 1,200’ 1,600’ 3,200’ T5 Urban Center / Mixed-use T4 General Urban Neighborhood T3 Sub-urban Neighborhood T2 Rural Neighborhood Agricultural City Park & Open Space Poudre School District Natural Areas & Stormwater Industrial & Employment SD-H* Phase 1 * SD-H IS AN AREA OF T4 NEAR THE FARM WHICH IS CALCULATED BASED UPON LAND AREA RATHER THAN FRONTAGE. THIS AREA IS INTENDED TO HAVE A HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF COTTAGE CLUSTERS THAN ELSE- WHERE IN MONTAVA. CALCULATIONS ON THE OPPOSITE PAGE SPECIFY THIS AREA SEPARATELY FROM OTHER T4 PROPERTIES FOR CALCULATION PURPOSES ONLY. 1.b Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 9/18/2018 3 UnIt MIX bY PUD DIStRICt BUILDING TYPES Type Lot / Module Size Average Building Details Average Net Density Current Market Montava Phase 1 Montava Buildout ID Name Width Depth Area Lot Coverage Unit Size Non-Res Area Res. Stories Non-Res. Stories Total Stories Bldgs/ Lot DU / Site DU Price Range Historical Sales Total Lots Total Units Total Lots Total Units A Large Single Family 60 ft 90 ft 5,400 sf 40% 4,300 sf 0 sf 2 0 2 1 1 1 8 du/ac $700k + 5% 9 lots 9 du 284 lots 284 du B Med. Single Family 48 ft 90 ft 4,300 sf 50% 3,200 sf 0 sf 1.5 0 1.5 1 1 1 10 du/ac $500 - $700k 16% 35 lots 35 du 547 lots 547 du C Small Single Family 36 ft 90 ft 3,200 sf 70% 2,200 sf 0 sf 1 0 1 1 1 1 14 du/ac $400 - $500k 20% 96 lots 96 du 443 lots 443 du D Micro SF Cluster 180 ft 90 ft 16,200 sf 80% 1,200 sf 0 sf 1 0 1 7 1 7 19 du/ac $300 - $400k 38% 98 lots 98 du 553 lots 553 du E Townhouse/Condo 22 ft 90 ft 2,000 sf 90% 2,000 sf 0 sf 2 0 2 1 1 1 22 du/ac $300 - $400k 21% 194 lots 194 du 533 lots 533 du F Small Multi-Family 66 ft 90 ft 5,900 sf 60% 1,500 sf 0 sf 2 0 2 1 5 5 37 du/ac 24 lots 120 du 121 lots 605 du G Med. Multi-Family 130 ft 120 ft 15,600 sf 60% 1,200 sf 0 sf 2 0 2 1 14 14 39 du/ac 11 lots 154 du 46 lots 644 du H Live/Work 25 ft 90 ft 2,300 sf 70% 3,200 sf 1,200 sf 2 1 3 1 1 1 19 du/ac 19 lots 19 du 29 lots 29 du J Mixed-Use 210 ft 100 ft 21,000 sf 100% 900 sf 12,000 sf 2.5 1 3.5 1 25 25 52 du/ac 9 lots 225 du 16 lots 448 du K Shop 30 ft 120 ft 3,600 sf 0 sf 1,500 sf 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 du/ac 22 lots 40 lots L Employment 210 ft 180 ft 37,800 sf 0 sf 17,500 sf 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 du/ac 0 lots 16 lots M Industrial 200 ft 300 ft 60,000 sf 0 sf 9,000 sf 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 du/ac 0 lots 28 lots 517 lots 950 du 2,656 lots 4,086 du ** “CURRENT MARKET” DATA IS EXISTING & NEW HOME SALES OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS IN FORT COLLINS, WELLINGTON, SEVERANCE, TIMNATH, LAPORTE, AND WINDSOR. TOTAL UNITS SOLD = 7,138 NOTE: MIXED-USE IS CALCULATED AT 2 STORIES OF HOUSING ABOVE RETAIL AS AN AVERAGE TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME SINGLE-STORY AND TWO-STORY STRUCTURES MIXED WITH 4-STORY STRUCTURES. ** THE LOT AREA FOR MICRO SF CLUSTER IN THE CALCULATIONS ON THE OPPOSITE PAGE REFERS TO THE OVERALL AREA OF THE ENTIRE CLUSTER, NOT A SINGLE LOT IN THAT CLUSTER. THE DATA TABLE WITHIN THE BUILDING TYPES SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS LOT INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILD- INGS. FOR CALCULATION PURPOSES, THE ENTIRE CLUS- TER (7 UNIT AVERAGE) MUST BE ANALYZED, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE TABLE. 1.b Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 4CoDESIGn 9/18/2018 Montava | ©2017 DPZ This page is intentionally left blank. 1.b Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn 9/18/2018 5 BUILDING TYPES 1.b Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 6 9/18/2018 Lot Width 60-100 ft Lot Depth 90-120 ft Average Lot Area 5,400 sf Lot Coverage 40% Average Unit Size 4,300 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 8 du/ac LaRGE SInGLE FaMILY HoUSE A Kentlands, MD B New Town St. Charles, MO C Norton Commons, KY A B C Current Market Price Range $700k + Historical Sales 5% 1.b Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 9/18/2018 7 MEDIUM SInGLE FaMILY HoUSE Lot Width 40-60 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 4,300 sf Lot Coverage 50% Average Unit Size 3,200 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 10 du/ac A New Town St. Charles, MO B Norton Commons, KY C Village of Providence, AL A B C Current Market Price Range $500 - $700k Historical Sales 16% tYPICaL oF CURREnt MaRKEt “nEW ConStRUCtIon” HoUSInG 1.b Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 8 9/18/2018 Lot Width 30-40 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 3,200 sf Lot Coverage 70% Average Unit Size 2,200 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 14 du/ac SMaLL SInGLE FaMILY HoUSE A B C A Carlton Landing, OK B New Town St. Charles, MO C Norton Commons, KY Current Market Price Range $400 - $500k Historical Sales 20% MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING • CURREnt HoUSInG StoCK In FoRt CoLLInS • bIG MISSInG PIECE In nEW ConStRUCtIon DRIvE to QUaLIFY • FIRSt MovE UP/DUaL-InCoME/DoWnSIZE oPtIon 1.b Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 9/18/2018 9 Lot Width 24-30 ft Lot Depth 60 ft Average Lot Area 1,800 sf Lot Coverage 80% Average Unit Size 1,200 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 1-2 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 19 du/ac MICRo SInGLE FaMILY HoUSE (CottaGE CLUStER) A B C A Carlton Landing, OK B New Town St. Charles, MO C Bywater, New Orleans, LA Current Market Price Range $300k - $400k Historical Sales 38% MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING • DoES not EXISt In “nEW HoME” MaRKEt In FoRt CoLLInS • PRIMaRILY WELLInGton anD SEvERanCE MaRKEtS FIRSt tIME HoME bUYER/EMPtY nEStER/SInGLE PRoFESSIonaL/YoUnG CoUPLE WItH KIDS 1.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 10 9/18/2018 Lot Width 18-24 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 2,000 sf Lot Coverage 90% Average Unit Size 2,000 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 2-3 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 22 du/ac toWnHoUSE/ConDo A Cornelius, NC B Habersham, SC C Kentlands, MD A B C Current Market Price Range $300k - $400k Historical Sales 21% MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING • FIRSt tIME bUYER/SInGLE PRoFESSIonaL/CoMInG oUt oF aPaRtMEntS SEEKInG LIFEStYLE anD aMEnItIES IDEaLLY 1.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 9/18/2018 11 Lot Width 66 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 5,900 sf Lot Coverage 60% Average Unit Size 1,500 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 2-3 Dwelling Units 4-6 Avg. Res. Density 37 du/ac SMaLL MULtI-FaMILY bUILDInG A B C A Habersham, SC B Norton Commons, KY C Rosemary Beach, FL 1.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 12 9/18/2018 Lot Width 130 ft Lot Depth 120 ft Average Lot Area 15,600 sf Lot Coverage 60% Average Unit Size 1,200 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 0 Total Stories 2-3 Avg. Dwelling Units 14 Avg. Res. Density 39 du/ac MEDIUM MULtI-FaMILY bUILDInG A Kentlands, MD B Legacy Town Center, TX C New Town St. Charles, MO A B C 1.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 9/18/2018 13 Lot Width 22-30 ft Lot Depth 90 ft Average Lot Area 2,300 sf Lot Coverage 70% Average Unit Size 3,200 sf Retail Area 1,200 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2 Non-Res. Stories 1 Total Stories 3 Dwelling Units 1 Avg. Res. Density 19 du/ac LIvE/WoRK bUILDInG A B C A Kentlands, MD B New Town St. Charles, MO C Rosemary Beach, FL 1.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 14 9/18/2018 Approx. Lot Width 210 ft Approx. Lot Depth 100 ft Average Lot Area 37,800 sf Lot Coverage 35% Average Unit Size 900 sf Retail Area 12,000 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 2-3 Non-Res. Stories 1-3 Total Stories 2-4 Avg. Dwelling Units 36 Avg. Res. Density 74 du/ac MIXED-USE bUILDInG A Norton Commons, KY B Village at Hendrix, AR C Village of Providence, AL A B C NOTE: PARKING IS GENERALLY ACCOM- MODATED IN SHARED FACILITIES, NOT PRIMARILY WITHIN THE LISTED LOT AREA. 1.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 9/18/2018 15 Lot Width 30 ft Lot Depth 120 ft Average Lot Area 3,600 sf Lot Coverage 50% Average Unit Size 0 sf Retail Area 1,500 sf Employment Area 0 sf Residential Stories 0 Non-Res. Stories 1-2 Total Stories 1-2 Dwelling Units 0 Avg. Res. Density 0 du/ac SHoP bUILDInG A B C A Kentlands, MD B Legacy Town Center, TX C Mashpee Commons, MA 1.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn BUILDING TYPES 16 9/18/2018 EMPLoYMEnt bUILDInG (oFFICE) Approx. Lot Width 210 ft Approx. Lot Depth 180 ft Average Lot Area 37,800 sf Lot Coverage 35% Average Unit Size 0 sf Retail Area 0 sf Employment Area 17,500 sf Residential Stories 0 Non-Res. Stories 1-3 Total Stories 1-3 Dwelling Units 0 Avg. Res. Density 0 du/ac A Kentlands, MD B Legacy Town Center, TX C Mashpee Commons, MA A B C 1.b Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Montava | ©2017 DPZ CoDESIGn 9/18/2018 17 This page is intentionally left blank. 1.b Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Prepared by DPZ CoDesign in partnership with: BHA Design 1.b Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1.b Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 1 CONTENTS Location and Character in Montava .................... 2 Architectural Simplicity ........................................ 3 Lining the Street ...................................................... 4 Fronting the Street .................................................. 5 Providing an External Face to Services .............. 6 Minimize and Hide Parking .................................. 6 Sharing Parking ....................................................... 6 Sharing a Block ........................................................ 7 Sample Site Constraints ........................................ 8 The Sheridan in Birmingham, Michigan ............ 9 Kentlands Manor in Gaithersburg, Maryland .... 10 Pine Trails in Castle Rock, Colorado .................... 12 1.b Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 2 © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 LOCATION AND CHARACTER IN MONTAVA SITE CONTEXT The character of Montava varies from dense and urban at the town center to rural and agricultural towards the edges. If your site is located near the town center, buildings and site planning are expected to be urban in character. If your site is located away from the town center, buildings and site planning are expected to be less urban or rural in character, the further away from the town center a site is located. When choosing a site, keep in mind the expectations of building character. Towards the town center, we expect buildings to be very close to sidewalks, taller, with parking areas minimized and hidden behind buildings. Away from the town center, we expect buildings to be separated from sidewalks, lower in scale, with parking areas hidden by buildings or landscaping. Selection of a building site brings our expectations of character with it. 1.b Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 3 ARCHITECTURAL SIMPLICITY SITE CONFIGURATION Montava is defined by a character of community. Each building individually adds just a little bit to the whole of the community, which in return contributes to the lifestyle of building residents. In most other developments, each building competes with its neighbors architecturally to appear important and attractive. At Montava we ask that each building be restrained in its architectural expression, simple. Adornment is appropriate at entries, where streets terminate on the building, and at block corners. Roof forms should be simple, designed to either shed water and snow where a pitched roof is used, or to shield rooftop equipment from view where flat roofs are used. We expect good windows, a rhythm of windows, and quality cladding, but not much else from upper floors. Together, the collection of buildings in an area provide diversity and interest. Where we expect the most architectural attention to be paid is at the ground floor along sidewalks. The experience of pedestrians walking to or past your building must be pleasant and interesting. Long blank walls and mechanical equipment must never be located along community sidewalks. Where residential units occupy the ground floor, we expect that units have individual entries or collective entries no less frequent than 75 feet. A clear definition between public, semi-public, and private space should be provided by low walls, fencing, or hedges, and clarity between public and private building entrances. Where non-residential spaces occupy the ground floor, we expect that they are well glazed and designed as shopfronts. 1.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 4 © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 LINING THE STREET SITE CONFIGURATION At Montava, we consider streets to be public spaces. To make streets feel comfortable, they need to be lined with buildings near the sidewalk, creating an outdoor room. In the more intense areas of Montava, nearest the town center, we expect buildings to be located within 10 feet of the sidewalk. We expect that property lines along streets be lined with buildings along nearly their entire length. Where streets are not lined with buildings, walls or fencing should continue the building line, shielding parking are service areas. Courtyards may recessed portions of the building along streets, incident with entries. Away from the town center, nearer the farm and surrounding agricultural land, buildings may be located further from sidewalks and fencing may be lower in scale or replaced by hedges. 1.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 5 FRONTING THE STREET SITE CONFIGURATION In addition to lining the street, buildings are expected to front the street, that is to present their primary entry and orient their facade towards the street. Where there are 2 or more streets along a property, the primary facade should be along the street of greater importance. Retail streets are of the highest importance. Typically the next streets in line of importance are larger streets, except that arterials and collectors may be less desirable to front services onto. Along other streets, in the town center, entries are expected at least once in 75 feet. Where ground floor businesses are located along sidewalks, they are expected to have shop fronts. Shop fronts are highly glazed and transparent portions of the facade on the first floor, providing visual access to the interior space and activities of the business. For retail busi- nesses, the shop front should be merchandised. For service businesses, the shop front often gives to a waiting area. For F&B, the shop front gives to a portion of the dining area. 1.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 6 © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 PROVIDING AN EXTERNAL FACE TO SERVICES MINIMIZE AND HIDE PARKING SHARING PARKING SITE CONFIGURATION At Montava, we consider streets to be public spaces. To make streets feel comfortable, they need to be lined with buildings near the sidewalk, creating an outdoor room. In the more intense areas of Montava, nearest the town center, we expect buildings to be located within 10 feet of the sidewalk. We expect that property lines along streets be lined with buildings along nearly their entire length. Where streets are not lined with buildings, walls or fencing should continue the building line, shielding parking are service areas. Courtyards may recessed portions of the building along streets, incident with entries. Away from the town center, nearer the farm and surrounding agricultural land, buildings may be located further from sidewalks and fencing may be lower in scale or replaced by hedges. Providing more parking than is necessary is both a waste of money and detrimental to the vibrancy of Montava. Vibrancy is supported by co-locating a high density of differ- ent land uses. As single land uses take up larger footprints, they decrease vibrancy. Surface parking is a large user of land which returns zero vibrancy. Reducing parking is key, along with locating parking such that it is not along sidewalks, especially on retail streets. Where land uses are in close proximity, they are often able to share parking, reduc- ing the amount required for each individually. The greatest sharing opportunities are often between residential and offices uses or retail and religious. But many other uses can share by estimating their peak usage time and amounts. Even a little reduction through sharing can help increase vibrancy. 1.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 7 SHARING A BLOCK SITE CONFIGURATION When the land area your development will require is minimized, it is possible to share a block with other properties and reduce your site planning burdens. Occupying an entire block requires a significant amount of building and street screening along the block edges. By right-sizing your site to your development needs, additional properties may be retained, to be developed by others, filling out the block. 1.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 8 © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 SITE CONFIGURATION SAMPLE SITE CONSTRAINTS The above two images show considerations for two larger sites near the town center. These identify where it is important to line streets with services, where parking should be accessed from, and other important considerations. In both cases, sharing the block with other lots, as described above, reduces the burden of creating active edges along your development. 1.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 9 THE SHERIDAN IN BIRMINGHAM, MICHIGAN DESIGN EXAMPLE This recently completed facility in Michigan exemplifies the goals of integrat- ing senior housing into Montava near the town center. The building format is urban with ground floor shop front glazing along the sidewalk, giving to internal building services. The architecture could be further simplified, however. 1.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 10 © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 KENTLANDS MANOR IN GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND DESIGN CRITIQUE In Kentlands, a DPZ community, a large senior housing facility is located at the edge of the town center. The building lines the street with buildings and hides parking, as desired. From the air it seems to function well. But at the street level, it does not engage the street, attempting to make up for this with additional architectural detail. One of the streets it lines is a retail street, which suffers from the senior housing. This street would be the ideal location to externalize services and bring the building close to the sidewalk to participate in the streetscape. The additional building setback along the larger street is appropriate, but at the retail street it is a detriment. Generally, the practice of berming landscape along the streets detracts from the development and neighborhood, including at the main entry which is obscured with landscaping. Overall the physical location of buildings and parking on the site is positive, but the building facade and relationship to the sidewalk is negative. 1.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 11 KENTLANDS MANOR IN GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND DESIGN CRITIQUE 1.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 12 © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 PINE TRAILS IN CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO DESIGN CRITIQUE This example is intended to illustrate what is not desirable at Montava. The building is located at the middle of the site with parking and leftover space along the site’s edge. This development could be sited on a parcel 1 or 2 acres less in area. The building’s architecture appears of a high quality, but it is obscured by parking and landscaping. 1.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) © 2018 DPZ CODESIGN | SENIOR HOUSING | DRAFT 07/06/2018 13 PINE TRAILS IN CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO DESIGN CRITIQUE 1.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) PREPARED BY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: HF2M BHA DESIGN NELSON/NYGAARD 1.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Affordable and Missing Middle Housing Affordable and Missing Middle Everyone knows that housing affordability is a big problem. We set out from the beginning of Montava’s plans to create a community where both affordable and attainable housing is blended into the community seamlessly. We have been working for months to create a systematic solution that will require many parties to participate. The City, Land Trusts, local affordable partners like Habitat and Housing Catalyst, Development Teams in NE Fort Collins, and others. There are some exciting opportunities that exist, and much work remains. We are committed to making a wide range of affordable and attainable “missing middle” housing part of the fabric of Montava from day one. In fact, we’ve already put our name on the dotted like with the City Land Bank, and that’s only the beginning. One way we are working on this is to partner with Housing Catalyst to be the initial developer of housing in and around the town center. What follows is our first renderings of how this project could take hold. Creating a single building on the Main Street that looks like live works, with retail on the first floor that becomes coffee shops and other uses. But in reality it is one building with 20-30 units of affordable long term housing. Our goal: Break the mold & make a difference 1.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Native Hill Farm @ Montava Agri Urbanism Defined One of the first concepts in the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan that caught my attention was the idea of retaining the historical agricultural connection in future development. When I began to explore this idea, it became apparent that this concept was not well understood. So I got on a plane and went to visit other communities and farms that were working to create that environment. We visited Serenbe, Willowsford Farms, Agritopia, and others. I learned many things along the way, the most important of which is if you don’t have a great operating framer you are dreaming. The Second thing I learned is, even when people want to do this with the best intentions, it is very difficult and often fails. We have kept all the specific lessons in mind as we focused on making this agri urban idea a reality. Partnering with Native Hill farms was #1 on the priority list. Nic and Katie have been serving this community for over 10 years, and are world class. Locating the farm on the best dirt, planning it’s shape and orientation, dealing with the salinity of our water, creating a water plan, creating a management structure that works, and many other things are where we have found ourselves for the last few months. The end result will be an incredible organic farm for all of Fort Collins, and the beginning of something beautiful for Montava. 1.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Max Moss / HF2M COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 430 N College Soil, Water & Plant Testing Laboratory Fort Collins, CO 80524 Room A320, NESB Fort Collins, CO 80523-1120 Phone: 970-491-5061 / Fax: 970-491-2930 Date Received: 8/9/18 Date Reported: 8/16/18 Billing: CC15823 IRRIGATION WATER ANALYSIS LAB # W299 I SOURCE: Larimer County Well "Routine Package" North Poudre Ditch Results Results Conductivity 1369 µmhos/cm pH 8.4 pHc 7.1 mg/L meq/L Calcium 76.1 3.80 Magnesium 67.2 5.53 Sodium 94.4 4.10 Potassium 1.92 0.05 Carbonate <0.1 <0.1 Bicarbonate 198 3.25 Chloride 11.3 0.32 Sulfate 479 9.98 Nitrate 0.2 0.2 Nitrate-Nitrogen 0.1 0.1 Boron 0.31 Pounds of Sulfate 426 per acre foot Pounds of Nitrate per acre foot 0.2 Salinity Sodium SAR 1.9 Hazard Medium Hazard Low COMMENTS: This water is classified as medium salinity hazard irrigation water. It should not cause problems due to salt accumulation in the soil if a moderate amount of leaching occurs and soil drainage is adequate. 1.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Irrigation at Montava Landscape and Non-Potable System Irrigation of landscaping There are two major opportunities we have in using the existing coffin wells to irrigate landscaping. 1. We have the ability to use this historically utilized natural resource to reduce the treated water needed for a development like Montava by approximately 50%. 2. We have the salinity issues which need to be taken into consideration for the turf grass and landscape for the homes and community overall. This provides a tremendous opportunity for innovation. We engaged Hines Irrigation to assess and plan the non potable irrigation system. Attached here you will find a briefing of that report giving you details that may interest you. We have also been working with Dr. Yaling Qian from the CSU Horticulture department. Dr. Qian is an expert in turf grass, landscape materials, and the effects of salinity. I’ve attached a proposal we will be executing for her involvement in our plans as we move to the next phase of the development. This is a critical component of Montava, and it is another area where the Metro District can play a vital role. 1.b Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Colorado | Texas | Arizona o 970-282-1800 | www.hinesinc.com Mr. Max Moss HF2M Colorado 430 North College Ave, Suite 410 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Max, Following, please find the results of an extensive Water Resources analysis & Non- Potable Irrigation requirements study executed by our firm. We are please to note that your property is substantially supplied with non-potable water via existing groundwater wells located throughout the site. As you will see, based on our conservative calculations, after all irrigation water requirements are met, you have an annual surplus of over 1,700 acre-feet. In response to your excellent question regarding the underlying aquifer supplies beneath your property: we have researched this supply with the State Engineer, the Water Commissioner’s office, & our internal water resources team. The alluvial aquifers supplying the Montava property are incredibly robust & are supplied from mountain run-off & sub-surface water run-off from surrounding agricultural operations. In an extreme drought, your property may need to apply a drought response watering initiative to protect high value landscape while letting native areas go completely dormant. However, this will be no less significant than what your property would experience if supplied from a municipal potable water system. Given the considerable excess water supply you possess, your firm commitment to significant water conservation practices applied to this project, & the conservative nature of our existing irrigation water estimates, we do not find any reason for concern as to the long-term reliability of your groundwater supply. Kind Regards, James N Hines 1.b Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Memorandum The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the concept for non-potable irrigation infrastructure at the Montava development. Information provided in this memorandum corresponds to equipment and concepts shown on the non-potable master plan provided to your office. Concept Approach The design concept and intent at Montava is to develop non-potable water infrastructure to irrigate all landscape material on the site. The development of the non-potable irrigation system will significantly reduce impact on local potable water providers and will save you, the developer, cost over the life of the project. 1. Non-potable Irrigation Approach 1.1. Irrigation Wells The Montava site contains numerous irrigation wells with large annual decrees compared to the anticipated landscape demands. Of the seven (7) quarter sections that Montava is composed of only one (1) does not contain an operational irrigation well; SW quarter of section 33 (Quadrant 5). An abandoned well is located on Quadrant 5 and may possibly be rehabilitated. 1.2. Water Storage The site irrigation wells will be used to fill irrigation ponds that will double as a site aesthetic feature and raise the value of the development. Irrigation ponds are sized so that 3 days of irrigation water and evaporation losses are contained in the top 12- inches of the surface; This ensures that each pond is not drawn down excessively in the event that well pumps are not operational and the pond cannot be filled. Ponds will be constructed with a minimum 8-foot depth, 4:1 side slopes and clay liners to minimize losses from seepage. Water from irrigation wells may only be stored for up to 3 days according to Colorado State water rights law. Due to 3 days worth of irrigation water being stored in the top 12-inches of the pond, the 7 feet of depth below must be filled each season using surface water with a storage right. Date: September 17, 2018 To: Mr. Max Moss From: Hines INC. Re: Montava Non-Potable Irrigation Concept Memorandum Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 1.b Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) RE: Montava Non-Potable Irrigation Concept Memorandum June 8, 2018 2 1.3. Water Pumping and Distribution Water will be pumped from the irrigation ponds to serve all site landscape. One (1) high efficiency vertical turbine pump station with multiple motors will be constructed at each irrigation pond. The pump motors and shafts will be set on a steel skid on top of a circular concrete wet well, approximately 12 feet deep, with an intake pipe routed to the bottom of the pond. The irrigation pump stations are sized to provide enough instantaneous flowrate to complete all site irrigation within an 8-hour window. Downstream of the irrigation pumping station PVC pipe will deliver water to irrigation points-of-connection (POC's) serving landscape in all public areas and residential, commercial and industrial lots. Distribution pipe will be routed along the back of residential lots and a 3/4-inch tap will be installed at each residential lot capable of providing 10 GPM to the lot irrigation system. An irrigation tap will be provided to each commercial and industrial lot and will be sized based on lot landscape area. 1.4. Water Balance and Accounting Each irrigation well on site is decreed to serve only a specific quarter section (hereafter referred to as a Quadrant) of the site. The current irrigation master plan shows water from multiple wells being pumped across Quadrant lines into centralized ponds, therefore water accounting will be necessary to prove each well is only being pumped to serve landscape on its' respective Quadrant. Downstream of each Quadrant's well pump a meter will be installed to measure the volume of water pumped out of each well. A meter will be installed downstream of each irrigation pump station and at every location that the irrigation distribution system crosses a Quadrant line. This configuration of meters will allow the site water manager to balance the volume of water being pumped out of and into each Quadrant. 1.5. Public Space Landscape Irrigation The irrigation distribution system will provide irrigation POC's to strategic site locations sized based on flowrate and pressure demand. Downstream of the irrigation POC's irrigation systems will be installed to serve all site landscape. Class 200 PVC mainline will deliver water to sprinkler and drip valves. Rotor sprinklers will be used to serve large areas of turf grass and native grass in parks, open spaces and natural areas. Rotary and spray sprinklers will be used to serve small areas of turf grass. Point source drip irrigation will be used to serve shrubs beds and trees. ET based smart irrigation controllers will operate irrigation systems in public space and have remote access capability through the cloud. 1.6. Lot Landscape Irrigation Irrigation taps will be provided to all residential, commercial and industrial lots. Downstream of the irrigation tap the lot owner will be responsible for construction and maintenance of their irrigation system. An annual or monthly HOA or Metro- District fee may be assessed to resident lot owners to cover the operational costs of the non-potable irrigation system. Industrial and commercial lots will be provided a water meter at their non-potable irrigation POC and may be charged per thousand gallons like a typical water utility provider. 1.b Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) RE: Montava Non-Potable Irrigation Concept Memorandum June 8, 2018 3 2. Non-potable Irrigation Infrastructure Master Plan: Establishment of Natural Areas The site contains a large tract of Natural areas in Quadrants 2, 5 and 6 that may require establishment irrigation in coordination with the City of Fort Collins prior to the development of the non-potable irrigation systems described previously in this memo. Temporary systems may be developed for establishment of these areas: 2.1. Natural Areas System 1 Natural Areas System 1 will serve establishment irrigation to natural areas located at the Eastern and Northern edge of Quadrant 2. A direct connection will be made to Well #10 and or 11. A sand separator will be installed downstream of the well pump to filter out large debris. Water will be pumped into an irrigation system where large rotor sprinklers will irrigate native grass and point source drip emitters will serve trees and shrubs. A temporary irrigation controller will be installed to operate irrigation zones. 2.2. Natural Areas System 2 Natural Areas System 2 will serve establishment irrigation to natural areas located at the Eastern and Southern edge of Quadrant 6. A direct connection will be made to Well #3. A sand separator will be installed downstream of the well pump to filter out large debris. A temporary irrigation controller will be installed to operate irrigation zones Water will be pumped into an irrigation system where large rotor sprinklers will irrigate native grass and point source drip emitters will serve trees and shrubs. 2.3. Natural Areas System 3 Natural Areas System 3 will serve establishment irrigation to natural areas located at the Eastern edge of Quadrant 5. A temporary irrigation pump station will be installed at the Farm Irrigation Pond. Water will be pumped into an irrigation system where large rotor sprinklers will irrigate native grass and point source drip emitters will serve trees and shrubs. If you have any questions about the information provided in this memorandum please don't hesitate to reach out to our office. 1.b Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) QUADRANT NE 41 OF SECTION 1 32 NW QUADRANT 41 OF SECTION 2 33 QUADRANT SW 41 OF SECTION 3 32 QUADRANT SE 41 OF SECTION 4 32 SW QUADRANT 41 OF SECTION 5 33 NW QUADRANT 41 OF SECTION 6 4 NE QUADRANT 41 OF SECTION 7 4 QUADRANT 3 · SW 1 4 OF SECTION 32 · PORTNER WELLS #1 & 2 · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 136.9 ACRE-FEET · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE: 200 ACRE-FEET · SURPLUS WATER: 63.1 ACRE-FEET QUADRANT 4 · SE 1 4 OF SECTION 32 · WELLS #18 & 19 · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 70.9 ACRE-FEET · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE: 300.0 ACRE-FEET · SURPLUS WATER: 229.1 ACRE-FEET QUADRANT 5 · SW 1 4 OF SECTION 33 · WELL #9 (ABANDONED) - POTENTIAL FOR REHABILITATION · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 82.5 ACRE-FEET · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE: 0.0 ACRE-FEET · SURPLUS WATER: -82.5 ACRE-FEET QUADRANT 6 · NW 1 4 OF SECTION 4 · WELLS #2 & 3 · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 14.9 ACRE-FEET (DOES NOT INCLUDE SCHOOL GROUNDS) · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE: 405.2 ACRE-FEET · SURPLUS WATER: 390.3 ACRE-FEET QUADRANT 7 · NE 1 4 OF SECTION 4 · WELLS # 4, 5 & 6 · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 34.6 ACRE-FEET · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE: 300.0 ACRE-FEET · SURPLUS WATER: 265.4 ACRE-FEET QUADRANT 1 · NE 1 4 OF SECTION 32 · WELLS #16 & 17 · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 102.8 ACRE-FEET · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE: 600 ACRE-FEET · SURPLUS WATER: 497.2 ACRE-FEET QUADRANT 2 · NW 1 4 OF SECTION 33 · WELLS #10 & 11 · ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 32.4 ACRE-FEET + 160.0 ACRE-FEET (FARM); 192.4 ACRE-FEET TOTAL · DECREED ANNUAL WATER AVAILABLE FROM WELLS: 575.0 ACRE-FEET Montava Farm Landscape Development Yaling Qian, PhD Professor Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Colorado State University Montava Farm will be developed in Northeast Fort Collins with a community-wide non-potable irrigation system that uses well water to irrigate the entire community. Based on water tests for samples collected in March 2018, the underground well water has a salinity level of 1700 ppm and sodium content of 103 ppm; these levels are likely higher in the growing season. The well water with this quality may have potential impacts on: 1) the establishment and growth of landscape plants and turfgrass; and 2) changes in soil physical and chemical properties after long-term use for irrigation. The developer has expressed the desire to work with the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture at CSU in landscaping and common area (80 acre park) development for the community. Based on email discussions, I outline the project with the following objectives: Objectives: 1. Evaluate water and soil analysis results, as it pertains to landscape plants and soils and consider landscape plants’ sensitivity to constituents in the water. 2. Recommend turfgrass that will grow well on this site. Determine how that grass is delivered/planted both in large common areas and individual homes. 3. Establish demonstration plots at CSU research farm where different turfgrasses are irrigated with saline ground water (plots will be maintained from 2018 to 2020). 4. Provide recommendations about cultural practices that landscape managers and home owners can do that would lessen the effects of saline water on plants. 5. Identify shrubs and trees that can better adapt to the water source, and identify ones that shouldn’t be used for common areas and/or landscaping for individual homes. 6. Establish an onsite testing center that is open to the public and showcases this collaborative work with water, irrigation, plants, etc. The purpose of this on-site testing center could be multifold: a) To conduct an onsite study to evaluate and compare different commercial products (such as liquid aerators, surfactant treatments, and seaweed extracts) for reducing soil salinity on saline ground water-irrigated landscapes. b) To showcase: i. Different turfgrass plots; ii. Different soil preparation techniques; iii. Different irrigation technologies; iv. Resource efficient and eco-friendly landscapes. Project for objective 6 may be defined on an annual basis. General budget estimates are provided for each of three tiers (from least to most ambitious): Tier 1: To address objectives 1-4. Dr. Qian will be in charge of these tasks. A cost in the range of $20,000 - $25,000 will be needed to complete these objectives. 1.b Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Tier 2: In addition to objectives 1-4, objective 5 will be included. A current graduate student who has substantial experience with trees and shrubs will conduct a literature review and will visit different landscape sites to evaluate landscape plants that are currently under saline ground water for irrigation. Some plant tissue analysis will be done. We will reimburse the graduate student for his time. Estimated cost is about $15,000 – $18,000 for objective 5. Tier 3: In addition to objectives 1-5, objective 6 will be included: Objective 6 will involve other faculty members in the department and require at least one graduate student along with undergraduate student hourly. Under the direction of interested CSU faculty members, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture at Colorado State University will be managing all aspects of the onsite testing center, including planning and implementation of various projects. The budget will be $30,000-40,000 per year for one graduate student. Undergraduate student hourly will contribute to the onsite test center maintenance at $15,000-20,000 per year. In addition, budget ($10,000) is needed to cover the cost of materials and supplies. The budget may be re-visited with the sponsor and modified on an annual basis. The university will charge about an additional 32% indirect cost. Budget: Objectives 1-4: $15000 - $20000 Objective 5: $15000 – $18000 Objective 6: $55,000-70,000 per year 1.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Energy Strategy An ever changing opportunity Montava is Energy Bruce Hendee was the first local team member brought into the Montava family. Energy conservation was front and center, and Bruce helped us understand this from day 1. In fact even the name Montava is founded on this bedrock. Tava is the Ute Indian word for Sun, which had dual value for us. Bringing the past of this land together with its future. My favorite definition for innovation is “The positive reinforcement of ideas.” This is why our office is in the Powerhouse, and why we have worked with Bryan Willson from the beginning. Combining Bruce, Bryan, the incredible staff of the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power and the nations most energy focused home builders has opened doors to amazing possibilities. Our vision is far beyond PV on roof tops, and I look forward to discussing this with you on the 25th. We will use renewable energy throughout Montava. We will be an integral partner of the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power at Montava. We will be the largest ZERH community in the country. We will be an ongoing platform for innovation at Montava. 1.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) DOE Zero Energy Ready Home www.buildings.energy.gov/ZERO Zero Energy Ready Home Development in Fort Collins Sam Rashkin, Chief Architect, U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office September 10, 2018 What is Zero Energy Ready Home: • Top 1% highest performance homes nationwide • ~20% greater efficiency than 2015 IECC along with requirements for ensured comfort, water protection, and indoor air quality. • Performance measures included are often missing in code homes which can lead to failures. Zero Energy Ready Home Benefits for Fort Collins: • Benefit calculations are based on the following data/analytical findings: - ~5,500 units committed to 100% Zero Energy Ready Home (Thrive Home Builders and Mantava development) - $400 annual energy savings per home compared to 2015 IECC home - Incremental cost of ~$4,000 for ZERH vs. 2015 IECC home assumed for analysis - 7.2% annual residential property tax rate for Fort Collins - 1 Kw peak demand reduction per home • Benefits to Fort Collins for ~5,500 homes projected over first 30-year mortgage include: - ~$60 million energy savings that can be spent locally in the community - ~$45 million of additional tax revenue attributed to higher value homes - ~.5 billion gallons of water saved going down the drain waiting for hot water - ~5,500 Kw peak demand reduction for City of Fort Collins - Utilities - ~15,000 residents with less sick days and lower medical expenses - 17+ million tons CO2 emission reductions - 2030 Carbon Neutral Goal readiness with full infrastructure development (e.g., trade skills, builder experience, product distribution) at no expense to Fort Collins Zero Energy Ready Home Empirical Results • Nearly 3,000 homes certified • Certifications doubled for 3 straight years • ~10,000 homes committed to future certification • ~200 home profiles in DOE Tour of Zero demonstrate outstanding performance • Oregon Governor’s executive order calls for ZERH in 2023 code 1.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Water Conservation From house to metro districts Water Conservation Many things will drive conservation of water in Montava. Economic necessity, a sense of urgency, a desire to set a standard for others and community support are important ones. The homes will be built to the EPA WaterSense standards. We have already discussed the non- potable approach to irrigation which plays a critical role. New urbanism also helps by reducing the amount of lawn and landscaping that needs irrigation in residential areas. Another significant benefit can be enabled by the Metro District which can be used to both encourage conservation, and hold people accountable through billing tiers based on use. We believe the home of tomorrow will use much less water than the existing housing stock. Montava can put systems in place that maximize this opportunity while still allowing people to live their lives to the fullest. Attached is an evaluation that was done of the actual water use in the Revive Project which was built with new urbanist principals, to WaterSense standards, and shows substantially reduced water usage. This is the model for Montava, and more. 1.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Water Efficiency at Revive Revive homes were designed and certified to meet the EPA WaterSense program. The data used removed exterior water use, and focused on internal water use only by using the winter months for occupied homes as the benchmark. All homes in Revive performed better than the WaterSense standards including townhomes and duplexes which represent the Single Family component in this study. The duplexes are two dwelling units built as one. 2016 High-efficiency benchmark for existing Homes 108 gpd 2016 EPA Standard 96 gpd 2011 WaterSense study of new homes 110 gpd Revive townhomes (interior only) 50 gpd Revive duplexes (interior only) 96 gpd Townhome % of ELCO indoor only dedication requirement 25% Duplex % of ELCO indoor only dedication requirement 33% Specifications of the Revive homes were: # Homes in Study Sq ft Lot Sq ft Bed Bathrooms Shower Tubs Dishwasher Washer Townhomes Lily 4 1172 1233-1332 2 1.5 0 1 1 1 Lotus 6 1444 1233-1333 2 4 1 1 1 1 SF/Duplex Stanley 5 2488 4066-4318 3 + studio 4 1 2 2 2 McIntosh 3 2096 4066-4319 2 + studio 4 1 2 2 2 North Star 2 2224 4066-4320 3 + studio 4 1 2 2 2 Total 20 1.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) The Water Sense criteria included: 1. Indoor Water Use a. Plumbing i. Third party testing for leaks ii. Service Pressure (60 psi or less) iii. Hot water delivery (no more than 0.5 gal between source and outlet) b. Plumbing Fixtures – WaterSense Labeled i. Toilets ii. Bathroom and Kitchen faucets iii. Showerheads c. Appliances i. Dishwasher – Energy Star ii. Clothes washers – Energy Star and Water Factor <6.0 gal/ft3 d. Water Using Equipment i. Evaporative cooling, Water softeners & Drinking water treatment – none were used at Revive And are further described in https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 02/documents/ws-specification-home-spec-v1.1.pdf 1.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Single Family/Duplex Site Plan and Sample Floor Plan (Stanley) 1.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Townhome Site Plan and Sample Floor Plan (Lotus) 1.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) INDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST To Be Completed by Applicant Page 1 of 2 I certify that the subject project meets the specified requirements of the Soquel Creek Indoor Water Use Efficiency Ordinance. Signature Date Project Information □ Single Family □ Multi-Family □ Commercial □ Industrial □ Public □ Irrigation only □ Other: Applicant Name (print): Contact Phone #: Project Site Address: Project Area (sq.ft.): # of Units: # of Meters: Residential Non-Residential Toilets ≤ 1.28 gpf ≤ 1.28 gpf □ Yes □ No or or WaterSense WaterSense Urinals ≤ 0.5 gpf ≤ 0.5 gpf □ Yes □ No or or WaterSense WaterSense Showers ≤ 2.0 gpm ≤ 2.0 gpm □ Yes □ No or or WaterSense WaterSense Bathroom faucets ≤ 1.5 gpm ≤ 0.5 gpm □ Yes □ No or or WaterSense ≤ 0.20 gpc Kitchen faucets ≤ 1.8 gpm ≤ 1.8 gpm □ Yes □ No Clothes washers □ Yes □ No Dishwashers □ Yes □ No Cooling towers -- ≥ 5 to 10 cycles □ Yes □ No or ≥ 2.5 LSI Food steamers -- □ Yes □ No Ice machines -- Energy Star Qualified □ Yes □ No Pre-rinse spray valves -- ≤ 1.1 gpm □ Yes □ No Automatic vehicle wash facilities -- ≥ 75% of the water is recycled □ Yes □ No Energy Star Qualified Project Meets Requirements Number of Devices Boilerless or Self- Contained Fixture or Appliance Requirements Energy Star Qualified Energy Star Qualified Energy Star Qualified Soquel Creek Water District, 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, CA 95010, Telephone: (831) 475-8500, Fax: (831) 475-4291 1.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) INDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST To Project Be Completed Information, by Agency Continued Page 2 of 2 Residential Non-Residential -- Closed loop □ Yes □ No or Air-cooled □ Yes □ No To To Be Be Completed Completed by by Agency Soquel Creek Water District Reviewer Name: Materials Received and Reviewed: □ Indoor Water Use Efficiency □ Indoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist Ordinance □ Project Plans □ Information on qualifying fixtures and appliances □ Other: Date Reviewed: □ Follow up required (explain): Date Resubmitted: □ Other: Date Approved: Comments: Selected Definitons: gpf gallons per flush gpm gallons per minute gpc gallons per cycle LSI Langlier Saturation Index sq.ft. square feet > greater than ≤ less than or equal to ≥ greater than or equal to Material Distributed to Applicant Individual meter for each unit Fixture or Appliance Requirements Individual meter for each unit Meters Measures Recommended to Applicant □ Hot water recirculation system □ Dual-plumbing for graywater Energy Star Qualified Products: www.energystar.gov/ www.epa.gov/WaterSense/ WaterSense Qualified Project Meets Requirements Commercial refrigeration Number of Devices Soquel Creek Water District, 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, CA 95010, Telephone: (831) 475-8500, Fax: (831) 475-4291 1.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST TIER II SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT To Be Completed by a Certified Professional ________________ Signature Title Date Project Information Applicant Name (print): Contact Phone #: Project Site Address: Email address: Assessor's Parcel Number: # of Units: # of Meters: Parcel Area (sq. ft.): Turf Area (sq.ft.): High Water Use Plant Area (sq. ft.): Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.): Landscape Parameter Requirements General Limits □ Yes □ No Turf Limits □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Plants Plants are grouped by hydrozones □ Yes □ No Hydrozones are irrigated separately □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Irrigation System Design □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Low-volume irrigation used for all non-turf areas No overhead sprinkler systems within 24 inches of non-permeable surfaces Manual shut-off valve present Page 1 I certify that the subject project meets the requirements of the Soquel Creek Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance. For a new Tier II single-family (one or two-unit) residential project, enter this information. For all other projects, input an aggregate value for the entire project. Only very low to low water use plants on slopes greater than 33% Project Type: □ Tier II Single-Family □ Multi-Family □ Commercial □ Industrial □ Public □ Other Total Landscape Area (sq. ft.): Combined area of turf, moderate to high water use plants and water features is less than 25% of the total landscape area No turf in street medians, traffic islands, planter strips, and parking lot islands ____________________________________ _________________________________________ No turf in areas less than 10 feet wide in any direction All turf is planted on slopes less than 12% Turf is a water-conserving species (moderate water use as defined by WUCOLS). Contact District Staff if WUCOLS factor is not available. The use of rainwater and/or graywater for irrigation was evaluated □ Tier II (≥ 10,000 sq. ft. parcel) Plants are selected and planted appropriately based on their adaptability to the area and water use and at least one listed method for planting OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST TIER II SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT Project Information, Continued Page 2 Landscape Parameter Requirements □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Irrigation System Efficiency □ Yes □ No Irrigation Schedule □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Soil Management □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Metering □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Water Features □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No Covers for pools and spas □ Yes □ No Stormwater Stormwater Management Management □ Yes □ No Documentation Checklist complete □ Yes □ No Water Allowance Calculation Worksheet complete □ Yes □ No Landscape & Irrigation System Design Plans complete □ Yes □ No Project Meets Requirements Private irrigation submeter (recommended for Tier II SF) Repairs to be made using identical or improved parts Irrigation schedule provided to appropriate personnel and posted near irrigation controller Irrigation system to be inspected regularly and maintained in good working condition Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs installed Check valves installed at lowest point(s) on each valve run Backflow prevention device installed when dedicated landscape meters are required No overspray or runoff Drip emitters or bubblers installed at each tree, maximum 1.5 gallons per minute, on separate valves At least 3-inches of mulch on exposed soil surfaces Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation controllers installed (i.e., weather or sensor-based) Compacted soils are transformed to friable conditions (recommended) Irrigation schedule to be adjusted seasonally based on plant needs Overhead turf irrigation to occur between 8 PM and 10 AM Irrigation will be avoided during windy or freezing weather and is prohibited within 48 hours of rainy weather Landscape maintenance schedule to be followed Sprinkler heads and emission devices have matched precipitation rates OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST TIER II SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT Page 3 Reviewer Name: Date Received: Date Approved: Recommendations and Comments: Soquel Creek Water District, 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, CA 95010 Telephone: (831)475-8500, Fax: (831)475-4291 1.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Master Street Plan Amendment The Roads We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the Master Street Plan road network in NE Fort Collins. By returning to the grid, and making logical transportation connections based on multi modal strategies, we can create a ﬂuid and effective road network that allows development to happen and allows the community to ﬂourish and ﬂow. This is a critical component of what you will be seeing in the coming months. I have attached our trafﬁc study that will enable you to study this in detail as you desire. If you have questions, we will be available to answer them on the 25th. 1.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT Transportation Report August 2018 1.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1 2 Master Street Plan Recommendations Overview .............................................................2-1 3 Technical Analysis ...........................................................................................................3-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 #1 TIMBERLINE ROAD Vine Drive to Mountain Vista Drive .......................................................... 3-4 #2 GIDDINGS ROAD Suniga Drive to Richards Lake Road ......................................................... 3-5 #3 TURNBERRY ROAD Suniga Drive to Richards Lake Road ....................................................... 3-6 #4 MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE Turnberry Road to I-25 Interchange ............................................ 3-7 #5 SUNIGA DRIVE Turnberry Road to Giddings Road ............................................................... 3-8 #6 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD Turnberry Road to Giddings Road .................................................. 3-9 #7 CONIFER STREET Timberline Road to Suniga Drive ............................................................... 3-10 #8 RICHARDS LAKE ROAD Turnberry Road to Busch Drive ....................................................... 3-10 #9 BAR HARBOR Richards Lake Road to Country Club Road ................................................... 3-11 Figures Page Figure 2-1 Current & Proposed Master Street Plan Network ......................................................... 2-2 Figure 3-1 Year 2040 Adjusted Average Daily Traffic, Project Daily Trips, and Total Daily Traffic ...................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Tables Page Table 2-1 Master Street Plan Recommendations Summary ............................................................ 2-3 Table 3-1 Street Classifications and ADT Maximum Traffic Volume Threshold by Classification .......................................................................................................................... 3-2 1.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION The Montava development project (“project”) is situated in a primarily undeveloped area of northeast Fort Collins and would comprise approximately 900 acres bounded by Richards Lake Road to the north, Mountain Vista Drive to the south, Busch Drive to the east and Turnberry Road to the west. The Project Applicant has requested an amendment to City of Fort Collins (City) Master Street Plan to reclassify and/or modify existing and future roadways that would provide direct, multimodal access and connectivity to the project and the Mountain Vista Subarea. The project would include an agri-urban community that blends urban farming and agricultural resources with an array of open space, parklands and trails, neighborhood-serving commercial businesses, and a variety of residential homes. To accommodate this planned community and create a network that supports active living and sustainable transportation choices for future residents, businesses, and visitors, the project would introduce a series of new streets that interweave the development into the fabric of the Mountain Vista area of Fort Collins. The proposed roadway network for the project largely originates from the multimodal framework and Master Street Plan documented in the City’s Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (2009). This document includes the following chapters:  Chapter 2: Master Street Plan Recommendations Overview – summary of recommended modifications and/or proposed new streets to be incorporated into the City’s Master Street Plan.  Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis – detailed profiles of each recommendations, including operations analysis based on long-range (Year 2040) traffic forecasts provided by North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) and estimated traffic volumes with implementation of the project under a full buildout scenario. 1.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-1 2 MASTER STREET PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW The Master Street Plan compliments the Transportation Master Plan, Amended December 17, 2013 in supporting the vision, principles, and policies established by the City, and provides a map of the City’s long-range vision for its major street network. The Master Street Plan includes the existing and proposed street classification and location of transportation connections throughout Fort Collins. It is important to note that the Master Street Plan is intended to be living document and through the City’s planning process, the street classification network is meant to be amended to address new infrastructure and development. This chapter provides an overview of the current Master Street Plan per the City’s Transportation Master Plan and proposed modifications to the Master Street Plan network with overall growth in the Mountain Vista Subarea plus implementation of the Montava project. For purposes of this document, the geographic context (or affected area) is generally defined by the boundaries of the project, specifically Richards Lake Road to the north, Mountain Vista Drive to the south, Busch Drive to the east, and Turnberry Road to the west. However, given the expanse of the project, the street network under evaluation and included in the City’s Master Street Plan extend beyond these boundaries and therefore, other existing/planned streets within the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are also included in the discussion. Figure 2-1 present the City’s current and proposed Master Street Plan within the vicinity of the project and the recommended street classifications in and around the project area. 1.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-2 Figure 2-1 Current & Proposed Master Street Plan Network City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan Network Proposed Master Street Plan Amendment Network Source: Transportation Master Plan, City of Fort Collins, CO. Source: HF2M Colorado; DPZ, 2018. Table 2-1 on the following page presents a summary table of current and proposed changes to street classifications and recommended modifications and/or additions to the street network associated with the Montava project. 1.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-3 Table 2-1 Master Street Plan Recommendations Summary Location Current MSP Designation Recommended Designation Additional Recommendations Timberline Road (Vine Drive to Mountain Vista Drive) (Mountain Vista Drive to Country Club Road) (Country Club Road to Giddings Road) Four-Lane Arterial Four-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Collector  Timberline will extend north of Mountain Vista and create an intersection with four approaches  The extension of Timberline will result in a NE-SW orientation from Mountain Vista to Giddings Road and allow for connection with Country Club Road extension  Classify as two-lane arterial between Mountain Vista Drive and Country Club Road and classify as two-lane collector between Country Club Road and Giddings Road within project site Giddings Road (Suniga Drive to Richards Lake Road) Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial  Maintain two-lane arterial between Mountain Vista Drive and Richards Lake Road  Create new connections within project site to Giddings Road  Extend Giddings Road further south of Mountain Vista Drive as two-lane arterial and connect to Suniga Drive extension Turnberry Road (Richards Lake Road to Suniga Drive) Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial  Extend Turnberry Road south of Mountain Vista Drive to Suniga Drive Mountain Vista Drive (Timberline Road to I-25 Interchange) (Turnberry Road to Timberline Road) Four-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial Four-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial  Consider a phased approach to widening of Mountain Vista Drive from two to four-lane roadway between Timberline Road and I-25 interchange and align widening with adjacent development to the north/south of the roadway  Maintain two-lane arterial classification between Turnberry Road and Timberline Road Suniga Drive (Turnberry Road to Timberline Road) Four-Lane Arterial Four-Lane Arterial  Extend Suniga Drive farther east of Turnberry Road to connect to Giddings Road (extension) Conifer Street (Turnberry Road to Suniga Drive) Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial  Extend Conifer from Timberline Road east to Giddings Road Busch Drive (Richards Lake Road to Mountain Vista Drive) Two-Lane Collector Two-Lane Collector None Richards Lake Road (Turnberry Road to Busch Drive) Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial None Country Club Road (Turnberry Road to Giddings Road) Two-Lane Collector Two-Lane Collector  Extend Country Club Road to connect into Montava Town Center, and connect with Timberline Road Maple Hill Road MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-1 3 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS This chapter provides a detailed assessment of the recommended changes to the current street classification system per the Master Street Plan and analysis details for specific locations. METHODOLOGY The technical analysis provided herein adheres to the evaluation standards and methodology established by the City. Each affected roadway within the Master Street Plan was evaluated based on current classification, future Year 2040 traffic volumes from on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) regional travel demand model, and the additional daily vehicle trips generated by the project. A technical project travel demand methodology and scenario development memorandum prepared by Nelson\Nygaard was approved by City staff as of May 18, 2018. It should be noted that the current NFRMPO model estimated approximately 38,000 trips in the zones that would encompass the entire project site. The daily trips estimated in the above referenced memoranda with the proposed Montava development plan would result in approximately 42,000 trips. This assessment includes a two-step process: 1. Determine projected Year 2040 traffic volumes along affected roadways in the Master Street Plan that are in the project area (as defined in previous chapters) and identify if these future volumes are in compliance with the current street designations in the Master Street Plan; and 2. Determine projected Year 2040 traffic volumes with the additional traffic generated by the project and identify if these future volumes are in compliance with the recommended street designations in the Master Street Plan. As stated in Subsection 4.4.5 in Chapter 4 – Transportation Impact Study Guidelines of Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards (April 1, 2007), the Applicant shall provide roadway functional classification recommendations based on “total traffic projections”, which includes “existing traffic, plus the future background traffic, plus the project-generated traffic.” For purposes of this analysis and per the City-approved scope of work, this assessment used Year 2040 traffic volumes and these future baseline volumes with the additional traffic generated by the project, as defined above. It is assumed that background traffic volumes and/or vehicle trips generated by approved but unbuilt projects in Fort Collins are accounted for in the Year 2040 projections. Because the NFRMPO included land-use and roadway volumes in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the project boundaries and thus, assumed development in the project area and associated vehicle trips were subtracted from 2040 volumes to avoid overestimation of total vehicle traffic with implementation of the project. It is noted that under Year 2040 conditions, no additional planned transportation improvements proposed by the City of Fort Collins or Larimer County were incorporated into the future network and travel demand modeling. Figure 3-1 1.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-2 presents the Year 2040 baseline (no project) volumes, the projected-generated average daily trips, and the total average daily traffic volumes along study roadways. As a general guideline, roadway classifications are determined by their functionality with respect to the daily carrying capacity (i.e., number of vehicles relative to number of travel lanes), access and connectivity to surrounding land uses and local context, mode priority, street design standards and streetscape elements. The table below summarizes the general description of roadway classifications, mode priority, and general average daily traffic (ADT) ranges.1 Table 3-1 Street Classifications and ADT Maximum Traffic Volume Threshold by Classification Classification Mode Priority Description1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Range2 Arterial Bicycle:  Pedestrian:  Transit:  Vehicle:  Provide access and safe crossings for all travel modes along regional corridors. Accommodates distribution of trips to collector streets and connections to mixed commercial areas. Six-Lane: 35,000+ ADT Four-Lane: 15,001 – 35,000 ADT Two-Lane: 5,000 – 15,000 ADT Collector Bicycle:  Pedestrian:  Transit:  Vehicle:  Distributes trips to residential and commercial areas. Balanced level of service for vehicle, transit, bicycles and pedestrians where possible. 1,000 – 7,000 ADT Local Bicycle:  Pedestrian:  Transit:  Vehicle:  Prioritizes walking and biking, low-traffic streets in neighborhood and mixed-use areas, and distributes local traffic to collector streets. Less than 1,000 ADT  = High Priority  = Medium Priority  = Low Priority Notes: 1. Descriptions are general in terms of functionality and purpose. 2. ADT ranges are general guidelines and actual volume thresholds may vary depending on function. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018; City of Fort Collins, Master Street Plan. 1 Detailed descriptions regarding street design standards per roadway classification are provided in Chapter 7 – Street Design and Technical Criteria, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (April, 2007). 1.b Packet Pg. 92 MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-3 Figure 3-1 Year 2040 Adjusted Average Daily Traffic, Project Daily Trips, and Total Daily Traffic 1.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-4 #1 TIMBERLINE ROAD Vine Drive to Mountain Vista Drive Description: Maintain a key, multimodal “gateway” arterial street connection between the Mountain Vista Subarea and central Fort Collins, and provide connections to major east-west corridors. Existing Classification: Four-Lane Arterial Recommendation: Four-Lane Arterial with the following:  Continue to align Timberline Road as a true north-south roadway between Vine Drive and Mountain Vista Drive.  Create standard, four-way intersection at Mountain Vista Drive.  Future traffic volumes would allow for a two-lane arterial designation. However, the future traffic volumes with project-generated vehicle would exceed ADT capacity thresholds for a two-lane arterial designation. A four-lane arterial designation would support the overall functionality of the roadway, including accommodating multimodal traffic (including transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians). Existing Volumes (2018): 5,700 average daily trips 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 9,500 Year 2040 with Project 14,600 - 20,100 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations:  The proposed roadway classification supports the City’s vision of Timberline Road per the Transportation Master Plan. The proposed capacity of a four-lane arterial can accommodate multiple modes of travel and adequate capacity to allow for a mix of both general traffic, transit vehicles, and bicycle travel. Timberline Road would be designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC), a uniquely designed corridor that is planned for high-frequency transit, bicycling and walking as part of the corridor. The intention of Timberline Road ETC is to enhance travel time through the corridor to connect primary destinations.  Within the Montava development, the roadway will narrow to a two-lane arterial north of Mountain Vista Drive to Country Club Road (extension). From the intersection Country Club Road, the alignment will shift from a north-south orientation to a northeast- southwest orientation that connects to Giddings Road to the east and the County Club Road extension to the west.  It is recommended that the roadway transition to a two-lane collector from Country Club Road to Giddings Road. The estimated auto traffic along this segment will diffuse as the presence of several residential streets will distribute and lessen traffic demand.  Although traffic demand would exceed ADT capacity thresholds for two-lane arterial and two-lane collector along the planned extension north of Mountain Vista Drive into the 1.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-5 project site, the roadway would provide multiple connections to residential streets and driveways, distribute traffic within the site, allow for slower-moving vehicles, and comfort to multimodal users such as bicyclists and pedestrians. Potential widening to a four-lane arterial along any portion of the roadway north of Mountain Vista Drive is not recommended and will not support the residential characteristic along the corridor.  Create a focal route for the planned Montava Town Center and accommodate for appropriate land-use development, densities, and provide a high degree of multimodal access to surrounding uses. #2 GIDDINGS ROAD Suniga Drive to Richards Lake Road Description: Enhance north-south arterial street connection to accommodate multimodal traffic between Mountain Vista Subarea and major east-west corridors. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Arterial Recommendation: Two-Lane Arterial with the following:  Serve as a north-south arterial between Mountain Vista Road and Richards Lake Road.  Recommended to maintain two-lane roadway although estimated traffic demand in the future with project volumes would marginally exceed ADT capacity thresholds. A two- lane arterial roadway would coincide with residential character of the corridor, the planned access points to adjacent neighborhoods, local-serving commercial, and farmland areas. Existing Volumes (2018): 3,100 average daily trips 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 7,500 Year 2040 with Project 17,300 – 19,400 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations:  The proposed roadway classification supports the City’s vision per the Transportation Master Plan to continue a two-lane arterial linkage between Mountain Vista Drive and Richards Lake Road.  Giddings will serve as a primary north-south route for the planned residential uses and the proposed farm.  The character of this roadway will provide buffered bike lanes and sidewalks for pedestrian access to adjacent uses; no on-street parking is planned.  Maintaining a two-lane arterial south of Mountain Vista Drive to a future connection to Suniga Drive would provide adequate carrying capacity with buildout of the area. This includes the project, planned combined high school and middle school along the corridor and other development in the area. Expanding roadway to a four-lane arterial is not recommended and could result in adverse environmental effects, including induced 1.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-6 traffic demand, noise, air quality, and unnecessary land takings that could preclude development potential.  Giddings Road, south of connection to Mountain Vista Drive, to provide main access to planned middle and high schools, therefore allowing for distribution of vehicle trips and alleviated potential traffic congestion along other adjacent routes, including Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive. This section will also provide a roadway connection to future adjacent development. #3 TURNBERRY ROAD Suniga Drive to Richards Lake Road Description: Establish a north-south arterial street connection that extends south of Mountain Vista Drive. This extension will allow for a greater connected roadway network to serve the Mountain Vista Subarea and the adjacent areas of Larimer County. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Arterial Recommendation: Two-Lane Arterial with the following:  Maintain two-lane roadway between Richards Lake Road (and points further north) and Mountain Vista Drive.  Extend two-lane roadway south of Mountain Vista Drive to provide connection to planned Conifer Street and Suniga Drive.  Design to accommodate low vehicle speeds, striped and buffered bicycle lanes, no on- street parking and multiple access points to adjacent residences.  A two-lane arterial designation would maintain the existing character and overall functionality of the roadway. Any widening would result in potentially adverse environment effects, including induced traffic levels, noise, air quality; none of which would not be conducive to the adjacent residential neighborhoods the roadway serves currently and in the future. Existing Volumes (2018): 3,800 average daily trips 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 6,000 Year 2040 with Project 10,200 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations:  The potential extension of Turnberry Road is still under consideration by City staff and the alignment and its planned connections are still under review.  The roadway would serve as a north-south arterial route for the existing neighborhoods (e.g., Water’s Edge, Hearthfire, Maple Hill, Storybrook, Adriel Hills, and residents along Country Club Road in Larimer County)..  The extension of Turnberry Road farther south of Mountain Vista Drive would also alleviate potential traffic congestion levels along other north-south roadways, including 1.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-7 Timberline Road, Giddings Road, while also reducing cut-through traffic demand along County Club Road.  The Turnberry Road connection is anticipated to reduce future 2040 traffic on Country Club Road in the range of 4,000 to 7,000 vehicles. Please note the volumes shown earlier on Figure 3-1 reflect Country Club with these reductions. The projected volumes would indicate that Turnberry Road is necessary to provide desired traffic flows, pedestrian experience, and bicycle connections within the entire Mountain Vista Subarea. Therefore, it is recommended that the extension of Turnberry Road south of Mountain Vista Drive be included in the Master Street Plan.  Extending Turnberry Road farther south of Suniga Drive to Vine Drive is not recommended, as the future design/alignment and functionality of Vine Drive is uncertain and under review by City staff. In addition, current residents along Vine Drive would have continued north-south access via Timberline Road.  The design of the extension of Turnberry Road, south of Mountain Vista Drive, should be sensitive to the existing land uses. #4 MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE Turnberry Road to I-25 Interchange Description: Mountain Vista Drive is expected to be an active “gateway” to the Mountain Vista Subarea Area and a major east-west connection between the I-25 interstate and area-wide multimodal corridors. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Arterial (west of Timberline Road) Four-Lane Arterial (east of Timberline Road) Recommendation: Two-Lane Arterial and Four-Lane Arterial with the following:  During Phase 1 of area-wide development, including Montava and potential adjacent properties, recommend the following:  Four-lane arterial between Timberline Road to I-25 interchange  Two-lane arterial between Turnberry Road and Timberline Road  Establish a ‘boulevard’ design to accommodate multimodal traffic, including potential Transfort transit routes (per Phase 3 of the Transit Master Plan), buffered bike lanes, landscaped parkways, and wide pedestrian sidewalks/pathways. Existing Volumes (2018): 6,200 average daily trips 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 10,700 – 15,000 Year 2040 with Project 14,900 – 29,800 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. 1.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-8 Additional Considerations:  The proposed roadway classification supports the City’s vision per the Transportation Master Plan to create a two- and four-lane arterial linkage between Turnberry Road and I-25 interchange. Roadway will serve as the primary east-west travel route for those destined to/from I-25 highway.  Character of roadway is to serve regional and local multimodal traffic in northeast portion of Fort Collins, including future Transfort transit route service, and accommodate dedicated on-road and fully-separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities and access to adjacent properties. #5 SUNIGA DRIVE Turnberry Road to Giddings Road Description: Suniga Drive is a planned east-west, multimodal Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) that will provide connections to the Mountain Vista Subarea to downtown Fort Collins and provide key connections to north-south roadways, including College Avenue, Turnberry Road, Timberline Road, and Giddings Road. Currently Suniga is planned to extend east of Timberline and connect back to Vine Drive. Existing Classification: Four-Lane Arterial Recommendation: Four-Lane Arterial with the following:  Continue to extend Suniga Drive east to connect to Turnberry Road (future extension), Timberline Road, and to Giddings Road (future extension).  Design would support City’s vision of a four-lane with center median boulevard design and would be a designated ETC, providing greater east-west connectivity to downtown Fort Collins and neighborhoods to the north and east of downtown.  Future traffic volumes per NFRMPO model (without project-generated traffic) would not exceed the ADT capacity thresholds for a four-lane arterial designation. However, with the proposed project traffic, the potential increase in vehicle traffic would marginally exceed these ADT capacity thresholds. Regardless, the potential widening to a six-lane roadway is not recommended. To maintain the character of the ETC-designated roadway and planned adjacent uses along the corridor, a six-lane roadway would create an east- west suburban highway as opposed to a local-serving, east-west arterial to accommodate multimodal traffic (including public transit and school buses), and provide a safer, convenience experience for non-auto users (bicyclists and pedestrians). Existing Volumes (2018): NA – Future Roadway 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 26,400 Year 2040 with Project 40,200 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. 1.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-9 Additional Considerations:  The proposed roadway classification supports the City’s vision to provide a four-lane arterial linkage between College Avenue and the Mountain Vista Subarea.  Roadway will serve as the primary east-west travel route for those destined to/from the Mountain Vista Subarea, planned schools, and I-25 highway.  Design Suniga Drive to support a dedicated, buffered bicycle lane and serve as a main Transfort bus route, creating economic opportunity along the corridor as an ETC route. #6 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD Turnberry Road to Giddings Road Description: Maintain two-lane roadway to provide east-west connectivity between Larimer County and Fort Collins, providing connections between Highway 1 and Turnberry Road. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Collector Recommendation: Two-Lane Collector with the following:  Maintain Country Club Road west and east of Turnberry Road as “Two-Lane Collector”  Although future traffic volumes per NFRMPO model (with and without project-generated traffic) would exceed the ADT capacity thresholds, a “two-lane collector” designation would maintain the existing character and overall functionality of the roadway.  Modify the current alignment shown in the Master Street Plan that indicates a connection to Giddings Road. Extend Country Club Road east of Thoreau Drive and realign to connect with the planned Timberline Road extension within Montava development. Existing Volumes (2018): 7,000 average daily trips 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 8,500 Year 2040 with Project 10,500 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations:  The extension of Country Club Road to the east into the Montava development will provide greater connectivity while limiting additional traffic to/from Giddings Road.  Design of easterly extension of Country Club Road (i.e., east of Turnberry Road) to include two-way auto traffic with intermittent on-street parking and separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  Within the Montava development a future two-lane collector street designation to function as a low-traffic route and provide a high level of access and connections to adjacent land uses, including planned residences and open space areas (including recreational trails and parkland). 1.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-10 #7 CONIFER STREET Timberline Road to Suniga Drive Description: Conifer Street is a planned two-lane roadway to provide east-west connectivity to Mountain Vista Subarea and downtown Fort Collins. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Arterial Recommendation: Two-Lane Arterial with the following:  Extend two-lane roadway east of Timberline Road to Giddings Road  Provide new connection to key north-south corridors, including Turnberry Road (extended), Timberline Road, and Giddings Road (extended)  Roadway is expected to experience volumes that would not exceed capacity thresholds for two-lane roadway per NFRMPO model and with estimated increase in project-generated traffic. Existing Volumes (2018): Not Available (Future Roadway) 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 8,200 Year 2040 with Project 14,600 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations: The extension of Conifer Street further east to connect to Turnberry Road, Timberline Road, and Giddings Road will serve as an additional east-west connection between existing neighborhoods north of downtown Fort Collins and the Mountain Vista Subarea, while creating better east-west distribution of traffic between Suniga Drive and Conifer Street. #8 RICHARDS LAKE ROAD Turnberry Road to Busch Drive Description: Maintain two-lane roadway to provide east-west connectivity to key corridors in northern portion of Fort Collins, including Turnberry Road and Giddings Road. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Arterial Recommendation: Two-Lane Arterial with no proposed changes. The additional vehicle trips associated with Montava in combination with existing and future estimated traffic demand will continue to allow for a two-lane arterial designation. Existing Volumes (2018): 1,400 average daily trips 1.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) MONTAVA |MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-11 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 4,300 – 5,200 Year 2040 with Project 4,700 – 5,600 Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations:  No proposed changes to Richards Lake Road. The proposed Montava network that connects to Richards Lake Road will provide access points into Montava and maintain the same connections as under existing conditions. #9 BAR HARBOR Richards Lake Road to Country Club Road Description: Maintain two-lane residential street to provide north-south connectivity for Maple Hill residents to Mountain Vista Subarea. Existing Classification: Two-Lane Collector Recommendation: Two-Lane Collector with the following:  Discontinue two-lane roadway at Country Club Road due to needs of the City’s vision for a proposed park/recreational area.  Connection between Richards Lake Road and Country Club Road would maintain access as exists today and terminating at Country Club Road to the south would avoid cut- through traffic within the Maple Hill neighborhood.  Roadway is expected to experience volumes that would not exceed capacity thresholds for two-lane collector per NFRMPO model and with estimated increase in project-generated traffic. Existing Volumes (2018): 5,200 average daily trips 2040 Projected Volumes: Scenario Roadway ADT Year 2040 Baseline 5,200 Year 2040 with Project 5,300 Note 1. The regional model did not provide 2040 ADT volume data for Bar Harbor. It is assumed that the future baseline volumes would represent existing volumes as the roadway and adjacent neighborhood is fully built out. Source: NFRMPO Model; Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Additional Considerations:  The proposed Montava network would not connect directly to Bar Harbor Road but would connect to Country Club Road, providing Maple Hill residents with direct access to Montava and other planned roadways. 1.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Community Library and Rec Center Building Community I believe that one of the great community gathering places in the future could be the 21st century library. Fortunately with the Poudre River Public Library District, we have a wonderful opportunity to innovate and create this future. The best way to predict the future is to create it, and that’s what we intend to do. Our development approach for phase 1 of Montava also includes investing with the city of Fort Collins in a Public/Private partnership to build a Recreation Center for North East Fort Collins. We are in discussions with the city staff on this subject, but to us it feels like a much better investment than building a pool that only gets used 3 months out of the year. It would serve the entire community. Everything we do in Montava is meant to create a meaningful multi generational impact. The types of facilities and amenities we begin with will set the course for the future of the project, and establish our DNA for decades. We want to make this community unlike any other. Attached you will find a document that was prepared by a group of architects in a planning charrette with the Poudre River Public Library District that describes in wonderful fashion what kind of future we can create together. 1.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT opnarchitects.com @opnarchitects 1.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) LIBRARY JOURNAL DESIGN INSTITUTE Design Institute is a bi-annual library building and design event hosted by Library Journal. The event brings together librarians and architects to collaborate on pressing challenges regarding library facilities to meet contemporary needs. This year’s event was held in partnership with Salt Lake County Library at the West Jordan Library in West Jordan, Utah. L + 1.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Design Challenge Overview Intent: Explore framework and guiding principles that would augment the creation of a building program for a newly proposed library in a the new community of Montava, in Northern Fort Collins, Colorado. Format: Facilitated by Mindy Sorg and Toby Olsen of OPN Architects. Participants included librarians from various library systems across the country. Activity Small groups problem ideation, visioning, and establishment of a charter 1.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) The Fort Collins Community Situated on the Cache La Poudre River along the Colorado Front Range, Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of the state capitol in Denver. Home to approximately 161,000 residents, Fort Collins boasts excellent educational and economic opportunities. It consistently ranks among the best places to live and happiest cities to live in the United States. Poudre River Public Library District The district seeks to expand the needs and demands of a growing community by establishing a new branch library in the planned community of Montava where it would anchor it’s village center and be a heart and soul of this new community. History The library district was established 2006 by a citizen vote. The library system currently operates out of three branches and an administrative building. The branches are the Old Town Library, Harmony Library, and Council Tree Library. 1.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Stated Needs and Goals New library in new community called Montava as part of a major development in Fort Collins. New library must be innovative in every sense. It must encourage neighborliness for all ages and stages of life. It must function as part of a village center that is walkable and bike friendly. The new library should relate to urban agriculture and organic farming in the community. It should create a culture of experimentation. The new library must leverage technology and embrace automation. This facility must act as a community building agent with an emphasis on community space. It must act as an agent for sustainable practices and equity. Life cycle costs should be examined for operational sustainability. It is a space that should be media savvy. It must stand for something. The library should enable efficient staffing and knowledge specialists to thrive. 1.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) What is Montava? Agri-Urban Development Smart City Village Center 1.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT - Sustainability 1.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Design Exercise OPN and the Poudre River Public Library District began with a presentation speaking to the long term continuous changes we have been observing in the design of libraries today. We also provided a discussion of the project brief and geography. Attendees were divided into two groups for the design exercise. Each group was given sustainability “cheat sheets” as reference material for their discussions, and blank sheets of paper. Using several key guiding principles, the teams were asked to develop a working charter for the proposed new library at Montava. Groups then discussed, debated and established optimal building program considerations, spaces needed, and goals for the project. Ideas were captured in video, photo, and notes. 1.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) THE CHARTER: TO ESTABLISH, ENABLE, AND CONVEY GOALS AND ASPIRATIONS FOR THE FUTURE LIBRARY IN MONTAVA 1.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT | TOPIC 1 EQUITY 1.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Group Discussion - Equity Summary Outcomes Access Inclusion Cultural Awareness / Native Cultures Safety Gender Economic Age Ability Race & Ethnicity Homelessness Language / Language Barriers / Communication Literacies: Reading/Technology/Financial Humor Transportation World view / Political Historic and Heritage Traditions Outreach Programs / Services / Staffing Equity in design is an emergent theme in new civic project throughout the United States. Equity should matter to us all. The group was asked to imagine a library designed with a primary commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion in every practice. Would it offer a greater ability to provide programming and spaces rooted in empathetic design, transparency, education, collaboration, and trust? The following list of items generated by the group demonstrate aspects of design and service they related to the concept of equity driven by empathetic design. 1.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Outcomes Space for art and heritage technologies Going beyond ADA compliance - consider universal design Wayfinding and Signage - info graphic versus text; signage in multiple languages Self-Service Areas Area of the building open 24/7 that includes tech, holds, wifi, and small collection Space to accommodate physical items needed at various life stages Spaces for dignity: (companion and gender neutral restrooms) Program rooms for patrons on autism spectrum Libraries embracing equity continue to evolve, become more humane, resilient, and sustainable. The group discussed the power in recognizing and relating to new and at-risk populations that may not feel visible at the library. This was recognized as an opportunity to better the patron and staff experiences at libraries by designers and directors alike. The list to the right was generated by the group for spaces that one may want to consider including in the program for a future library. Group Discussion - Equity Summary 1.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT | TOPIC 2 TECHNOLOGY 1.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Outcomes Internet everywhere Provide opportunities for a variety of content creation. The library is now a generator of content. Provide hardware and software solutions Coding classes and or events 3D Printing / CNC Machines / Laser Cutter / VR Augmented Reality Library Tech 101 - Training Heritage Technologies Drones Artificial Intelligence Automated Materials Handling Self Service Areas Soundbooth / Recording Studio Use technology to show art / indexing some aspect of the library and community Technology is integral to our lives. It enables greater access to ever increasing amounts of information, the dissolution of distance, sharing, collaborating, the sharing economy, and creativity. It is for these reasons, the library must ensure access to technology and foster digital literacy along side traditional literacy. The following list of topics were generated during group discussion. Group Discussion - Technology Summary 1.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Outcomes Roof learning garden Water collection area - learning opportunity Demonstration kitchen for healthy eating Urban agriculture spaces / farming Children’s area using technology for learning through play Play lab Flex spaces for events / training / tech fairs / classes People’s garden Technology den Technology petting zoo Content creation spaces with 3D printing, VR Spaces for heritage technologies, looms, quilting, handcrafts Synthesized through group discussion, the list to the right illustrates that technology spaces can be beautiful and special. It also indicates that spaces related to technology have the ability to also tell the story of sustainable features to be integrated into a future possible library. Group Discussion - Technology Summary 1.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT | TOPIC 3 SUSTAINABLE / URBAN AGRICULTURE 1.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Outcomes Opportunities to engage in urban farming Outdoor spaces Connection to nature and natural light No carbon burned on site Life-cycle cost analysis for evaluating building systems Educational opportunities Collection of rain water for site irrigation Promote local use of materials The library as an example to be followed by the community Sustainability is not only a primary concern for may libraries because of environmental responsibility. It is fundamental way in which economic derisions can be made to ensure the long-term dynamic vitality of an organization. The Committee on the Environment’s top ten measures for sustainability (as seen earlier in this document) were shared with the group. The list to the right outlined by group discussion describes ways to share sustainability as part of the proposed library’s story. Group Discussion - Sustainable Summary 1.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT | TOPIC 4 COMMUNITY 1.b Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Outcomes Community spaces should be flexible Flexible lobby space Gallery / Art Display Spaces to promote digital literacy Study rooms of varying size Classroom for distance learning Spaces that could open to the exterior - for large events like concerts Green roof Plaza Park nearby Promotes walking / biking The library should be the heart of Montava. It should be a natural place for gathering, growing, learning, and sharing ideas. The space should be flexible and able to be expanded over time to fit the needs of a growing and vibrant community. The library should reflect the values and aspirations of the community. It should be a place of joy, humor, reflection, literacy, and technological advancement. Group Discussion - Community Summary 1.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT | TOPIC 5 ICONIC 1.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Group Discussion - Iconic Summary Outcomes Provide indoor / outdoor connections. The building should make a visual statement. The size and scale of the building can be iconic. The building should have gravitas. The building should pull you in. Rather than trendy, the library should be trend-setting. It should have connections to nature. The building should read differently from varying perspectives and viewpoint. It should not be stale and read differently from different angles. It should have some sort of relationship other entities and buildings, both physical and referential. The building should provide depth to the user’s experience and provide layers of engagement. The building should be flexible. It should be source of inspiration that promotes: Comfort, Awe, Beauty, Welcoming, Safety, Belonging It should be a living room for the community. It can be both impressionist and expressionist. Whether it is challenging the status quo, honest use of building materials, or a poetic symbol for something great, buildings have the potential to be iconic landmarks in the community. We asked the participants what makes a library iconic. Their responses were thoughtful and demonstrated that it is not only beautiful architecture, but a layering of design elements and building program that contribute to making a library an icon in the community and even beyond. 1.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Outcomes Entry should offer a belonging and welcoming experience. Organization of the building should be intuitive. There should be sight-lines and glimpses into other spaces that offer a patron a preview of what is to come. Spaces should have views and vistas. The children’s area, tech space, and community event spaces were identified as priority spaces by the group. As the group discussed organizational needs of an iconic building, they began to examine certain spaces that may want to be proximate to others. The group also began to discuss how the entry should feel and the importance of intuitive wayfinding. Group Discussion - Iconic Summary 1.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) PROGRAM AND SPACES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION 1.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Oversized circulation desks create barriers to patron interaction. Wayfinding should be intuitive. Stacks should be low enough to promote patron engagement with collections. The lobby can be a flexible zone for events and a hub within the building. Courtyards, patios, and balconies are a huge amenity and provide connection to nature. Consider the flexibility of furniture you would like to see in a new building. Prototype in the existing branch locations! Consider civic gathering spaces and make them special and a destination. Consider a variety of collaboration spaces in various sizes. Ensure that shelving does not block views and vistas. The following pages, in addition to program items outlined in the prior group discussion summaries are intended to provide the Poudre River Public Library District with additional ideas, concepts, and spaces for consideration as you develop your vision for this possible new branch location. This is an exciting time for you! 1.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Creative and Maker Spaces 1.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Diverse Study Spaces 1.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Un-Conference vs. Conference Spaces 1.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Multi-Purpose and Community Spaces 1.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) LIBRARY JOURNAL DESIGN INSTITUTE opnarchitects.com @opnarchitects OPN would like to thank Ken Draves and Eileen McCluskey for the opportunity to engage and discuss the future of the Poudre River Public Library District. Our discussions pre/post the Design Institute have hopefully provided value to the library as you think about how you will continue to serve the communities in your district. It is our recommendation that you embark on a visioning, charter building exercise to inform a future building program to underscore the best aspects of the library you wish to build. We also recommend you engage community leaders and library champions to help you articulate this vision when you are ready. We wish you the best in these efforts! You have a wonderful opportunity before you and staff that any community would envy. It was a pleasure to work with you on this Design Challenge. Best, Mindy Sorg, Associate Toby Olsen, Project Architect L + 1.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) NONFICTION The Key to Happiness Might Be as Simple as a Library or a Park By Pete Buttigieg Sept. 14, 2018 PALACES FOR THE PEOPLE How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life By Eric Klinenberg 277 pp. Crown. $28. This time of year, my wooden desktop in the Ofﬁce of the Mayor looks very similar to my computer desktop: covered in spreadsheets. It’s budget season in South Bend, Ind. — the annual reckoning. Priorities jostle against one another, and sometimes it feels as if we must choose between investing in places (ﬁre stations, streetscapes) and investing in people (after-school programs, job training). We do some of both, of course, but the process forces us to balance two concepts of what a city is: a place and a population. In “Palaces for the People,” Eric Klinenberg offers a new perspective on what people and places have to do with each other, by looking at the social side of our physical spaces. He is not the ﬁrst to use the term “social infrastructure,” but he gives it a new and useful deﬁnition as “the physical conditions that determine whether social capital develops,” whether, that is, human connection and relationships are fostered. Then he presents examples intended to prove that social infrastructure represents the key to safety and prosperity in 21st-century urban America. 1.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Klinenberg is an N.Y.U. sociologist best known recently as Aziz Ansari’s co-author for “Modern Romance,” in which he helped the comedian apply social science tools to better understand dating. Here, he begins with questions he ﬁrst addressed in an earlier book on a lethal heat wave that struck Chicago in 1995. He asked how two adjacent poor neighborhoods on the South Side, demographically similar and presumably equally vulnerable, could fare so differently in the disaster. Why did elderly victims in the Englewood neighborhood lose their lives at 10 times the rate of those in Auburn Gresham? The explanation had to do with social capital, the amount of interpersonal contact that exists in a community. In the neighborhood with fewer fatalities, people checked on one another and knew where to go for help; in the other, social isolation was the norm, with residents more often left to fend for themselves, even to perish in sweltering housing units. Crucially, these were not cultural or economic differences, but rather had to do with things like the density of shops and the vacancy rate along streets, which either helped or hurt people get to know one another in their communities. The new book’s exploration of this reality begins in the basement of a library in a low- income Brooklyn neighborhood, where an Xbox-based bowling competition pits local seniors against rival teams from a dozen library branches across the borough. The example of a virtual bowling league has particular poetic resonance two decades after Robert Putnam, the Harvard political scientist, raised fears of societal collapse in his study “Bowling Alone.” Where Putnam charted the decline of American communal participation through shrinking bowling league membership, Klinenberg’s basement of virtual bowlers illustrates how technology might actually enhance our social fabric — provided there are supportive spaces. Given what we have learned about the health impacts of social isolation among the elderly, lives may depend on creating more such opportunities. 1.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Klinenberg ﬁnds in libraries “the textbook example of social infrastructure in action,” a shared space where everyone from schoolchildren doing homework to the video-gaming elderly can get to know one another better. For him, the presence of destitute or mentally ill visitors is a feature, not a bug, of libraries, because it requires people to confront radical differences in a shared space. Klinenberg extends the idea of social infrastructure to grade schools, college campuses, public housing, private apartment buildings, coffee shops, sidewalks, pocket parks, churches, murals, even ﬂood-management projects in Singapore and public pools in Iceland. Pretty much any space that can affect the social fabric is within the author’s scope. Here, social infrastructure is not a subset of what we call “infrastructure” but something broader, which makes his project ambitious but also perhaps too vague: After all, if it could include virtually all public and many private or even virtual spaces, is the category even useful? It is, especially when Klinenberg discusses social infrastructure in terms of quality, not just quantity. While some of his examples simply reinforce the inarguable fact that we need more of these resources (more libraries! more gyms! more gardens!), his most 1.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) illuminating cases gauge what happens in spaces whose designs are either socially helpful or harmful. Social infrastructure becomes less a thing to maximize than a lens that communities and policymakers should apply to every routine decision about physical investment: Do the features of this proposed school, park or sewer system tend to help human beings to form connections? In case after case, we learn how socially-minded design matters. A vaunted housing project built in 1950s St. Louis quickly became a nightmare of crime and vandalism; a smaller, adjacent complex remained relatively free of trouble because its design promoted “informal surveillance” and care of common spaces by neighbors. The reconﬁguration of large urban schools into smaller, more manageable ones now shows promise in boosting graduation rates in New York — partly because this allows parents, students and teachers to form a community in which problems are addressed informally before they can disrupt learning. Meanwhile, much of our built environment contains negative or “exclusive social infrastructure,” including gated communities in the United States and South Africa, and college fraternities, which Klinenberg condemns categorically based on their association with substance abuse and sexual assault. (The construction of a massive wall, unsurprisingly, is an example of public investment that is not conducive to social infrastructure.) Much of the book’s most interesting content has to do with climate security. From the informal network of Houston churches that kicked into gear after Hurricane Harvey, to the unlikely rise of the Rockaway Beach Surf Club in New York as a vital hub of recovery after Hurricane Sandy, we see how the right kind of social infrastructure can aid struggling communities and even save lives by connecting people during and after disasters. As Klinenberg observes, “when hard infrastructure fails … it’s the softer, social infrastructure that determines our fate.” Klinenberg’s approach even lets him apply appealing nuance to precincts of our social life that have become objects of simplistic head-shaking and ﬁnger-wagging. When it comes to social media, for example, he takes a look at online communities, especially for young people, and pointedly suggests that teenagers turn to the digital realm largely 1.b Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) because they have little alternative. Modern parenting norms make it less likely they will be allowed to physically move around their neighborhoods and communities. When unable to use traditional spaces like streets or parks, young people have no choice but to rely on the internet as their primary social infrastructure. It’s a point that should invite introspection among parents who require their children to remain within sight, then scold them for spending too much time looking at screens. “Palaces for the People” reads more like a succession of case studies than a comprehensive account of what social infrastructure is, so those looking for a theoretical framework may be disappointed. But anyone interested in cities will ﬁnd this book an engaging survey that trains you to view any shared physical system as, among other things, a kind of social network. After ﬁnishing it, I started asking how ordinary features of my city, from streetlights to ﬂowerpots, might affect the greater well-being of residents. Physically robust infrastructure is not enough if it fails to foster a healthy community; ultimately, all infrastructure is social. Pete Buttigieg is the mayor of South Bend, Ind. His ﬁrst book, “Shortest Way Home: One Mayor’s Challenge and a Model for America’s Future,” will be published in January. A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 15, 2018, on Page 19 of the Sunday Book Review with the headline: Public Space 1.b Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Storm Water Partnered with Natural Areas Storm Water and Natural Areas Montava is at the tail end of the Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin. The 160+ acres we must set aside is necessary for management of this off site storm water area. As with all other aspects of the project, we embrace this responsibility and have worked for months with city engineers on the necessary solutions. In addition, we have been working with Fort Collins Natural Areas to jointly improve this land as protected and restored natural areas that will be accessible and beneﬁcial to all Fort Collins residents. This plan is not yet approved by the Natural Areas organization, but is in the process of design and potential approval where Montava is only a part of an overall plan that extends north of our project in a connected trail system and additional preserved land. Montava by itself represents a substantially sized parcel of land relative to other parcels owned and managed by Natural Areas. Attached please ﬁnd a description of the initial plan designed by the Natural Areas organization which was presented to the Natural Areas Board by staff last week. Also ﬁnd attached a detailed map of the Drainage Basin in question, as well as one sheet of plans representing the tremendous work our engineers have been doing with city staff and Icon, the city’s third party engineering ﬁrm. 1.b Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MONTAVA CONTEXT MAP CONSERVATION EASEMENTS • City-owned and City as contributor E. County Road 58 E. County Road 56 E. Douglas Rd. Richards Lake Rd. N. Timberline Rd. Turnberry Rd. Giddings Rd. Mountain Vista Dr. E. Vine Dr. EXISTING PARKS THORNTON PARCEL • Potential purchase by Natural Areas CITY STORMWATER PARCEL • Continuation of proposed natural area WATER’S EDGE EAST MONTAVA POTENTIAL NATURAL AREA NATURAL AREA PROPOSED TRAILS PARKS MASTER PLAN TRAILS POTENTIAL TRAIL EXTENSION N . C ou n t y R d . 11 NO. 8 DITCH • Possible continuous trail connection North 0 1.5K 3K 6K Feet 1.b Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + MONTAVA NATURAL AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES UNDULATING, NATURALIZED TOPOGRAPHY • No sharp angles (no trapezoids or orthogonal geometries); slopes 4:1 preferred • Smooth transitions (e.g. rounded toe of slope and top of berm) • Diversity of forms and elevations to: 1) create opportunities to establish a variety of plant communities; 2) create a more dynamic environment for wildlife and people INTEGRATION OF HABITAT-ENHANCING FEATURES • Include natural elements that provide diverse cover, forage and nesting materials for pollinators and other wildlife (e.g. snags, pockets of bare ground for ground-nesting bees, fruit-bearing shrubs, +) DIVERSE VEGETATION THAT SUPPORTS A RANGE OF HABITAT TYPES + EXPERIENCES • Feature ecotypic plant communities that correspond to their topographic conditions (e.g. mesic at lowest levels of detention basin, upland/foothills on sloping terrain), and are self-sustaining (low H2O + maintenance) • Develop rich, multi-layered structural communities with naturalistic qualities (e.g. meandering clumps of ground, mid-story and canopy species within a seeded matrix) + + + + + + + + 1.b Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) INTEGRATION OF PLACES FOR RESPITE, GATHERING, AND EDUCATION • Where appropriate, offer opportunities for outdoor environmental learning that connect community to place, (e.g. interpretive signage explaining the link between native pollinators and the farm or the beneﬁts of naturalized stormwater management; an outdoor classrom tied to the new PSD school) • Provide diverse seating options that accommodate both solitary respite and family gathering CONNECTED CORRIDORS • Provide contiguous habitat across the site that supports movement corridors for wildlife • Provide a range of trail options that allow the community to customize their experience with nature, (e.g. a primary paved trail with secondary side paths for exploration and the creation of a quieter experience) USE OF TOPOGRAPHY TO FRAME, SHIELD AND ENHANCE • Frame scenic views to clustered planting zones, the farm or mountains beyond • Buffer wildlife from light and sound pollution with strategic berm placement • Screen infrastructure and housing to enhance the feeling of being surrounded by nature 1.b Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 231 34 26 31.2 438 237 31.1 31 31 POND A 21 31.1 907 242 74.1 74 842 833.1 77 891 MONTAVA 3-1 426 MONTAVA 2 73 MONTAVA 1 MONTAVA 3-2 833 424 822 21 427A 36 35 834 435 729 430 431 829 730 29 35 730 30 725 229 25 437 436 435 909 425 904 OVERFLOW 426 426_OVER 841 75 828 831 72 426 16 ICONENGINEERING, INC. Memorandum 7000 S. Yosemite Street, Suite 120, Centennial, CO 80112 p 303.221.0802 | f 303.221.4019 www.iconeng.com TO: Dan Evans, City of Fort Collins FROM: Craig Jacobson, Jaclyn Michaelsen, ICON Engineering, Inc. DATE: June 27, 2018, Revised September 13, 2018 RE: Impacts from Montava Development to Cooper Slough [Draft Memo] The purpose of this memo is to summarize the improvements and initial results and recommendations from the proposed Montava Development Stormwater Improvements, specifically relating to discharges along Cooper Slough and inflows and spills from the Larimer and Weld Canal (LWC). Description of Project: The Montava development is generally located north of the Larimer and Weld Canal (LWC), west of the Colorado and Southern Railroad (CSRR), south of Richards Lake Road, and east of the Number 8 Outlet ditch. There is also a small piece of the development that is located at the northwest corner of Mountain Vista and Timberline Road, west of the Number 8 Outlet ditch. The project site is located in and around several Selected Plan improvements for the Cooper Slough Basin. The development has been required by the City of Fort Collins to incorporate the following Selected Plan improvements into their development: 1) Remove existing spill at CSRR: The spill currently spills 460-cfs over the railroad and through the Anheuser Bush (AB) property. By removing this spill 1794-cfs will continue south through the proposed development. 2) Create a diversion off of the Number 8 Outlet Ditch: The main purpose of the diversion off the Number 8 Outlet Ditch is to remove the storm flows in the ditch, leaving only the decreed flow of 125-cfs. The Selected Plan spill was proposed downstream of the last inflow from surrounding developments. 3) Construction of the Colorado and Southern (C&S)/Crumb Regional detention pond: In the Selected Plan the regional pond is designed to detain the flow diverted from the Number 8 Outlet ditch, detain the flow that was previously being spilled over the CSRR, and to formalize the inadvertent detention at the proposed C&S pond location. The pond is necessary to maintain the downstream flows at or below existing conditions. The proposed Montava development incorporated these improvements into the design of their development. The impact of the proposed design is discussed below. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed improvements. 1.b Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 2 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx Number 8 Outlet Ditch: The portion of the proposed development located west of the Number 8 Outlet Ditch is currently proposed to discharge directly into the Number 8 Outlet Ditch. The development discharges at the pre-developed 2-year release rate. Offsite basins that travel through the site are currently proposed to pass through the site undetained to the ditch. The total peak flow proposed out of the development is 191-cfs, this includes the offsite flow that is being routed through the development. Compared to the baseline hydrology model, inflows to the Number 8 Outlet Ditch are higher with the proposed development than under existing conditions. This is primarily attributed to the fact that the existing conditions hydrology model also identified the presence of inadvertent storage west of the ditch, thus detaining flows to 116-cfs. We suggest that the City consider additional compensatory storage to meet development regulation requirements, if applicable. Downstream of the development, flows on the Number 8 Outlet Ditch are also increased above those recommended by the Selected Plan (324-cfs versus 125-cfs). Differences here are that the proposed development has situated the proposed diversion from the Number 8 further upstream from the development, versus downstream, to regulate the flows. We suggest that the location of the diversion be modified more consistent with the master plan, or that the developer demonstrate the ditch’s abilities to convey the additional proposed flows to the LWC, and that the flows can be managed in this manner successfully. It should be noted that with the on-site detention and diversion as currently proposed, the flows along the Number 8 decrease to 324-fcs from the existing conditions flow of 505-cfs. Impacts of Development The proposed development east of the Number 8 Outlet ditch contains four (4) regional detention ponds. The first pond is located at the southwest corner of the CSRR and Richards Lake Road. This pond is approximately 190 ac-ft and discharges into the C&S regional detention pond through a drainage swale. The proposed C&S regional pond is approximately 222 ac-ft and overtops to an overflow pond located to the south while also discharging to the existing AB pond via dual 3ftx9ft RCBCs. The AB pond is proposed to discharge into the LWC as it currently does today. A new flume structure has been proposed above the LWC to discharge directly into the Cooper Slough channel downstream as well. Simultaneously, the overflow pond south of the main C&S pond includes a 24-inch outlet pipe that discharges directly into the LWC. 1.b Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 3 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx The following table summarizes the proposed development detention ponds: Table 1: Detention Pond Summary Comparison Location Proposed Discharge Location Proposed Pond Volume Proposed Pond Release Selected Plan Discharge Location Selected Plan Volume Selected Plan Release Montava A C&S Pond 190 ac-ft 756-cfs NA NA NA Onsite Development Detention Detention is being provided in the regional detention ponds. C&S Pond 170 ac-ft 100-cfs C&S Pond (pond 426) AB Pond 222 ac-ft 719-cfs Cooper Slough 216 ac-ft 546-cfs AB Pond (pond 425) Cooper Slough 55 ac-ft 540-cfs LWC 63 ac-ft 377-cfs LWC 392-cfs C&S Overflow Pond LWC 77 ac-ft 37-cfs NA NA NA Overall, the projects associated with the proposed development are providing 543 ac-ft of detention storage. In comparison, the Selected Plan proposes 449 ac-ft through regional and on-site detention. However, due to the configuration proposed, the timing of the over flows out of the AB pond and into Cooper Sough are changed for the 100-ear event from what was modeled for existing conditions. Downstream of the LWC, on Cooper Slough, the existing conditions flow is 743-cfs, Selected Plan is 654-cfs, and proposed development is 973-cfs. Also, Cooper Slough, downstream of the LWC, has two main sources of flow in the Selected Plan – the spill from the LWC and outflow from the proposed C&S regional pond. The development, as proposed, only connects with Cooper Slough via a spill from the LWC. Figure 1 shows the flow hydrographs into Cooper Slough with the Selected Plan improvements constructed as proposed: 1.b Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 4 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx Figure 1: Flow Hydrographs to Cooper Slough from Selected Plan As shown in Figure 2, the total flow into the Cooper Slough has increased with the proposed development and improvements. The peak out of the C&S pond is occurring sooner than assumed by the Selected Plan. Figure 2: Flow Hydrographs to Cooper Slough from Proposed Development 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Flow (-cfs) time (min) Selected Plan Regional Detention Ponds C&S Ditch spill to Cooper Slough Total flow to Cooper Slough AB 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 Flow (-cfs) Time (min) Proposed Developement Pond Outflow to Cooper Slough Ditch Spill into Cooper Slough PondOutflow into ditch Total Flow into Cooper Slough 654-cfs 973-cfs 1.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 5 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx Recommended Modifications to the Design As part of this review, ICON performed a sensitivity analysis on the current improvement plan, proposed by Montava, to determine drivers regarding modifications to reduce the discharge to Cooper Slough. First, it is suggested that the detention effects on the immediate development be reviewed. Due to the significant sizes of the proposed regional ponds and outlets, it is feasible that effective detention is not being generated for the on-site runoff and generating higher discharges downstream. This may also be more prevalent for low flow events, which would essentially pass through the detention ponds. Second, it is suggested that the pond outlet configurations be adjusted to further delay the peak outflows from the proposed ponds. Specifically, adjustments could potentially be made to the outlet of the C&S pond and the C&S overflow pond. Our sensitivity run showed that by changing the C&S outlet to a staged outlet structure, consisting of a 36-in culvert placed at the invert of the pond with dual 3ft x 7ft RCBC located approximately 3ft above (sizes to be verified during final design), the hydrograph out of the pond will be delayed such that flows in Cooper Slough would no longer be increased. In addition to the staged outlet structure, more water can be conveyed to the Overflow Pond reducing the peak flow going to the AB pond and in turn Cooper Slough. Low Flow Impacts The Montava improvements propose to discharge the AB pond into the Cooper Slough. Currently, the only inflows from the Cooper Slough are a spill from the LWC which generally does not release into Cooper Slough until after the AB pond begins to overtop. As proposed, the AB pond will not overtop in the minor events (up to just below the 10-year event). Therefore, as long as the spill out of the LWC remains below existing conditions spills, durational impacts from base lows downstream on Cooper Slough would not be anticipated. Table 2 compares the peak flow from a range of storm events in the Cooper Slough, downstream of the LWC, between existing conditions and the proposed project. Table 2: Comparison of Peak flow in the Cooper Slough, downstream of the Larimer and Weld Canal 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Existing Conditions 0-cfs 0-cfs 20-cfs 193-cfs 341-cfs 743-cfs Proposed Project 0-cfs Not analyzed 36-cfs Not analyzed Not analyzed 740-cfs It is recommended that the proposed improvements be fine-tuned during preliminary and final design to ensure that flows into Cooper Slough remain similar to existing conditions during higher frequency runoff events such as the 2- through 10- year events. With the data presented in this memo, it is believed that this can be adequately achieved. 1.b Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 6 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx Impacts to the Larimer and Weld Canal The flow out of the LWC during a 100-year event is reduced along the length of the canal with the recommended adjustments to the Montava development. Table 3 indicates the reduction in spills resulting from the proposed improvements from the Montava development: Table 3: Spill out of the Larimer and Weld Spill Location At Cooper Slough Upstream I-25 Upstream of the Boxelder Spill At the Boxelder Spill Existing Conditions 743-cfs 0-cfs 1.4-cfs 2547-cfs Proposed Project 565-cfs* 0-cfs 3.9-cfs 2442-cfs * Peak flow in the Cooper Slough downstream of the LWC Spill has a peak flow of 740-cfs when considering the proposed overflow structure above the LWC from the AB Pond. Impacts of Future Selected Plan Improvements Upstream of Proposed Development Other drainage improvements upstream of the Montava development have been proposed as part of the 2017 Selected Plan of Improvements. These upstream improvements, including the North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 Spillway and Sod Farm Pond detention improvements, have the potential to affect the stormwater volume requirements for the Montava development. The impact from each of these improvements on the peak outflow and volumes at Montava is discussed below. In general, this evaluation assumes that Montava will develop prior to the implementation of these other improvements. North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 Spillway Improvements: The Selected Plan identifies the placement of an 8-in high iron weir plate on the existing spillway of the North Poudre Reservoir No. 6. This improvement would allow incoming stormwater to be stored above the existing spillway elevation, thus significantly reducing downstream flow and volumes within the eastern portion of the basin. This improvement would add approximately 307 ac-ft of flood storage on top of the existing irrigation reservoir. The peak outflows from the reservoir would be reduced by 207-cfs. This improvement was added into the EPA SWMM model to determine what the impacts would have on the development. The base model used was the development model with the recommended revisions to the design, as described above. 1.b Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 7 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx After implementation, the analysis showed that the No. 6 spillway improvements would generate only a negligible (2-cfs) reduction in peak discharge at Cooper Slough, immediately downstream of the LWC. However, reductions in overall pond volume was noted at both Montava A and the C&S ponds, where the volume was reduced by 51 ac-ft and 68 ac-ft, respectively. The volume in the AB Pond and overflow discharge into Cooper Slough did not change. Spills from the LWC also did not significantly change. With consideration of the North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 improvements, adjustments could be made to the Montava drainage improvements. Specifically, with the No. 6 improvements in- place, the site pond volumes could be reduced, or the outlet structure from the C&S pond to the AB pond could also be reduced in size. The ability to make these adjustments would be dependent on the timing of construction of the No.6 improvements compared to Montava. The following scenario goals could be considered. 1) Goal 1 - Reduce C&S Pond Outlet: This option would continue to use the full volume of the Montava A and C&S ponds, as currently proposed, 222 ac-ft and 190 ac-ft, respectively. Outlet structures from both ponds would be modified to minimize the infrastructure needed to cross the railroad at the C&S Pond. For this option to work effectively, the North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 improvements would need to be constructed prior to the Montava development or the development is phased to match the lesser outflow from the C&S Pond until the No. 6 improvements are made. 2) Goal 2 – Reduce Pond Volumes. With the construction of the North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 improvements, pond volume requirements for the C&S and Montava A Ponds could be reduced. Montava could consider developing creative phasing and grading plans which would modify the ponds in the future to remove excess storage and possibly increase development, or other uses within these areas. Sod Farm Pond Detention: The Selected Plan identified the construction of an improvement that will allow all stormwater flows in excess of the 125-cfs irrigation flow to be diverted from the No. 8 Outlet Ditch into an improved Sod Farm Detention Pond. The Sod Farm Detention Pond would increase detention from 112 ac-ft to 174 ac-ft, with a 55-cfs release back into the No. 8 Ditch. This improvement was added into the EPA SWMM model to determine what the impact it would have on the development. The base model used was the development model with the recommended revisions to the design (as described above). With only a minor volumetric change, the Sod Farm improvements alone provided very little impact to Montava, or the peak flow rate out of the LWC. The Sod Farm improvements also did not significantly reduce the peak flow into Cooper Slough downstream of the LWC. 1.b Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ICONENGINEERING, INC. Page 8 of 8 F:\Icon Projects\Upper Cooper Slough\Montava\Upper Cooper Slough - Montave Draft Memo - updated 9-13-18.docx North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 Spillway Improvements & Sod Farm Pond Detention Combined: Combining both the North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 Spillway improvements with the Sod Farm improvements, the Montava development was impacted beyond that for only the No. 6 Spillway improvements. The additional selected plan detention considering both improvements upstream provided overall detention reductions at the Montava A and the C&S ponds of 51 ac-ft and 101 ac-ft, respectively. Restriction of Irrigation Flow in the No. 8 Outlet Ditch during storm events: As discussed with the Montava development group, the No. 8 Irrigation Ditch Company has offered to shut down the irrigation flows in the No. 8 Outlet Ditch during large storm events. This potentially could reduce the flow discharging into the LWC, and ultimately reduce the spill out of the LWC and into Cooper Slough. This improvement was added into the EPA SWMM model, as well as the unsteady LWC HEC- RAS model, to determine what the impacts of removing the irrigation flows completely would have on the LWC. The base model used was the development model with the recommended revisions to the design, as described above. It was determined that the elimination of the irrigation flow provided very little impact to the peak spills from the LWC. The spill out of the LWC at Cooper Slough were reduced by only approximately 20-cfs. Regardless, restricting the irrigation flows in the No. 8 Ditch during flood events would be good practice and should be pursued. Should, it be feasible, a similar management approach along the LWC could also be considered. The removal of irrigation flows from the LWC would have a near direct benefit to the reduction in spills out of the LCW. 1.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Metro District Master Planned Community Necessity Metro District Value Attached is a document that shows the top 20 master planned community’s in Colorado, along with their corresponding Metro Districts. 100% of them have Districts, while some also have substantial HOA’s as well. These projects are using the Metro District tool to provide basic infrastructure, services and enhanced amenities that are required of large master planned communities. Our plan is to use up to 20 mills of our 60 mill cap as operating expenses to replace the need for the traditional HOA functions, and provide additional added value services for the community. Beyond trash service, landscape maintenance, architectural controls, and other traditional services, the Metro District will also bill for the non potable and possibly the potable water as well. Creating one integrated point of service for critical areas of our community, and enabling the future education and encouragement for creating a sustainable community. The only exception may be the intentional connection of each resident with the farm, which I will discuss in our meeting. We are building something extraordinary in Montava. It will be a national model, that does not exist anywhere in the world. It will require all possible and practical tools to succeed. 1.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 25, 2018 City Council STAFF Josh Birks, Economic Health Director SUBJECT Public Hearing and Resolution 2018-083 Approving the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 Consolidated Service Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider approval of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 Consolidated Service Plan (Service Plan). The developer of the proposed Montava Development has submitted the Service Plan to support the proposed development of approximately 988.5 acres located in the northeast portion of the community near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development is anticipated to include 2,000 single family homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office, 88,900 square feet of retail. The project has committed to provide 10 percent of housing units in a mix of for rent and for sale affordable housing. In addition, the project will deliver all units as US Department of Energy Certified Zero Energy Ready along with other commitments. A Metro District with a Mill Levy Cap of 60.00 mills has been proposed to support the project. City Council conducted a public hearing on the Service Plan at its September 4, 2018 meeting, but continued further consideration of the proposed Service Plan to its September 18, 2018 meeting and then again at the September 18 meeting to September 25, 2018, to allow additional time to refine the Public Benefit commitments and other legal aspects. The Service Plan submitted for consideration by this review includes refinements to performance assurances and commitments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under the Council Meeting Rules, the presiding officer is authorized to establish the order of proceedings for this type of item. The order of hearing that has been used for metro district service plan hearings is as follows. 1. Announcement of item, 2. Consideration of any procedural issues, 3. Explanation of the application by City staff, 4. Presentation by the applicant, 5. Public testimony regarding the application, 6. Rebuttal testimony by the applicant, 7. Councilmember questions of City staff and the applicant, and 8. Motion, discussion and vote by City Council. Montava is a multi-phase long-term development proposal located in the northeast portion of Fort Collins. The project is located in the area covered by the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (MVSAP). The project anticipates 2 Packet Pg. 166 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 delivery on several key principals of the MVSAP while also providing a community that follows New Urbanist principles to promote environmentally friendly habits, walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Metro District will support a large-scale (988.5 acres) planned development that will extend the City into the largest remaining undeveloped section of the Growth Management Area (GMA). The project anticipates constructing: • Approximately 4,400 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family) • A town center including 88,900 square feet of retail • Approximately 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office • Allocating land for natural areas, schools, and a community park • A 40-acre organic farm; and • A variety of other public open spaces and trails. The project is generally located between Mountain Vista on the south, Richards Lake Road on the north, Timberline Road on the West and the train tracks on the east (Attachment 1). The project, called Montava, “Mon” for mountains and “tava” the Ute Indian work for “sun,” uses the MVSAP as its basis for design and development approach. Service Plan Revisions Since September 4, 2018 On September 4, 2018, City Council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the proposed Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (the Service Plan). Again, on September 18, 2018 Council voted to further postpone consideration of the Service Plan to its September 25, 2018 meeting. Council had several concerns with the Service Plan as presented on September 4, 2018. The following changes have been made to the Service Plan in response to these concerns: • Further Council Approval Required – No Debt, Debt Mill Levy, or Fees to pay debt may be issued or collected until City Council approves an intergovernmental agreement and/or development agreement securing the Public Benefits (see revisions to Section IV.B(1-3)). • Operating Mill Levy cannot Exceed 10.000 Mills – Revisions removed the portion of Section IX.B.3 which previously stated that when a majority of the Board is composed of End Users then, at the board’s discretion, the Operating Mill may be increased up to 50.000 mills. With this revision, any increase the Operating Mill Levy will require a Service Plan Amendment approved by City Council. • City may Dissolve a District for Inaction – Revisions to Section XVI now empower the City, at its option, to dissolve the District if no intergovernmental agreement or development agreement has been approved by City Council within three years of Service Plan approval. • Enhanced Commitment Language – Significant revisions were made to Exhibit J, which describes the Public Benefits to be delivered by the Project. Additional details regarding these commitments is included in the Public Benefits section of this summary below. All other changes in the proposed Service Plan are either refinements in the spirit of the Model Service Plan, minor in nature, further changes for clarification, or to respond to Council’s requests for changes and clarification on September 4, 2018. A redline version of the Service Plan compared to the version submitted on September 4, 2018 is attached to provide clarity on these changes (Attachment 2). Council Follow-Up – Affordable Housing Council had several unanswered questions during the discussion of the Service Plan. Several of these questions deal with affordable housing. Generally, these questions dealt with the tension between increasing the supply of affordable housing units in Fort Collins versus the concerns over added cost burden to households by increasing property taxes with a Metro District. 2 Packet Pg. 167 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 What is the current Area Median Income (AMI) as calculated by the United States Department of Urban Development (HUD)? Currently, HUD calculated the AMI for a four-person household at $85,100 in Fort Collins, see Table 1 below. The City’s current definition of affordable housing requires that units be priced so that a household earning 80 percent of AMI can cover the monthly cost of ownership. The current 80 percent AMI income is $68,100 for a four-person household. Table 1 Area Median Income, 4-Person Household, 2018 Percent AMI Area Median Income (AMI) HUD Classification 100% $ 85,100 Moderate Income 80% $ 68,100 Low Income 60% $ 51,060 Low Income 50% $ 42,550 Very Low Income 30% $ 25,550 Extremely Low Income Source: HUD Based on current AMI levels what would be the maximum sales price for Affordable Homes? Using standard industry assumptions regarding homeowner’s insurance costs, property tax costs and homeowner’s association dues or metro district taxes the maximum sales price has been calculated for three- person households and four-person households, see Table 2. The result is maximum sales prices ranging between $278,000 and $312,000 assuming a four percent down payment under the Federal Housing Authority loan program and a five percent interest rate. The Project anticipates providing at least 50 residential units priced within this range. The calculations below are based on conservative assumptions of Property Taxes, including Metro District property taxes. The real cost of Metro District taxes to household in a $280,000 home will be $84 a month and regular property taxes would be $153 per month for a total property tax cost of $237 per month roughly half of the amount used in the calculations below. 2 Packet Pg. 168 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 Table 2 Estimated Maximum Sales Price by Household Size at 80 percent AMI, 2018 3 Person 4 Person 80% AMI $ 61,300 $ 68,100 Monthly Income $ 5,110 $ 5,680 Available for Housing (38%) $ 1,942 $ 2,158 Property Taxes (.072%) $ 200 $ 230 Metro Taxes/HOA Fees ($200/mo) $ 200 $ 200 Insurance (.038%) $ 110 $ 120 Monthly Mortgage Payment $ 1,432 $ 1,608 Loan Amount $ 266,800 $ 299,500 Down Payment $ 11,100 $ 12,500 Total Purchase Price $ 277,900 $ 312,000 Household Item How might Affordable Housing be delivered within a Metro District? Council discussed a concern about how a metro district can deliver affordable housing. In general, there are several methods for delivery affordable housing that might be employed by a developer. The concern is how to deliver affordable housing without adding additional property tax burden to the purchaser. One way to understand this concern is to review how affordable housing sales prices get set according to the City’s policy. There are three guiding principles to the policy: 1. Target AMI – Targets 80 percent AMI or below; 2. Affordability Period – Target is a minimum of 20-years of affordability; and 3. Income Available for Housing Cost – Limited to 38 percent of income. Following these principles, calculating a sales price that complies would require that added costs from Metro District property taxes be included within the 38 percent of income aspect of the policy. Therefore, the Affordable Housing sales price in a Metro District will be lower than outside a district. The calculations in Table 2 above show how estimated metro district costs could impact the sales price. Another way to evaluate the tension between increasing the number of units versus increased cost is to consider the manners in which housing could be delivered: • Traditional Delivery – Existing affordable housing providers could construct units within the district using their traditional funding approaches. These units would need to be rented or sold at a price point that complies with the City’s policy. The monthly cost to the user would be no different within the district than outside the district. Therefore, the housing provider would need to identify and obtain additional subsidy to cover the resulting lower sales price for a unit that will cost the same inside and outside of a district. • Land Trust – A developer could elect to transfer or sell affordable housing lots to a Land Trust operating in the State or Region. The Land Trust, typically a non-profit, would then reduce the tax burden to the 2 Packet Pg. 169 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 5 occupant by removing 25 to 30 percent of property value associated with land. In addition, a Land Trust would also have to price units following the same principles – meaning that the net cost to the occupant would be consistent inside and outside a district. • Land Bank – A developer could elect to sell a portion of their property to the City’s land bank program at a market or discounted rate. These units would need to be rented or sold at a price point that complies with the City’s policy. The monthly cost to the user would be no different within the district than outside the district. As stated, the above are some examples of how a developer might deliver affordable housing while minimizing the impacts of added Metro District property taxes. However, the above list is not exhaustive. The key take-away is there are several methods to deliver affordable housing in a Metro District that does not pass added cost onto the occupants. Council Follow-Up – Zero Energy Ready Homes City Council wanted to understand the impact of the developer’s commitment to construct all homes within the project to the Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) standard. What is a ZERH and how does it differ from existing City Code? The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines a ZEHR as “a high-performance home which is so energy efficient, that a renewable energy system can offset all or most of its annual energy consumption.” Practically, a ZERH home meets all the requirements of a net zero energy home less the renewable energy system, DOE requirements include: • Certified Energy Star Version 3.0 or Version 3.1 • Envelope – Fenestration to meet or exceed Energy Star requirements. Ceiling, wall, floor and slab insulation to meet 2012 or 2015 IECC levels. • Duct systems shall be located within the homes thermal and air boundary. • Hot water systems shall meet EPA WaterSense Single Family New Home specs along with other specific provisions not noted here. • Lights & appliances – Appliances shall be Energy Star qualified and 80 percent of lighting shall be Energy Star qualified. All bath and ceiling fans are Energy Star qualified. • Home must be certified EPA Indoor airPlus. • Home must meet requirements of the DOE PV-Ready checklist. What is the energy, thermal, and cost savings of a ZERH compared to a code compliant home? Recent modeling efforts comparing a ZEHR to a code compliant baseline home have netted the following results: • Approximate kilowatt hour (kWh) saving per year estimated at 1,350 kWh; • Approximate Therms (th) saving per year estimated at 300 th; and • Total cost savings compared to a baseline home of approximately $450 per year This modelling assumes the following: • Baseline assumes 2015 IECC code with local amendments and gas thermal heating; • Assumes a 2,400 square foot home with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and a full basement; and • Utility rates are the default rates. 2 Packet Pg. 170 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 6 What is the estimated CO2 avoided from a ZERH compared to a code compliant home? Converting the above energy and thermal savings avoids approximately 3.0 metric tons of CO2 equivalency each year. Therefore, the proposed 498 housing units would avoid a collective 1,500 metric tons of CO2, which is equivalent to 300 passengers vehicles being removed from the road for a year or converting 50,000 incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs. What is the anticipated impact of 500 plus ZERHs on the Utility system and infrastructure? • ZERH home standards do not fundamentally change the panel size requirements for electric service or the distribution system designs to supply and receive energy to and from the homes. • If a ZERH leverages electrification of building heat and includes charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, the panel size requirements can increase based on National Electric Code (NEC) requirements. • The peak demands (flows in and out) of the home can increase as well, which can require up-sizing of the distribution system to supply and receive energy to and from the home. If you consider the home owner as a prosumer, it requires the necessary infrastructure to move the energy in and out of the home to accommodate the energy transactions. • Although peak demands can be partially managed with a distributed storage device, to allow for full active management of future integrations with the larger bulk electric systems, it is recommended to maintain or increase the physical infrastructure designs to support the long-term reliability and flexible operations of these homes and neighborhoods. AUGUST 20, 2018 - COUNCIL FINANCE FOLLOW-UP On August 20, 2018, the Council Finance Committee reviewed the proposed Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7 (the “Service Plan”). The Committee requested additional information on several items: • Water Reduction from Non-Potable Irrigation – It is commonly considered that irrigation water in residential development accounts for 50 percent of total usage during irrigation season. Furthermore, the applicant is working with Dr. Yaling Qian at Colorado State University (CSU) to determine the best plant types and planting approaches to maximize the quality of landscaping and minimize water use. • Origin of On-site Coffin Well Water – No formal name exists for the shallow alluvial aquifer below the proposed project; however, the Water Court of Colorado has deemed the wells to be “non-tributary” meaning that pumping these wells does not negatively impact the river. Furthermore, at full build-out, with conservative water use estimates, the Project uses less than one-third of the total decreed well production. • Gray Water Use – The applicant is working with Dr. Sybil Sharvell at CSU. So far, an approach has not emerged that is a viable economic or practical option. However, the applicant remains committed to implementing gray water use where it proves viable. • Water Source/Use for the Farm – The salinity of the site’s well water is not conducive to growing vegetables. Therefore, the Farm will be served by North Poudre Irrigation Ditch (“NPIC”) water, which has been serving the quarter section south of the farm location for the past several decades. This solution requires acquisition of some water rights and a long-term lease arrangement between the applicant and the City for NPIC usage. • Manufactured Home and Construction – An early concept was to partner with Unity Homes, out of Vermont, to provide manufactured homes for the project that would be assembled in a manufacturing facility on-site. As discussions continued, it will be too difficult to begin the community with this type of housing and construction approach. However, the applicant is looking to streamline permitting and construction process to ensure all homes meet the Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready standard. 2 Packet Pg. 171 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 7 METRO DISTRICTS Montava has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (the “Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical public infrastructure and other site costs reducing the overall development costs. Service Plan Overview The Service Plan calls for the creation of seven Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver the proposed Montava development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the next 25 plus years and support an estimated population of 11,073. A few highlights about the proposed Service Plan, include: • Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $76 million in 2029, which would be ten years into the phased development and not include full build-out • Aggregate Mill Levy – 60 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments • Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills may not be levied until a City Council approved development plan and/or intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits • Operating Mill Levy – 20 Mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but not limited to: (a) a non- potable irrigation system, and (b) a community-wide “in home” water conservation program • Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $203 million to cover a total a portion of the estimated $325 million in public improvement costs • Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation and/or stormwater improvements Public Improvements The Service Plans anticipate using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $203 million to fund all or a portion of the following $325 million in public improvements (details available in Exhibit E and Exhibit H of the Service Plan): • Earthwork – Up to approximately $21.5 million in earthwork and site preparation costs associated with the proposed project, including significant grading associated with stormwater management linked to the Cooper Slough • Streets – Up to approximately $105.3 million to fund local residential streets, alleys, boulevards, and arterials both on- and off-site • Water Improvements – Up to $11.1 million in costs to construct potable water infrastructure both on- and off-site supporting the project • Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Up to $15.7 million in costs associated with constructing the sanitary sewer infrastructure both on- and off-site for the project • Non-potable Water – Up to $13.8 million to construct a non-potable irrigation system to server the entire development – this infrastructure will significantly reduce the projects need to acquire water rights and demand on potable water treatment facilities • Storm Sewer Improvements – Up to $10.2 million in costs to construct the main storm sewer system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading is included in the Earthwork amount above) • Recreation Facilities – Up to $8 million in costs to construct on- and off-site public parks, open space, recreation facilities and/or services • Landscaping, Trails, Open Space and Farm Facilities – U to $44.2 million to install landscaping, construct trails, open space, and farm facilities • Administrative, Miscellaneous, and Engineering – Up to $47 million in costs associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing, planning, and permitting the construction of the public improvements • Contingency – Up to $48 million in contingency assumes a 20 percent factor on top of the costs estimates provide, which are only based on a conceptual design 2 Packet Pg. 172 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 8 Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not supplied an estimate of non-basic costs. Non-basic costs are assumed to be costs that are not typical for a development of the proposed project’s type and/or size. These costs therefore, are considered extraordinary infrastructure costs. While no estimate of non-basic costs has been supplied, the conceptual planning and design of the project has uncovered several extraordinary development conditions, including: • Cooper Slough – The Cooper Slough creates several significant stormwater detention, retention, and water quality issues across the site. These impacts are complicated by the fact that the slough is not consolidated creating multiple entry points for water during a storm event. The net result is the need to manage the stormwater on the site in a variety of ways that deal with off-site conditions. This consumes a significant portion of land, approximate 150 acres or 15 percent of the District area, reducing the potential return from development and adding cost. • Utility Extension Requirements – The proposed District will be served by ELCO and Boxelder Sanitary Sewer, both are smaller districts that do not have the necessary distribution infrastructure in place to support the proposed development. A significant cost will be associated with extending this infrastructure to serve the site. • Non-potable Irrigation System – The applicant intends to serve 85 percent of the community’s irrigation need through a non-potable system. Constructing, operating, and maintain this system will have significant costs – estimated at $13.8 million to construct. Public Benefits As required by the Metro District Policy, the Service Plan will deliver several extraordinary development outcomes that support several public benefits. The applicant is committed to developing and constructing a catalytic community. However, due to the preliminary nature of the proposal, the Service Plan makes firm and formal commitments on several Public Benefits the developer intends to provide through the project. In other cases, the applicant remains committed to pursuing public benefits that exceed these commitments but cannot provide specific details at this time. Therefore, the Public benefits are split into two categories: (a) Committed Public Benefits - Items that the Service Plan commits the Developer to deliver and codify in a development agreement and/or Intergovernmental agreement before issuing debt; and (b) Other Extraordinary Public Benefits - Items that the applicant intends to deliver as part of the project that need additional research, design, and evaluation to determine feasibility. These items may or may not be included in a final Approved Development Plan and/or Intergovernmental Agreement alongside the items in the first category. Committed Public Benefits: The Public Benefits with expanded commitment language are described below (details available in Exhibit J of the Service Plan): • Large-Scale Comprehensive Master Planning – The Montava parcel, through the new Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, will be comprehensively master-planned, with an emphasis on multi-modal transportation. The PUD Master Plan will provide designs for coordinated, interconnecting trail, street, sidewalk, transit and storm drainage systems. • New Urbanist Development – The applicant has designed the project following several key New Urbanist principles which promote environmentally friendly habits, create walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types and job opportunities. These principles will be implemented by one or more of the following: o Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric; o Developing the site as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed; o Mixing housing types and intensities within each neighborhood; o Creating walkable streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations; o Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets; o Integrating market rate and affordable housing. 2 Packet Pg. 173 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 9 • Agri-Urban Development – The MVSAP calls for integration of agricultural uses with development, the project will have a 40-acre organic farm. The land will either be donated or sold at a substantially discounted amount to the Poudre Valley Cooperative, which entity will in turn enter into a long-term lease with the farmers. The primary business model of the farm will be organic produce. • Zero Energy Ready – Residential development in the Montava PUD Master Plan will be built to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home “ZERH” standard. • Affordable Housing – The applicant has committed to constructing 10 percent of units as affordable or workforce housing, whether owner-occupied or leased, ranging from sixty percent to one hundred twenty percent of the Fort Collins AMI for a family of four. These units will be provided through any of the following mechanisms or any other mechanism mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City o Through the City’s land bank program. An option contract with the City for the purchase of five acres within the Montava PUD Master Plan has been executed at a to be determined and mutually acceptable location – this contract will enable the development of approximately 100 of the affordable units and secure the units as affordable into perpetuity; o Through the collaborative effort among developers in the Mountain Vista Subarea, the City, a community land trusts and entities such as Housing Catalyst and Habitat for Humanity on a strategy for long-term affordability; o Through the sale of land by the Developer to a non-profit or for-profit builder and the development of that land as part or all of the affordable units; o Through legally enforceable reservation of acreage within the Montava PUD Master Plan for the eventual sale to an entity for development of affordable units o Through deed restrictions for a twenty year period if another method for long-term affordability does not result from the collaborative effort described above. o Furthermore, sixty-five percent of the affordable units will be delivered by one of the above methods, or other mutually agreeable method, prior to receipt of a building permit for more than fifty percent of the total housing units. The remaining thirty five percent of the affordable units shall be delivered by similar means before the last one hundred of the total housing units can received building permits. Other Extraordinary Public Benefits: The following items the developer of the proposed Project intends to develop further through research, evaluation, and financial analysis and hopes to include in the development. • Energy and Water Conservation – The Project intends to evaluate several additional opportunities to reduce the energy and water consumption of the project below average consumption levels of similar development types, including: o Residential Battery Storage – The applicant is working with Colorado State University and the City of Fort Collins Utilities to create distributed storage by providing a battery in every home o Non-potable Irrigation – The applicant’s planned non-potable irrigation system will meet 85 percent of all irrigation needs and significantly reduce the use of potable water by the project – estimated cost of $8.0 million o Community-wide In-Home Water Conservation Program – The applicant proposed purchasing water from the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) through a master meter and “manage” individual user water consumption through allocations across the project, this could enable the project to achieve a significant reduction in overall water use • Parks and Recreation Facilities – The applicant is working with the City to deliver several park and recreation facilities in the project that would serve the northeast region of Fort Collins primarily and all residents o Community Recreation Center – The applicant intends to partner with the City to develop and construct a Community Recreation Center in the project o Poudre Library District Facility – The applicant intends to partner with the Poudre Library District to develop a library branch in the project o Community Park – The applicant is working with the City to create an 80 plus acre community park to serve the northeast region of the City 2 Packet Pg. 174 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 10 • Natural Areas – The applicant is working to deliver natural areas through the project including 150 acres of stormwater land that will be landscaped to create habitat and function as a natural area providing both recreation facilities and Nature in the City • Affordable Housing – The applicant intends to deliver at least 10 percent of the residential units as affordable housing with a mix of rental and ownership products – partnerships are forming with the City (for a Land Bank parcel), Housing Catalyst, and Land Trusts such as Elevations Land Trust, which serves the Front Range market • Housing Variety – The applicant intends to deliver a variety of housing types. Policy Comparison A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues to the policy is provided below in Table 3. For reference, the two Metro Districts approved by Council at its September 18th meeting are provided for comparison – Waterfield and Water’s Edge. Table 3 Metro District Policy Comparison Montava Waterfield Water's Edge Policy Mill Levy Caps 60 Mills 50 Mills 50 Mills 50 Mills Basic Infrastructure Partially Partially Not Supported To enable public benefit Eminent Domain Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply Prohibited Debt Limitation Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply 100% of Capacity Dissolution Limit Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply 40 years (end user refunding exception) Citizen Control Will Comply Will Comply Will Comply As early as possible Multiple Districts Yes Yes Yes Projected over an extended period Commercial/ Residential Ratio Mixed Use 100% Residential Residential (Phase 1); Mixed Use (Phase 2) N/A APPLICANT SERVICE PLAN REQUESTS The applicant proposing the Service Plan utilized the City’s Model Service Plan as a basis for this request. The following changes have been requested by the applicant: • Financial Plan Alternatives – The applicant has added language to Section IX.A indicating that the attached financial plan is not the only method of implementation of the District’s goals and objectives and that other financial structures may be used that must and will comply with the Service Plan. • Operating Mill Levy – The applicant has proposed modifying the language of IX.B.3 related to operating mill levy to allow for the District Board, when composed of a majority of End Users, to exceed the ten (20) mill cap indicated in the Model Service Plan, while still complying with the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum. • Refunded Debt and Maximum Debt Authorization – The applicant has proposed changes to the language of the Model Service Plan in Section IX.B.7 indicated that “bonds, loans, notes or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization • Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term – The applicant is asking that the 40-year maximum term for imposing the Debt Mill Levy begin running from the date each of the Metro Districts imposes its Debt Mill Levy, instead of from the date the Service Plan is approved as provided in the Model Service Plan. 2 Packet Pg. 175 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 11 Performance Assurances The proposed Service Plan requires prohibits the issuance of any debt or imposition of the Debt Mill Levy or Fees to pay debt, unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits are secured for each development phase in a manner that is approved by the City Council. This requirement can be satisfied by one or both of the following methods, as applicable: • Intergovernmental Agreement - For those Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts, each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City agreeing to provide such Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple-fiscal year obligation of the District under TABOR and by securing performance of that obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City and all such intergovernmental agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution; and • Approved Development Plan - For those Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers, each such Developer must enter into a development agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable Approved Development Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for the Project or to secure such obligations with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City and all such development agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution. POLICY EVALUATION AND TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SCAN The Metro District Policy supports the formation of a Metro District regardless of development type when a District delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits should be: (1) aligned with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary public benefits are provided by the Metro District or by the entity developing the Metro District because Metro Districts exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be practically provided by the City or an existing public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The Service Plan for the Montava Project delivers several proposed policy outcomes, as described in the attached matrix (Attachment 3). Triple Bottom Line – Scan An interdisciplinary staff team met to prepare a Triple Bottom Line Scan (“TBLs”) of the proposed Service Plan. The TBLs included two scenarios: (a) the proposed development compared to no development; and (b) the difference in impact from residential units constructed with the proposed Metro District versus those typically constructed in the community. The TBLs summary is available as Attachment 4. SCENARIO A: The TBLs analysis found that developing the property compared to leaving it fallow will have several potential environmental impacts, including increased consumption of land, water, and energy. However, the analysis did not find a meaningful difference between no development and the proposal for Economic or Social. SCENARIO B: The TBLs analysis found that in many ways the proposed residential construction enabled by a Metro District is no different from the residential development currently occurring in the community. However, there were a few notable differences – most significant is the anticipated energy and water savings from the standard of construction proposed and the inclusion of affordable units. 2 Packet Pg. 176 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 12 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT The Metro District Policy requires all applications for a Metro District Service Plan submit a Financial Plan to the City for review. Economic & Planning Systems prepared an analysis of the financial plan (Attachment 5). The analysis found: • EPS found that the market values used in the public revenue estimates to be reasonable. • Montava is an ambitious and large-scale development that will need to capture a significant portion of the market to achieve the proposed buildout assumptions in its Financial Plan. Montava will need to compete with other larger-scale residential and mixed-use developments planned for North Fort Collins. The fact that North Fort Collins is one of the only remaining growth areas of the city should help each of the developments meet their growth targets. • The Developer’s market study includes a grocery anchored community shopping center of approximately 90,000 square feet will be supportable based on projected growth in the trade area. Montava is well located for a retail center to serve the northeast Fort Collins area. However, there are other parcels also seeking to build neighborhood or community retail centers and likely insufficient demand to support more than one soon. • The public benefit projects have not been programmed or costed. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the economic value of these benefits against the $179.8 million of infrastructure costs that would be offset by metro district revenues. Basic Infrastructure vs. Public Benefit The Metro District Policy allows a metro districts to fund “basic infrastructure”, that which is typically expected to be provided by a developer (both in type and magnitude), when the inclusion of “basic” infrastructure offsets higher costs associated with extraordinary development outcomes that cannot directly be provided by a metro district (Defined in Exhibit A of the Metro District Policy, e.g., rooftop solar, affordable housing, etc.). The Developer has committed to provide several public benefits and has estimated their cost or value at between $228.0 million and $378.0 million. As stated by EPS, the preliminary nature of the proposed Project means that the public benefit projects have not been fully programmed or costed. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the benefits against the requested Maximum Debt Authorization of $203.0 million. Most of the public benefits will be described further in the proposed Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). City Council will be the decision-making body in the PUD review process. Therefore, City Council will have the opportunity to further understand the public benefits to be delivered by approving this Service Plan. In addition, Council will therefore have another opportunity to weigh in on the developer’s commitment to and scale of public benefits at that time. As a result, staff recommends approval of the Service Plan with the full requested Maximum Debt Authorization of $203.0 million, recognizing that additional details will be identified, described, and committed to in the PUD review. Estimated Property Taxes Table 4, shows the property tax estimates by proposed unit type from the existing tax mill and the proposed metro district. The weighted average increased cost to a home owner is approximately $1,510 annually. This amount will vary over time based on the underlying assessed value as determined by the County Assessor. 2 Packet Pg. 177 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 13 Table 4 Property Tax Estimates CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The proposed Metro District Service Plan will not have an impact on the City’s financials. The Metro District policy includes fees designed to offset the cost of staff review and monitoring of Metro Districts. In addition, the proposed Service Plan includes a requires the following notice be included in all debt: “By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt of the City of Fort Collins” BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION • Unable to present to the Superboard meeting on September 6, 2018 as the agenda was too full; • Presented to Affordable Housing Board on September 6, 2018 – Draft Meeting Minutes attached (Attachment 6); • Unable to present to the Energy Board on September 13, 2018 as the agenda was too full; • Unable to present to the Air Quality Advisory Board on September 17, 2018 as the agenda was too full; PUBLIC OUTREACH No public outreach has been conducted on this item. 2 Packet Pg. 178 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 14 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (PDF) 3. Policy Evaluation Matrix (PDF) 4. Triple Bottom Line - Montava Metro District (PDF) 5. Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (PDF) 6. Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (PDF) 7. Combined Vicinity Map Northeast Fort Collins (PDF) 8. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 179 I 8 § MONTAYA METRO DISTRICT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 0 0:::: U) ROJEC �--------�� OCATION ---11 0 C) z ��R�l�C�H�A�R�D�S,..,.;;;�=mw��===;�-�- 2000 1000 0 - - 2000 --- scale 1"=2000' feet N- I w- 1- <( 1-- U) 0:::: w- r------1-z FORT COWNS, CO DA TE: JULY 2018 JOB NO. 1230.0001.00 SHEET 1 OF 1 748 Whalers Way, Suite 200 Fort Colline, Colorado Phone: 970.228.0557 il!, ______________________ rax:_e_01.22&__.0204 _ _ ATTACHMENT 1 2.a Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Vicinity Map (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) ATTACHMENT 2 2.b Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2.b Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Montava Metro District Service Plan (Redline showing changes) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) GHG Reduction 100% Zero Energy Ready; Distributed Storage Increase Density Yes, New Urbanist Affordable Housing At least 10% of units; Approx. 440 units Water/Energy Conservation 100% Zero Energy Ready; Distributed Storage; Non‐potable irrigation system; Community‐wide water conservation program Walkability/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly design principles Workforce Housing N/A Multimodal Transportation Design principles applied Availability of Transit N/A Infill/ Redevelopment N/A Enhance Resiliency Cooper Slough Public Space Pocket Parks; Mixed‐Use Open Space; 150 Acres natural area Increase Renewable Capacity Distributed Storage Mixed‐Use Town Center; Housing Variety Off‐Site Contribution to Regional Transportation System Economic Health N/A PUBLIC BENEFIT/POLICY ASSESSMENT MATRIX Environmental Sustainability Critical Public Infrastructure Smart Growth Management Strategic Priorities On‐Site Transportati on system extension; Cooper Slough Improvemen Montava Metro District Nos. 1-7 The proposed Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 will support the construction of a multi-phase long-term development located in the northeast portino of Fort Collins (the “Project”). The Project is located in the area covered by the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (MVSAP). The project anticipates delivery on several key principals of the MVSAP while also providing a community that follows New Urbanist principles to promote environmentally friendly habits, walkable neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types. The Triple Bottom Line Scan prepared for the Project evaluated two different baseline scenarios: (a) no development; and (b) traditional code based residential development without mixed-use. The following summary includes the highlights from the two scenarios (identified in bold/italics) and contrasts the results of each. Positive Consumes less land for the same number of homes - new urbanist approach to lot layout (Scenario B) Supports Climate Action Plan - all homes Zero Energy Ready (Both) Improves outdoor air quality – energy efficiency (Scenario B) Indirect education of environmental stewardship (Both) Negative Consumes additional land currently in a natural state (Scenario A) Increases construction waste (Scenario A) Decreases outdoor air quality – increased traffic (Scenario A) Positive Supports future infrastructure needs by constructing a street grid, new arterials, and regional stormwater improvements (Both) Supports talent development in the community by providing additional housing opportunity – some affordable (10 percent) (Both) Negative Impacts the cost of living by increasing property taxes for home owners, offset by energy efficiency, housing variety and price point, and affordable housing (Neutral) (Both) All other conditions are neutral (Both) Positive Agri-urban and organic farm will increase access to healthy food (Both) Town Center, Recreation Center, Community park, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, and walkability will impact social interactions (Both) Project will provide up to 440 affordable units dispersed throughout the project – supporting the City’s affordable housing goals and enhancing the inclusivity of the community (Both) Negative All other conditions are neutral (Both) Montava Metro District Nos. 1-7 SCENARIO A SCENARIO B City Council adopted a revised policy for Reviewing Metropolitan District Service Plans (the “Metro District Policy”) on August 21, 2018. The Metro District Policy allows for a wide range of projects to apply for the use of Metro Districts to offset either extraordinary costs or basic costs that enable the delivery of extraordinary development outcomes. These extraordinary outcomes cover a range of possibilities generally grouped into four categories: Environmental Sustainability, Critical Infrastructure, Smart Growth Management, and Strategic Priorities. The TBLs included two scenarios: (a) the proposed development compared to no development; and (b) the difference in impact from residential units constructed with the proposed Metro District versus those typically constructed in the community. SCENARIO A: The TBLs analysis found that developing the property compared to leaving it fallow will have several potential environmental impacts, including increased consumption of land, water, and energy. However, the analysis did not find a meaningful difference between no development and the proposal for Economic or Social. SCENARIO B: The TBLs analysis found that in many ways the proposed residential construction enabled by a Metro District is no different from the residential development currently occurring in the community. However, there were a few notable differences – most significant is the anticipated energy and water savings from the standard of construction proposed and the inclusion of affordable units. 2.d Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Triple Bottom Line - Montava Metro District (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) M EMORANDUM To: Josh Birks and Patrick Rowe Economic Health & Redevelopment, City of Fort Collins From: Dan Guimond and Elliot Kilham, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Montava Metro District Market and Financial Review EPS #183080 Date: August 17, 2018 This memorandum summarizes Economic & Planning System’s (EPS) evaluation of the Financial Plan section of the Consolidated Service Plan (Service Plan) for the Montava Metropolitan Service District (District). The City is required to approve the Service Plan for a Title 32 Metropolitan District (metro district) prior to it being submitted for a vote by the electorate of the district. EPS’s third-party analysis helps to inform the City’s review and approval decision—specifically as it relates to the Financial Plan. The evaluation includes a review of the market and financial assumptions underlying the application as well as the general feasibility of the District’s Financial Plan, including public revenue and bond proceed forecasts. The evaluation also reviews the proposal against the proposed metro district policy requirement for extraordinary public benefits. Development Program Montava is a proposed 860-acre new urban planned community in North Fort Collins located east of Interstate 25 and north of Richard’s Lake Road as shown in Figure 1 at the end of this section. The proposed project is a mixed-used development with residential and commercial uses. Commercial uses include community serving retail and other service-oriented businesses supporting the residential development as well as significant office and industrial development. The project is projected to buildout over the next 25+ years; at which time, it is forecasted to include 4,465 housing units and 855,000 square feet of commercial space. ATTACHMENT 5 2.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 2 The Developer provided a preliminary development program to D.A. Davidson, the District’s bond underwriter, as shown in Table 1. This preliminary program includes: • 2,455 single family homes with a projected market value of $450,000. • 2,010 multifamily units with a projected market value of $225,000. • 210,000 square feet of retail with a projected market value of $150 per square foot. • 200,000 square feet of office with a projected market value of $200 per square foot. • 445,000 square feet of industrial with a projected market value of $100 per square foot. Table 1 Proposed Montava Development Program and Market Values The Developer plans to begin platting the development so that the first finished lot is completed in 2019. The proposed buildout or vertical construction of Montava is estimated to take place over a 25-year period from period from 2020 to 2044, as shown in Table 2. • Single Family: The first single family residential houses are projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2034, an average rate of 164 homes per year. • Multifamily: The first multifamily units are projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2042, an average rate of 87 units per year. • Retail: The first retail space is projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2042, an average rate of 9,130 square feet per year. • Office: The first office space is projected to be completed in 2023 with buildout finishing in 2044, an average rate of 9,091 square feet per year. • Industrial: The first industrial space is projected to be completed in 2020 with buildout finishing in 2038, an average rate of 23,421 square feet per year. The preliminary program is used as inputs into D.A. Davidson’s estimate of bond proceeds and draft bond series offerings. As the basis for the Financial Plan, EPS focused its market assessment on these inputs. However, the program is subject to change. In addition, the Developer has also announced an intention to build a “new urbanist” development with a variety Description Amount % Total Market Value 2018 $ Residential Units $/Unit Single Family 2,455 55% $450,000 Multifamily 2,010 45% $225,000 Total/Weighted Avg. 4,465 100% $348,712 Commercial Sq. Ft. $/Sq. Ft. Retail 210,000 25% $150 Office 200,000 23% $200 Industrial 445,000 52% $100 Total/Weighted Avg. 855,000 100% $136 Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 3 of residential housing products of various sizes and densities, not just single family and multifamily units. The Developer has undertaken preliminary design work to begin to define this more detailed program and has hired DPZ CoDesign, a noted new urbanist design firm, to lead these efforts. These preliminary efforts, however, have yet to define price ranges for the various housing products, making a market evaluation premature at this time. Table 2 Proposed Montava Buildout Residential (Units) Commercial (Sq. Ft.) Description Single Family Multifamily Total Retail Office Industrial Total Year 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 160 50 210 20,000 0 30,000 50,000 2021 175 150 325 20,000 0 40,000 60,000 2022 170 125 295 20,000 0 20,000 40,000 2023 180 100 280 25,000 15,000 0 40,000 2024 180 0 180 25,000 0 30,000 55,000 2025 180 180 360 0 25,000 0 25,000 2026 180 90 270 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000 2027 160 90 250 10,000 10,000 0 20,000 2028 175 180 355 10,000 0 40,000 50,000 2029 175 80 255 0 10,000 0 10,000 2030 160 100 260 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000 2031 130 0 130 10,000 0 0 10,000 2032 140 0 140 20,000 0 50,000 70,000 2033 150 100 250 0 30,000 50,000 80,000 2034 140 100 240 10,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 2035 0 120 120 0 0 0 0 2036 0 110 110 0 0 50,000 50,000 2037 0 100 100 10,000 0 0 10,000 2038 0 110 110 0 10,000 25,000 35,000 2039 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 2040 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 2041 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 2042 0 75 75 10,000 20,000 0 30,000 2043 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 2044 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 2045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary Total 2,455 2,010 4,465 210,000 200,000 445,000 855,000 Average [1] 164 87 194 9,130 9,091 23,421 34,200 [1] Average betw een the first and last year of build-out Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 4 Figure 1 Montava Metro District Vicinity Map Diagram 2.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 5 Metro District Proposal Summary The Service Plan proposes to form seven separate metro districts. The districts will have the ability to impose an aggregate mill levy of 60 mills, which includes a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy. The Operating Mill Levy can equal up to 60 mills until the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy, at which point the Operating Mill Levy cannot exceed 20 mills. While District levies are capped at 60 mills, the Service Plan allows for adjustments to the mill levies in the event that there are changes to the method of calculating assessed value or any other changes impacting the revenue generating capabilities of the District. In such cases, the District may increase or decrease mill levies to ensure that actual tax revenues generated are not diminished. This ability helps to further guarantee future revenue streams and reduce the risk for the bond holders. The Debt Mill Levy is expected to be used to finance public improvements listed in Exhibit E of the Service Plan. The Developer’s engineering consultant estimates that the total cost of the public improvements will be approximately $325 million, and the Developer anticipates issuing approximately $203 million in debt to fund a portion of these public improvement costs. Metro District Policy The City is currently considering updating its policy originally adopted in 2008 for reviewing proposed metro district service plans. The new policy update proposes to remove previous limitations for metro district to be 90 percent commercial and not to be used to fund “basic infrastructure improvements normally required from new development”. In their place, the policy requires that developers deliver “extraordinary public benefits” to the City. In addition, the new policy would increase the recommended maximum mill levy for both debt service and O&M to 50 mills—up from 40 mills in the 2008 resolution. The proposed Montava maximum aggregate mill levy of 60 mills exceeds this recommended maximum mill levy. While the District may not end up using the full mill levy, the Service Plan gives the District the flexibility to do so. 2.e Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 6 Market Assessment This section reviews market values and buildout/absorption assumptions used to estimate the potential public financing revenues and debt capacity of the project, as described in the proposed Financial Plan. The section is organized into the four different land use types proposed for the development: residential, retail, office, and industrial. Residential Market Values To help determine their reasonableness, EPS compared the market value assumptions used the in the Financial Plan’s debt capacity estimates with recent sales in Fort Collins. In addition, EPS compared Montava’s proposed market values with other comparable developments in the Fort Collins area. Recent Sales The Developer’s proposed market values fall near the average of recent sales in the Fort Collins market. The Fort Collins Board of Realtors’ (FCBR) reports that the average price of a single family home sold in Fort Collins in 2018 was $457,002. CoStar, a real estate database service, reports that the average sales price for an apartment unit in the past year was $210,725, as shown in Table 3. • Single Family: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $450,000 or 1.5 percent less than the average of recent sales. As a result, the proposed values are in line with market averages and are appropriately conservative for use in public revenue estimates. • Multifamily: The Financial Plan uses a market value of $225,000 for multifamily units. This is 6.8 percent greater than the average apartment unit price of $210,725, as reported in CoStar. This average, however, includes both new and existing apartment buildings. It should be expected that a new construction unit would trade at a premium to the market average. Table 3 Proposed Montava Market Values Compared to Average Prices in Fort Collin’s Market Description Single Family Multifamily Service Plan $450,000 $225,000 Average Price $457,002 $210,725 Difference -$7,002 $14,275 % Difference -1.5% 6.8% Source: DA Davidson; FCBR; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 7 North Fort Collins Projects This section compares Montava to other recent for-sale residential projects in the North Fort Collins market area. This comparison reveals that Montava’s price points for single family homes largely overlap with the price ranges proposed in recent residential projects, as shown Table 4 and Figure 2. At a proposed 4,465 units, however, Montava would be one of the largest residential development projects in Fort Collins. Table 4 For-Sale Residential Projects in the North Fort Collins Market Figure 2 Price Range in Comparable Residential Projects and Montava Project Status Project Start Product Units Price Compable Projects Single-Family $350,000-$650,000 Townhomes $300,000-$430,000 Condos $230,000-$450,000 Single-Family 18 $540,000-$570,000 Townhomes 37 $327,500-$360,000 Timbervine Under Construction 2017 Single-Family 146 $346,000-$390,000 East Ridge Approved --- Single-Family 568 $300,000-$400,000 Waterfield Single-Family 2,455 $450,000 Multifamily 2,010 $225,000 *Total housing units for all product types Source: Zillow; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Proposed Development Proposed 2018 Old Town North Third Phase 2007 450-500* Revive Under Construction 2015 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Old Town North Revive Timbervine East Ridge Waterfield Price Range Source: Zillow; FCBR; DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Montava Single Family Home 2.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 8 Absorption EPS compared the planned buildout to forecasted future demand for specific housing products. We calculated future housing demand as part of our work on the update to Fort Collins City Plan, organizing these estimates into low density (single family homes), middle density (2- to 20-unit buildings), and high density (20 or more unit buildings) housing products. (More detail on EPS’s housing demand estimate is shown in Table 6 on the following page.) Based on this comparison, EPS calculated an implied capture rate by Montava to gain a perspective on the size and reasonableness of the proposed building plan. From 2016 to 2040, EPS estimates that there will be a demand of 570 low density units and 701 middle and high density units per year, for a total annual average of 1,270 units. In comparison, the Developer proposes to buildout Montava at an average of 164 low density, single family homes per year from 2020 to 2034 and 87 multifamily units from 2020 to 2042. EPS assumed that Montava’s multifamily units will be a mix of middle and high density housing types. This development schedule implies a capture rate of 29 percent for low density products and 12 percent for middle and high density units. In total, the proposed schedule implies a 20 percent capture rate. A capture rate of 20 percent is a significant portion of the residential development market in the Fort Collins market, and may be relatively aggressive. Overall, it is a large and ambitious development, and its success depends on its ability to attract a large segment of the market. The fact that the development seems to be targeting the middle of the market in terms of prices and has a variety of housing types should help it attract a wider market demand segment. Ultimately, Montava’s ability to meet this implied capture rate will depend on size of the pipeline and its competitive position against other projects. There are currently of number of proposed large-scale residential developments in North Fort Collins, including Waterfield and Water’s Edge, that will compete with Montava. However, North Fort Collins is one of the few remaining growth area of the city, meaning that Montava may have less competition from other areas of the city. Table 5 Montava Development Implied Residential Capture Rate Waterfield Fort Collins Waterfield Description Average Annual Avg [3] Capture % [4] 2016-2040 Low Density [1] 164 570 29% Middle + High Density [2] 87 701 12% Subtotal 251 1,270 20% [1] Based on definitions from the CityPlan estimate, low density housing includes Single Family homes [2] Based on definitions from the CityPlan estimate, middle and high density includes all Multifamily units. [3] Annual average from CityPlan housing demand forecast completed by EPS. [4] Capture % = Waterfield Average / Fort Collins Average. Source: Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 9 Table 6 Fort Collins City Plan Future Housing Demand Estimates Retail Development Market Values For its public revenue estimates, the Montava Financial Plan assumed that the retail space in the development will have a market value of $150 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS compared it to the historical five-year average sales price per square foot of retail space in the Fort Collins market and to the capitalized value of retail space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average retail rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort Collins market. Both benchmarks are greater than the assumption used in the Montava’s Financial Plan, as shown in Table 7. The five-year average sales price in Fort Collins is $214 per square foot or 43 percent greater than the Montava assumption. The capitalized value of retail space over the last five years was approximately $241 per square foot or 60 percent greater than the Montava assumption. As a result of these comparison, EPS concludes that the market value used in the Financial Plan is relatively conservative. Using a higher retail market value more closely aligned with market averages in the Financial Plan would increase the estimated public revenues from the development and may allow the Developer to lower the proposed maximum mill levy, which currently exceeds the City’s recommended maximums. Table 7 Retail Market Value Comparison 2016 2040 Description Amount % Total Amount % Total Total Ann. # Ann. % Low Density 42,254 66% 55,926 59% 13,672 570 1.2% Middle Density 14,891 23% 20,998 22% 6,108 254 1.4% High Density 6,590 10% 17,296 18% 10,706 446 4.1% Total 63,735 100% 94,220 100% 30,485 1,270 1.6% Source: Economic & Planning Systems 2016-2040 Sales Price Capitalized Montava Description Per Sq. Ft. [1] Value [2] Assumption Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.) $214.00 $240.73 $150.00 % Difference [2] -43% -60% 0% [1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft. [3] Percent difference from the market value assumption. Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems [2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate or $15.89 / 6.60%. 2.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 10 Retail Demand and Buildout The Developer commissioned a market study by Gibbs Planning Group to determine the amount of supportable retail. Based on an estimated retail trade area roughly equating to a six-mile radius surrounding the proposed Montava development as well as estimates of population growth (including buildout of Montava) and of average household income within the trade area, Gibbs Planning Group calculated total potential supportable retail space to equal 88,900 square feet. This total demand is broken out into different retail types, as shown in Table 8. The demand essentially represents a grocery-anchored community retail center, with a variety of full and limited service restaurants, bars and breweries, and other ancillary retail surrounding the anchor. EPS reviewed the market report commissioned by the Developer and concludes that the North Fort Collins market is a significant growth area of the city and will likely be able to support a community retail center sometime in the future. However, in the Financial Plan, the Developer proposes to build retail space simultaneous with the residential portion of the development, as shown in Figure 3. More realistically, the retail development would not occur until the trade area has reached certain household thresholds that would be supportive of an anchor grocery store. This grocery store would then spur ancillary retail space in the development. In addition, Montava will likely face competition for this retail demand. For example, the proposed Water’s Edge metro district is planning to build 70,000 square feet of retail. Based on the Developer’s market study, there isn’t enough retail demand to support two community centers in the near future. Table 8 Montava Potential Supportable Retail Description Amount % Total Sq. Ft. Grocery Stores 25,000 28% Full-Service Retaurants 17,000 19% Limited-Service Eating Places 16,600 19% Parmacy 5,300 6% Apparel & Shoe Stoes 5,000 6% Mics. Store Retailers 3,700 4% General Merchandise Stores 3,400 4% Bars, Breweries & Pubs 2,900 3% Specialty Food Stores 2,900 3% Home Furnishing Stores 1,800 2% Special Food Services 1,700 2% Office Supplies & Gift Stores 1,400 2% Electronics & Applicances Stores 1,300 1% Jewelry Stores 900 1% Total 88,900 100% Source: Gibbs Planning Group, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 11 The Montava proposal includes a total of 210,000 square feet of retail space over the 2020 to 2045 timeframe. This equates to 48 square feet per household within Montava. With the exception of 30,000 square feet, the development of this additional commercial space is tied to residential development over the 2020 to 2034 timeframe. Figure 3 Proposed Retail and Residential Development 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 CumulativeHouseholds Retail Space Cumulative Retail Space Households Source: Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 12 Office Development Market Values The Montava Financial Plan assumed that the office space in the development will have a market value of $200 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS compared it to the five-year average sales price per square foot of office space in Fort Collins and to the capitalized value of office space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average office rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort Collins market. The Montava assumption is 22 percent greater than the average sales price, which was $157 per square foot, and 2 percent greater than the capitalized value at $195 per square foot, as shown in Table 9. Given the fact that it will be new space but in a relatively new market area, EPS finds the Montava assumption to be appropriately conservative. Table 9 Office Market Value Comparison Absorption EPS benchmarked Montava’s proposed office development against historic office development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in Table 10. From 2023 to 2044, the Developer proposes to build an average of 9,091 square feet of office per year. Over the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, the city delivered an average 134,430 square feet of office space per year. As a result, the Montava proposal implies a capture rate of 7 percent per year relative to the historical average. EPS finds that a 7 percent capture rate is a reasonable target for the development. However, we note that the office market in North Fort Collins is immature. In the short to medium term, much of the office will be residential-service based uses. Similar to retail, these uses may not develop until a certain threshold population is reached. Table 10 Montava Development Implied Office Capture Rate Sales Price Capitalized Montava Description Per Sq. Ft. [1] Value [2] Assumption Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.) $157.00 $195.55 $200.00 % Difference [2] 22% 2% 0% [1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft. [3] Percent difference from the market value assumption. Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems [2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate or $14.67 / 7.50%. Montava Fort Collins Montava Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture % 2023-2044 2000-2017 Office 9,091 134,430 7% [1] Capture % = Montava Average / Fort Collins Average. Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 13 Industrial Development Market Values The Montava Financial Plan assumed that the industrial space in the development will have a market value of $100 per square foot. To benchmark this assumption, EPS compared it to the five-year average sales price per square foot of office space in Fort Collins to the capitalized value of industrial space. Capitalized value was calculated by dividing the five-year average industrial rent per square foot by the five-year average capitalization rate in the Fort Collins market. The Montava assumption is 15 percent greater than the average sales price, which was $85 per square foot, and 12 percent less than the capitalized value at $112 per square foot, as shown in Table 11. EPS finds that the market value assumption is realistic and appropriately conservative. Table 11 Industrial Market Value Comparison Absorption EPS benchmarked Montava’s proposed industrial development against historic industrial development in the city to calculate an implied capture rate, as shown in Table 12. From 2022 to 2038, the Developer proposes to build an average of 23,421 square feet of industrial space per year. Over the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, the city delivered an average 141,826 square feet of industrial space per year. As a result, the Montava proposal implies a capture rate of 17 percent per year relative to the historical average. EPS finds that a 17 percent capture rate is a relatively aggressive, though not unachievable target for the development. Table 12 Montava Development Implied Office Capture Rate Sales Price Capitalized Montava Description Per Sq. Ft. [1] Value [2] Assumption Market Value ($/Sq. Ft.) $85.00 $111.82 $100.00 % Difference [2] 15% -12% 0% [1] 5-year average sales price per sq. ft. [3] Percent difference from the market value assumption. Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems [2] Capitalized value equals the 5-year average rent divided by the 5-year average capitalization rate or $8.50 / 7.60%. Montava Fort Collins Montava Description Annual Avg Annual Avg Capture % 2022-2038 2000-2017 Industrial/Flex 23,421 141,826 17% [1] Capture % = Montava Average / Fort Collins Average. Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 14 Financial Analysis The Service Plan proposes to use the stream of revenues raised from mill levies to issue debt in the form of bonds. These bond proceeds will be used to reimburse the Developer for public improvement costs. This section reviews proposed public improvement costs and the revenue and debt estimates described in the metro district Service Plan. Public Improvement Costs TST Inc. Consulting Engineers provided the public improvement cost estimates used in the Service Plan. Overall, public improvements associated with the development are estimated to be approximately $325 million, as shown in Table 13. Many of these costs are basic infrastructure improvements typically required for development, including earthwork, streets, sanitary sewer, water, and storm water infrastructure improvements. It is important to note that these cost estimates are preliminary and will likely change as the development plan evolves and becomes more detailed. The Developer proposes to issue debt generating approximately $180 million in project proceeds, as shown in Table 13. This debt would cover 55 percent of the total public improvements costs. The Developer would need to cover the remaining $145 million or 45 percent of total costs with other funds. Table 13 Public Infrastructure and Estimated Costs Description Amount % Total Public Improvement Costs Administrative & Misc. $11,000,000 3% Earthwork $21,499,312 7% Streets (Onsite & Offsite) $105,255,350 32% Sanitary Sewer (Onsite & Offsite) $15,732,500 5% Water (Onsite & Offsite) $11,081,500 3% Nonpotable Water (Onsite & Offsite) $13,814,500 4% Storm Water (Onsite & Offsite) $10,286,290 3% Recreation Facilities $8,000,000 2% Landscaping, Trails, Open Space, and Farm Facilities $44,215,395 14% Construction Costs $240,884,847 74% Contingency (20% of Construction Costs) $48,176,969 15% Engineering/Survey/C.M. (15% ofConstruction Costs) $36,132,727 11% Total $325,194,543 100% Metro District Impact Project Funds $179,778,140 55% Other Funds $145,416,403 45% Total $325,194,543 100% Source: TST, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 15 Revenue Estimates Proposed Mill Levies and Facility Fee The proposed maximum District Mill Levy of 60 mills is relatively common and within the distribution of similar metro districts in Colorado. The 60 mills would be added onto to the existing property tax levy of 90.828 mills and increase the property tax burden by 66 percent. For the residential portion of the property, the maximum District Mill Levy would result in an average of $1,500 per year or $125 per month of additional cost to the tenant. For the commercial portion of the property, the maximum District Mill Levy would result in an average of $2.36 per square feet of additional property tax cost per year, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 Metro District Mill Levies Market Assessed Property Tax Description Value Value Existing District Total 90.828 mills 60.000 mills 150.828 mills Residential (Units) 7.20% Single Family $450,000 $32,400 $2,943 $1,944 $4,887 Multifamily $225,000 $16,200 $1,471 $972 $2,443 Weighted Average $348,712 $25,107 $2,280 $1,506 $3,787 % Total 60% 40% 100% Commercial ($/SF) 29.00% Retail $150 $44 $3.95 $2.61 $6.56 Office $200 $58 $5.27 $3.48 $8.75 Industrial $100 $29 $2.63 $1.74 $4.37 Weighted Average $136 $39 $3.57 $2.36 $5.93 % Total 60% 40% 0% Source: DA Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 16 Public Revenue Forecasts and Bond Proceeds D.A. Davidson, the District’s financial advisor, estimates that the metro district will generate a total of approximately $462 million in revenues from Debt Mill Levy collections, as shown in Table 15. The market value and absorption assumptions described in the Market Assessment section of this memorandum are the main drivers of these revenue estimates. A reduction in the proposed market values for the residential and commercial development and/or extended buildout and absorption schedule will reduce the total bond proceeds. The underwriting process and bond structure includes reserve funds and capitalized interest mitigate difference between forecasted and actual values relating to market values, buildout schedule, and other variables. These public revenues will be used to generate approximately $179 million that can be used to reimburse the Developer for infrastructure expenditures related to the public improvements. D.A. Davidson anticipates issuing the debt in six separate bond series, as shown in Table 16. Table 15 Montava Metro District Public Revenue and Project Funds Table 16 Estimated Bond Proceeds by Series Description Amount % Total Public Revenues Bond Proceeds $202,747,000 44% Interest $259,538,171 56% Total $462,285,171 100% Project Funds Bond Proceeds $202,747,000 Reserve Fund -$15,010,550 Cost of Issuance -$7,958,310 Total $179,778,140 Source: D.A. Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems Bond Series Description 2023A 2027A 2031A 2035A 2039A 2044A 2019B Total Bond Proceeds $40,425,000 $42,075,000 $40,995,000 $38,300,000 $14,635,000 $11,160,000 $15,157,000 $202,747,000 Reserve Fund -$3,235,008 -$3,367,208 -$3,280,808 -$3,065,133 -$1,168,742 -$893,650 $0 -$15,010,550 Cost of Issuance -$1,617,000 -$1,683,000 -$1,639,800 -$1,532,000 -$585,400 -$446,400 -$454,710 -$7,958,310 Project Fund $35,572,992 $37,024,792 $36,074,392 $33,702,867 $12,880,858 $9,819,950 $14,702,290 $179,778,140 Source: D.A. Davidson; Economic & Planning Systems 2.e Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 17 Public Benefits The City’s proposed policy for reviewing metro districts supports the formation of a district “where it will deliver extraordinary public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City”. The proposed policy goes on to define four focus areas or types of benefits that meet this policy as follows: • Environmental Sustainability Outcomes – defined as public improvements that provide environmental benefits including reduction in greenhouse gases, water or energy conservation, community resiliency against natural disasters, renewable energy capacity, and/or other environmental outcomes. • Critical Public Infrastructure – public improvements that address significant infrastructure needs previously identified by the City. • Smart Growth Management – public improvements that facilitate design that increases development density, enhances walkability, increases the availability of transit or multimodal facilities, and/or encourages mixed use development patterns. • Strategic Priorities – public improvements that address City priorities including affordable housing, infill or redevelopment, and economic health improvements (e.g., job growth business retention, or construction of a missing economic resource). Exhibit K of the Service Plan describes the proposed public benefits of the Montava project. The Developer is able to provide these public benefits in part due to the District bonds that reimburse the developer for public improvement costs. More specifically, by reimbursing basic infrastructure investments typically associated with development with District bond proceeds, the Developer is able to invest more money into public benefits the City views as priorities. These include environmental sustainability, critical public infrastructure, smart growth management, and strategic priorities like affordable housing. As described in the Service Plan, the primary public benefit of Montava is its new urbanist design, which follows many smart growth management principles, including: denser development; mixed-use town centers; walkable communities; a variety of housing options; and multi-modal transportation options. The development also plans to include energy and water conservation initiatives. For example, the Developer has indicated that every home will meet the U.S. Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home Standard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense Guidelines. The Developer also intends for at least 10 percent of the total housing units to be affordable, in addition to a number of other benefits described in Exhibit K. The Developer has not provided any information on the costs/value of different proposed public benefits, and how the District Bond helps to offset these cost by funding basic infrastructure. Overall, the Service Plan does not guarantee the delivery of public benefits. Public benefits will have to be vetted and guaranteed through additional approval steps for the metro district, including approval of the development plan. 2.e Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Memorandum August 17, 2018 Montava Metro District Review Page 18 Summary and Conclusions • The proposed Montava maximum aggregate mill levy of 60 mills exceeds the maximum mill levy of 40 mills in the City’s current metro district policy and the maximum mill levy of 50 mills in the proposed new policy. • EPS generally finds that the market values used in the public revenue estimates to be reasonable. These assumptions align with market averages, given a new construction premium, and the residential market values are comparable to other recent developments in North Fort Collins. • Montava is an ambitious and large-scale development that will need to capture a significant portion of the market to achieve the proposed buildout assumptions in its Financial Plan. In particular, Montava will need to compete with other larger-scale residential and mixed-use developments planned for North Fort Collins. The fact that North Fort Collins is one of the only remaining growth areas of the city should help each of the developments meet their growth targets. • The Developer’s market study includes a grocery anchored community shopping center of approximately 90,000 square feet will be supportable based on projected growth in the trade area. Montava is well located for a retail center to serve the northeast Fort Collins area. However, there are other parcels also seeking to build neighborhood or community retail centers and likely insufficient demand to support more than one in the near future. • As outlined in Exhibit K Public Benefits, the Service Plan proposes an extensive list of public improvement that potentially meet the City’s proposed metro district criteria for extraordinary public benefits including: denser development; mixed-use town centers; walkable communities; a variety of housing options; and multi-modal transportation options. The development also plans to include energy and water conservation initiatives. The Developer also intends for at least 10 percent of the total housing units to be affordable, in addition to a number of other benefits described in Exhibit K. • However these potential projects have not been programmed or costed. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the economic value of these benefits against the $179.8 million of infrastructure costs that would be offset by metro district revenues. 2.e Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Market and Financial Feasibility Assessment (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Date: Thursday, September 6, 2018 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Avenue Time: 4:00–6:00pm For Reference Diane Cohn, Chair Ken Summers, Council Liaison Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Diane Cohn Curt Lyons Catherine Costlow Jen Bray Kristin Fritz Rachel Auldridge Jeffrey Johnson Staff Present Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy & Housing Project Manager Brittany Depew, Administrative Assistant/Board Support Josh Birks, Director of Economic Health Office Tim McCollough, Deputy Director, Utilities Joe Wimmer, City Manager’s Office Call to order: 4:02 Agenda Review: Added Josh Birks to discuss Metro Districts Public Comment: None Review and Approval of Minutes AGENDA ITEM 2: 100% Renewables—Tim McCollough, Deputy Director of Utilities Light and Power Fort Collins Partners for Clean Energy, made up of many organizations with shared common value around renewable energy, hope to achieve goal of 100% renewables by 2030. Council asked staff to review this goal. Working with Platte River Power Authority (PRPA)—Fort Collins Utilities is the retail utility provider, and Fort Collins owns part of PRPA and has two seats on their board. Six other board members from the other three co-owning communities. Underlying principals are shared: reliability, financial sustainability, environmental stewardship. Received direction from Council to address this goal and conduct outreach. Going back to Council in October. If adopted, this would provide input to many upcoming processes. Main question arising is “How much will this cost?” August minutes will be approved in October. ATTACHMENT 6 2.f Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 2 | P a g e Utility costs greatly impact housing affordability. How you define renewable energy can vary greatly. Trying to answer the question, “Is this a mandate or a goal?” Three questions for this board: 1. Do you support the proposed resolution? 2. Does this resolution align with your board’s charter? 3. Is there specific feedback you would send to Council regarding this Resolution? Comments/Q&A: • Jeff: What are the other municipalities involved with Platte River? o Tim: Longmont, Loveland, Estes Park o Jeff: Do they have resolutions? o Tim: Longmont does, adopted in January 2018 • Jeff: When I look at what the City has done with water, and now time-of-day change for utilities, it seems like a lot of the cost increases are based on environmental goals and that passes the cost onto the consumer. Would this layer onto that? o Tim: Our energy costs already include Platte River’s wholesale cost, if we need to do something different for the infrastructure. That’s balanced by lower costs of certain types of renewable energy, like wind. It’s not a foregone conclusion that switching to 100% renewable would increase the cost for consumers. • Diane: Would this resolution impact developers? o Tim: This speaks to the supply side, not the consumer side. No direct tie to development requirements. • Sue: Does the resolution set any boundaries around prices? o Tim: There is a section that speaks to residential and business affordable. • Diane: I know the utilities department has recently added additional discounts. o Sue: Income qualified assistance program. o Diane: I assume this will fall under that and not directly impact it? o Tim: This wouldn’t directly impact that program at all. • Sue: Is staff submitting this with the recommendation to adopt it? o Tim: We are submitting to Council for their consideration and will not be providing a recommendation one way or the other. • Curt: What percent of electricity is generated right now with fossil fuels? How much are we trying to replace? o Tim: In 2017, about 67% was from fossil-based or carbon-based generation, but that’s declining. By 2020, we expect to see 50% from renewable sources. • Catherine: Why do we feel like we need to be the driver here rather than Platte River? o Tim: That’s a great question and speaks to the tension happening between the other groups as well. • Jeff: You said staff is not taking a position, can you say why? o Tim: We have taken a position and that was that we needed more planning time before setting this goal. • Sue: To summarize, the Affordable Housing Board feels there’s a lot of information that would be valuable in determining if a resolution is appropriate and would like to see the City find out more information before the resolution is passed. 2.f Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 3 | P a g e o Tim: Specifically about how it may impact housing affordability? o Sue: Yes, exactly. AGENDA ITEM 1: City Manager’s Recommended Budget and Ways to Comment—Sue Beck- Ferkiss, Social Sustainability The budget proposal has been released and boards and commissions have been asked to review and provide any recommendations to David Young by September 28. Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process takes places every other year, offers submitted by departments as “sellers,” include ongoing offer and enhancements. Very few enhancements are going to be funded this year. The recommended budget now goes to the Budget Lead Team (BLT) to make adjustments. Council will be discussing this outcome area (NLSH) on September 11. Social Sustainability’s ongoing budget is included, as well as Homelessness Initiatives enhancement and the Affordable Housing Capital Fund. The line items in white are being recommended for funding and those in gray are not. Comments/Q&A: • Diane: So this budget is for 2019-2020? o Sue: Yes. • Curt: Is there a short answer why the budget is so tight this year? o Sue: Not really. I think it has to do with the retail revolution and we’re very sales tax- oriented. • Sue: In this budget cycle, we got an additional $100k for human service funding, and that is not being included in the next budget at this time. o Catherine: Wasn’t that $100k already committed? o Sue: Yes, but only through 2018. • Catherine: Who ranked these? o Sue: This is the City Manager’s recommended budget. o Catherine: So they went through and ranked everything? o Sue: This is a huge process and the budget teams provide their recommendations to the City Manager. • Kristin: What are “housing access supports”? o Sue: It’s for waivers and a middle-income homebuyer assistance program, and it’s not currently included in the recommended budget. • Jeff: What’s the downtown ambassador program that’s not being funded? o Josh Birks: The DBA has been running this program for the last three years to provide ambassadors downtown to help visitors, also on the street working closely with Outreach Fort Collins (OFC) to keep an eye on inappropriate behaviors. o Sue: Funding for OFC is included in the homelessness initiatives, which is currently recommended for funding. • Curt: What’s the “land use code amendment”? o Sue: It’s not coming out of our office so I’m not sure. o Kristin: I hope that’s not the implementation step of City Plan. • Jen: You mentioned a middle-income homebuyer assistance (HBA) program pilot? o Sue: That’s the housing access support, and that’s also where waivers are. o Jen: That’s for home purchase? o Sue: Yes. 2.f Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 4 | P a g e o Diane: How much was requested for each? o Sue: $500k for waivers and $150k for HBA. If the budget gets passed as is, we wouldn’t have waiver money set aside, we would have to request it as we’ve been doing. • Catherine: This is a lot to digest and it would be helpful to see what is being asked in each offer. o Sue: I can send out the narratives to the board. • Sue: the Land Bank acquisition is for $1 million and to exercise an option I have negotiated with Montava, which would be medium-density and mixed-use. o Catherine: Do you need to exercise your option during this budget cycle, or could it happen in the next one? o Sue: We don’t know the timing because a lot of things have to fall into place. But if things fell in place quickly and it’s not in the budget, it could be a good interim ask mid-cycle. o Diane: So the urgency may not be as strong with this one? o Sue: The timing is difficult to predict. It’s certainly important but I don’t know if the timing is critical now. • Sue: The homelessness coordinator might be a good one to talk about. This request was to hire another staff person in Social Sustainability to coordinate this work. o Rachel: Why is this perceived as not necessary? o Sue: I think they see the importance, it’s ranked highly, they just couldn’t find the money for it. Balance competing interest. o Catherine: I think that request amount seems high. o Kristin: To Social Sustainability’s credit, there is so much going on at the local and regional level and we’re not eligible for funds if these systems aren’t in place. Without staff to really lead these, it doesn’t happen. • Diane: Let’s do a quick vote to decide if we should comment on these as a board. Starting with homelessness coordinator. o Curt: I’m a little uncomfortable saying something should get funded in place of something else without knowing the whole picture. o Sue: Let’s see if there’s anything on the list you all feel strongly enough about. Homelessness coordinator sounds like it’s mixed, the housing access supports is for waivers and middle-income homebuyer assistance. o Diane: I’m yes on the waivers. Since there’s no fund that is just for waivers, I think it would be nice to aim for. o Kristin: In terms of commenting as a board, this one feels the most important and relevant. • Sue: Land Use code amendments, two-year plan to revamp it? o Kristin: There’s no point in City Plan updates if there’s no Land Use code to support them. o Jeff: If the City Manager doesn’t want to fund the Land Use code updates because City Plan isn’t passed yet, I understand that. o Curt: So the next opportunity to fund would be 2021? o Sue: If this doesn’t get funded, there would be no clear money to get it funded until sometime in the future. 2.f Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 5 | P a g e AGENDA ITEM 3: Metro District Proposal & Affordable Housing—Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Metro districts are separate and independent districts, most are single purpose. Relatively common with over 1,600 in Colorado. Used by communities to advance normal course of development, achieve enhanced development outcomes. Would create new tax residents pay, used to fund public improvements, typically infrastructure. The policy in Fort Collins says you may use the tool only if you provide other community outcomes and objectives. Waterfield – 100 acres, new urbanist alley load project, increased density, 500 units, including 50 affordable units at 80% AMI or below. Montava—25+ year multi-phase project, 1,000 acre property, 4400 residential units, 10% affordable at 80% AMI (not a formal commitment but a goal), Water’s Edge—55+ age-targeted, age-in-place design, 235 acres, 847 units w/ phase two 469 units including 46 affordable. Opportunity vs. trade- offs—increased supply (potential to add nearly 600 units, housing diversity), concern over added cost (added tax, average 55% increase in property tax, how this tax burden impacts affordability). Comments/Q&A: • Jeff: What’s the density on Montava? o Josh: It’s new urbanist so it’s on the higher range of our density allowance, with a wide range of housing types. o Curt: This would be mixed use? o Josh: Yes, definitely. • Jen: Would these be affordable for 20 years? o Josh: We’re still working those details out but that’s what we’re talking about. • Jen: I’ve seen metro districts adding $80-$250/month to property tax payment o Josh: The 50 mils [used to assess property tax], 40 goes to debt and 10 goes to operations and maintenance, can take the place of an HOA. o Dianne: And you can’t do an HOA on top of this? o Josh: You can. We could create an IGA that says the developer won’t, but without a formal agreement, they could also add an HOA. • Josh: The board of these districts are residents, when the debt is gone, they could remove the 40 mil additional property tax, but the board could decide to continue taxing themselves. • Jeff: It seems an IGA would have more teeth than a development agreement. o Josh: The IGA is between the City and the district; not all of the objectives can be met by the district, so you need both an IGA and a development agreement. Won’t give a certification of occupancy until we confirm x or y, based on the IGA and development agreement. • Jen: These metro districts are being brought to Council because they include affordable housing? o Josh: All metro districts are required to go to their government entity for approval of their service plan. o Jen: Having worked with a lot of first time homebuyers and in metro taxing districts, to pass the tax burden onto the affordable units is counterintuitive. I think the affordable units have to be excluded from that calculation. o Josh: There are ways to ensure the impact of that added tax doesn’t change the affordability of the 80% units. The clearest way is to carve out the lots and say they’re outside of the district. Another way is to use a land trust model, and the land trust would be tax exempt (reducing land value). The sales price the builder offersWe require the sales prices the builder offers the units for to be affordable. 2.f Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 6 | P a g e • Sue: It sounds like the Affordable Housing Board supports the idea of metro districts and the way they increase density and affordable housing stock, and the board is also concerned about the increased tax burden and how that would impact the true affordability of these units. The board would want a commitment of affordability from the developers from the beginning. AGENDA ITEM 4: Business A. Council Comments—not discussed B. Review 2017 Work Plan—not discussed C. Open Board Discussion—not discussed D. Liaison Reports—not discussed AGENDA ITEM 4: Board Member Reports A. Fee Work Group & City Plan Housing Group Discussion—Diane AGENDA ITEM 5: Other Business A. Future AHB Meeting Agendas A. City Council Six-Month Planning Calendar—not discussed Meeting Adjourned: 6:20 Next Meeting: October 11 at Housing Catalyst 2.f Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Affordable Housing Board Minutes, September 6, 2018 (Draft) (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Combined Vicinity Map Shows all three proposed Metro Districts in the Northeast portion of Fort Collins Legend Montava Waterfield Water's Edge Phase 1 Water's Edge Phase 2 2 mi N ➤➤ N © 2018 Google © 2018 Google © 2018 Google ATTACHMENT 7 2.g Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Combined Vicinity Map Northeast Fort Collins (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 1 Montava Metro District Service Plan Jeff Mihelich & Josh Birks 9-25-18 ATTACHMENT 8 2.h Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Presentation Overview 1. Timeline Considerations 2. Community Benefits 3. Metro District Commitments 4. Answers to Council Questions 5. Staff Recommendation 2 2.h Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Timeline Considerations 3 Metro District Policy Revision Metro District Process Timing Caught Between - Extended Revision Process & Firm Election Deadline May 15, 2017 Aug. 29, 2017 Oct. 24, 2017 Nov. 28, 2017 Mar. 19, 2018 July 10, 2018 Aug. 21, 2018 Policy Adopted (Council) Revised Policy & Model Service Plan (Council WS) Draft Policy (Council Finance) Overview Of Changes (Council WS) Background On Metro Districts (Council WS) Revision Approach (Council Finance) Consider Revision (Council Finance) Sept. 4, 2018 Nov. 2018 May 2018 July 2018 Typical Submittal Actual Submittal Council Review Project Description  25+ Year Multi Phase Master Planned Project  Increased density  4,400 Residential Units  10% affordable 4 2.h Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Community Wide Benefits  Affordable Housing  Energy Efficiency  Non-potable Water  Agri-Urban Development  Schools  Community Park & Natural Areas 5 2.h Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Commitments: Affordable Housing Affordability 10% of Units; Approx. 440 units 60% to 120% of AMI 20+ Years Ownership & Rental Delivery Land Bank; 5 Acres Option (Perpetuity) Strategic Partners (Habitat, Housing Catalyst) Community Land Trust Sale or Set Aside Other Items 65% of units prior to half of the project 35% before final 100 building permits Deed Restrictions as fall back position 6 2.h Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Commitments: Efficiency & Conservation Energy 100% of units DOE Zero Energy Ready ~13,200 Metric Tons C02e Avoided HERS Rating in Low 40s Water Non-potable System 50% to 60% Potable Water Savings (Irrigation) Other Items “In Home” water conservation approach Partnering with Fort Collins Utilities Collaborating with CSU (Gray Water, Etc.) 7 2.h Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Commitments: Parks, Natural Area, Agri-Urban Parks Integration w/ Town Center 80+ Acres District May Fund Portions Natural Area 160 acres storm water land Natural Area Amenity Nature in the City Agri-Urban 40-acre organic farm Poudre Valley Cooperative Organic Produce 8 2.h Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Commitments: Others Schools High School Site relocated Elementary Middle School Housing Variety Multiple Neighborhoods Variety within Wide Range of Pricing New Urbanism Mixed Use Town Center Distribute Traffic through a Network Walkable Streets & Trails Integrate Market Rate & Affordable Housing 9 2.h Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Changes to Service Plan 1. No Debt or Debt Mill until Council approves Development Agreement and/or Intergovernmental Agreement 2. Removed ability to expand the Operating Mill Levy beyond 10 Mills once the Board is composed of a majority of end users 3. City may dissolve the district if no Development Agreement or Intergovernmental Agreement has been approved within 3 years 4. Enhanced commitment language related to public benefits 5. Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term – 40 Years from first imposition of the Debt Mill Levy 10 2.h Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Affordable Housing Percent AMI Area Median Income (AMI) HUD Classification 100% $ 85,100 Moderate Income 80% $ 68,100 Low Income 60% $ 51,060 Low Income 50% $ 42,550 Very Low Income 30% $ 25,550 Extremely Low Income 3 Person 4 Person 80% AMI $ 61,300 $ 68,100 Monthly Income $ 5,110 $ 5,680 Available for Housing (38%) $ 1,942 $ 2,158 Property Taxes (.072%) $ 200 $ 230 Metro Taxes/HOA Fees ($200/mo) $ 200 $ 200 Insurance (.038%) $ 110 $ 120 Monthly Mortgage Payment $ 1,432 $ 1,608 Loan Amount $ 266,800 $ 299,500 Down Payment $ 11,100 $ 12,500 Total Purchase Price $ 277,900 $ 312,000 ItemHousehold 11 2018, 4 Person Household Source: Housing & Urban Development, US Gov’t; Social Sustainability 2.h Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Zero Energy Ready Home Baseline Home:  2015 IECC Code with local options Zero Energy Ready Home:  Generates as much energy as consumes  Certified Energy Star Ver. 3 or 3.1  Duct Systems in thermal and air boundary  Lights & Appliances – Energy Star Qualified (80% of lighting)  Meet DOE PV-Ready checklist 12 Average HERS Rating – 58 to 62 Average HERS Rating – Low 40s 2.h Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Zero Energy Ready Home Zero Energy Ready Home (ZEHR) – Impact  Approximate kWh saving / year = 1,350 kWh  Approximate Therms saving / year = 300 th  Estimated Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent avoided / year = 3  Total Annual savings compared to Baseline home: $450 (Assumptions: Baseline was 2015 IECC code, with gas thermal heating. 2,400 Square foot home with 4 Bedrooms, 2 Baths, and a full basement. Utility rates are default rates.) 13 2.h Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Staff Recommendation  Staff recommends adoption of the resolution 14 2.h Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) 15 Northeast Fort Collins 2.h Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) -1- RESOLUTION 2018-083 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN FOR MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7 WHEREAS, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) authorizes the formation of various kinds of governmental entities to finance and operate public services and infrastructure, including metropolitan districts; and WHEREAS, in July 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-069 in which it approved a policy setting forth various guidelines, requirements and criteria concerning the City’s review and approval of service plans for metropolitan districts (the “2008 Policy”); and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 2018-079 approving the “City of Fort Collins Policy for Reviewing Service Plans for Metropolitan Districts” (the “2018 Policy”) setting forth guidelines, requirements and criteria applicable to the City’s consideration a metropolitan district service plan to replace and supersede those in the 2008 Policy, except for the fee and notice requirements when they have been satisfied by a service plan applicant under the 2008 Policy before the adoption of the 2018 Policy; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 1 of Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Special District Act”), HF2M, INC. (the “Petitioner”) has submitted to the City a Consolidated Service Plan (the “Service Plan”) for the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (each a “District” and collectively the “Districts”); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Service Plan is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Districts will be organized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and operation and maintenance of all or a portion of certain public improvements, as more specifically described in the Service Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the 2008 Policy and Resolution 2018-079, the Petitioner has complied with the requirement for mailed notice of the City Council’s September 4, 2018, public hearing on the Service Plan (the “Public Hearing”), as evidenced by the “Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Public Hearing” attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has also provided notice of the Public Hearing by publication as evidence by the “Affidavit of Publication” attached as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the City Council conducted the Public Hearing in which it reviewed the Service Plan and considered the testimony and evidence presented and then voted to continue the Public Hearing to its September 18, 2018 meeting; and 3 Packet Pg. 271 -2- WHEREAS, at its September 18, 2018 meeting, the City Council voted, at the request of City Staff and the Service Plan applicant, to again postpone and continue its consideration of the Service Plan until its adjourned September 25, 2018 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered additional evidence concerning the Service Plan during its September 25, 2018, continued hearing on the Service Plan; and WHEREAS, the Special District Act requires that any service plan submitted to the district court for the creation of a metropolitan district must first be approved by resolution of the governing body of the municipality within which the proposed district lies; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve the Service Plan for the Districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 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 the City Council hereby determines that the City’s notification requirements have been complied with regarding the Public Hearing on the Service Plan. Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds that the Service Plan contains, or sufficiently provides for, the items described in Section 32-1-202(2), C.R.S., and that: (a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed Districts; (b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed Districts is inadequate for present and projected needs; (c) The proposed Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within their proposed boundaries; and (d) The area to be included within the proposed Districts has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Section 4. The City Council’s findings are based solely upon the evidence in the Service Plan as presented at the Public Hearing and the City has not conducted any independent investigation of the evidence. The City makes no guarantee as to the financial viability of the Districts or the achievability of the desired results. Section 5. That the City Council hereby approves the Service Plan. Section 6. That the City Council’s approval of the Service Plan is not a waiver or a limitation upon any power that the City Council is legally permitted to exercise regarding the property within the Districts. 3 Packet Pg. 272 -3- Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 25th day of September, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 3 Packet Pg. 273 i CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN FOR MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared by: White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, Professional Corporation 2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000 Centennial, CO 80122 Submitted On: August 29, 2018 Resubmitted On: September 19, 2018 Approved On: ____________, 2018 EXHIBIT A ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6 A. Purpose and Intent. ............................................................................................................... 6 B. Need for the Districts. .......................................................................................................... 6 C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan. ..................................................... 7 D. City Approvals. .................................................................................................................... 7 II. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 7 III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION ................................................................................... 10 IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION .......................................................................................................... 11 A. Project and Planned Development. .................................................................................... 11 B. Public Benefits. .................................................................................................................. 12 C. Assessed Valuation. ........................................................................................................... 12 V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA ............................................................ 13 VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................. 13 VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS .............................................................. 13 B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. ................ 13 1. Eminent Domain Restriction .......................................................................................... 14 2. Fee Limitation ................................................................................................................ 14 3. Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................................... 14 4. Fire Protection Restriction ............................................................................................. 14 5. Public Safety Services Restriction ................................................................................. 15 6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction .......................................................... 15 7. Golf Course Construction Restriction ............................................................................ 15 8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction ................................................................ 15 9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation ...................................................................... 15 11. Sub-district Restriction ............................................................................................... 15 12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation ............................................................................... 16 13. Special Assessments ................................................................................................... 16 VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS .............................................. 16 A. Development Standards. .................................................................................................... 17 iii B. Contracting. ........................................................................................................................ 17 C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. ................................................................................... 17 D. Equal Employment and Discrimination. ............................................................................ 18 IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT.......................................................................... 18 A. Financial Plan..................................................................................................................... 18 B. Mill Levies. ........................................................................................................................ 19 1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum ........................................................................................ 19 2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies .................................................... 19 3. Operating Mill Levy .......................................................................................................... 19 4. Gallagher Adjustments ...................................................................................................... 19 5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges ............................................................................................. 19 6. Refunding Debt.................................................................................................................. 19 7. Maximum Debt Authorization ........................................................................................... 20 C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. ............................................. 20 D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. .................................................... 20 E. Disclosure to Purchasers. ................................................................................................... 20 F. External Financial Advisor. ............................................................................................... 21 G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. .......................................................................................... 21 H. Security for Debt. ............................................................................................................... 22 I. TABOR Compliance. ......................................................................................................... 22 J. Districts’ Operating Costs. ................................................................................................. 22 X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 22 A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. .......................................................................................... 22 B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. ......................................................................................... 23 C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. ............................................................... 23 D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. ................................................. 23 E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. ................................................................... 23 F. Regional Mill Levy Term. ................................................................................................. 23 G. Completion of Regional Improvements. ............................................................................ 24 H. City Authority to Require Imposition. ............................................................................... 24 I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. ................................................... 24 J. Gallagher Adjustment. ....................................................................................................... 24 iv XI. CITY FEES ........................................................................................................................ 24 XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 24 XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS .......................................................... 25 A. General. .............................................................................................................................. 25 B. Board Meetings. ................................................................................................................. 25 C. Report Requirements. ........................................................................................................ 25 D. Reporting of Significant Events. ........................................................................................ 26 E. Failure to Submit................................................................................................................ 27 XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS .................................................................................. 27 XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 27 XVI. DISSOLUTION ................................................................................................................. 28 XVII. SANCTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 28 XVIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 29 XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ...................................................................................... 29 5 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map EXHIBIT E Public Improvements EXHIBIT F Vicinity Map EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Cost Estimates EXHIBIT H Public Improvements Maps EXHIBIT I Financial Plan EXHIBIT J Public Benefits EXHIBIT K Disclosure Notice 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Intent. The Districts, which are intended to be independent units of local government separate and distinct from the City, are governed by this Service Plan, the Special District Act and other applicable State law. Except as may otherwise be provided for by State law, City Code or this Service Plan, the Districts' activities are subject to review and approval by the City Council only insofar as they are a material modification of this Service Plan under C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 of the Special District Act. It is intended that the Districts will provide all or part of the Public Improvements for the Project for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the Districts. The primary purpose of the Districts will be to finance the construction of a portion of these Public Improvements by the issuance of Debt. It is also intended under this Service Plan that no District shall be authorized to issue any Debt, impose a Debt Mill Levy or impose any Fees for payment of Debt unless and until the delivery of the applicable Public Benefits describe in Section IV.B of this Service Plan has been secured in accordance with Section IV.B of this Service Plan. It is further intended that this Service Plan requires the Districts to pay a portion of the cost of the Regional Improvements, as provided in Section X of this Service Plan, as part of ensuring that those privately-owned properties to be developed in the District that benefit from the Regional Improvements pay a reasonable share of the associated costs. The Districts are not intended to provide ongoing operations and maintenance services except as expressly authorized in this Service Plan. It is the intent of the Districts to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt, except that if the Districts are authorized in this Service Plan to perform continuing operating or maintenance functions, the Districts shall continue in existence for the sole purpose of providing such functions and shall retain only the powers necessary to impose and collect the taxes or Fees authorized in this Service Plan to pay for the costs of those functions. It is intended that the Districts shall comply with the provisions of this Service Plan and that the City may enforce any non-compliance with these provisions as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan. B. Need for the Districts. There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in the immediate vicinity of the Districts that consider it desirable, feasible or practical to undertake the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment and financing of the Public Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the Districts is therefore 7 necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic manner possible. C. Objective of the City Regarding Districts' Service Plan. The City’s objective in approving this Service Plan is to authorize the Districts to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the Districts, but in doing so, to also establish in this Service Plan the means by which both the Regional Improvements and the Public Benefits will be provided.. Except as specifically provided in this Service Plan, all Debt is expected to be repaid by taxes and Fees imposed and collected for no longer than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term for residential properties, and at a tax mill levy no higher than the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Fees imposed for the payment of Debt shall be due no later than upon the issuance of a building permit unless a majority of the Board which imposes such a Fee is composed of End Users as provided in Section VII.B.2 of this Service Plan. Debt which is issued within these parameters and, as further described in the Financial Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax and Fee burdens to support the servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt. D. City Approvals. Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City” or “City Council” approval or consent shall require the City Council’s prior written approval or consent exercised in its sole discretion. Any provision in this Service Plan requiring “City Manager” approval or consent shall require the City Manager’s prior written approval or consent exercised in the City Manager’s sole discretion. II. DEFINITIONS In this Service Plan, the following words, terms and phrases which appear in a capitalized format shall have the meaning indicated below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Aggregate Mill Levy: means the total mill levy resulting from adding a District’s Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy. A District’s Aggregate Mill Levy does not include any Regional Mill Levy that the District may levy. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum: means the maximum number of combined mills that each District may levy for its Debt Mill Levy and Operating Mill Levy, at a rate not to exceed the limitation set in Section IX.B.1 of this Service Plan. Approved Development Plan: means a City-approved development plan or other land-use application required by the City Code for identifying, among other things, public improvements necessary for facilitating the development of property within the Service Area, which plan shall include, without limitation, any PUD or development agreement required by the City Code. 8 Board or Boards: means the duly constituted board of directors of any of the Districts, or the boards of directors of all of the Districts, in the aggregate. Bond, Bonds or Debt: means bonds, notes or other multiple fiscal year financial obligations for the payment of which a District has promised to impose an ad valorem property tax mill levy, Fees or other legally available revenue. Such terms do not include contracts through which a District procures or provides services or tangible property. City: means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipality. City Code: means collectively the City’s Municipal Charter, Municipal Code, Land Use Code and ordinances as all are now existing and hereafter amended. City Council: means the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. City Manager: means the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C.R.S.: means the Colorado Revised Statutes. Debt Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property within a District for the purpose of paying Debt as authorized in this Service Plan, at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of this Service Plan. Developer: means a person or entity that is the owner of property or owner of contractual rights to property in the Service Area that intends to develop the property. District: means any one of the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7, individually, organized under and governed by this Service Plan. Districts: means the Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 7, collectively, organized under and governed by this Service Plan. End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any property within the Districts, who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property taxes and/or Fees. By way of illustration, a resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner or commercial tenant is an End User. A Developer and any person or entity that constructs homes or commercial structures is not an End User. External Financial Advisor: means a consultant that: (1) is qualified to advise Colorado governmental entities on matters relating to the issuance of securities by Colorado governmental entities including matters such as the pricing, sales and marketing of such securities and the procuring of bond ratings, credit enhancement and insurance in respect of such securities; (2) shall be an underwriter, investment banker, or individual listed as a public finance advisor in the Bond Buyer’s Municipal Market Place or, in the City’s sole discretion, other recognized publication as a provider of financial projections; and (3) is 9 not an officer or employee of the Districts or an underwriter of the Districts’ Debt. Fees: means the fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges the Districts are authorized to impose and collect under this Service Plan. Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section IX of this Service Plan which was prepared by D.A. Davidson & Company in accordance with the requirements of this Service Plan and describes (a) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (b) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (c) the estimated operating revenue derived from property taxes and any Fees for the first budget year through the year in which all District Debt is expected to be defeased or paid in the ordinary course. Inclusion Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the property that is anticipated to be added to the District Boundaries after the Districts’ organization, which property is legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by reference and depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. Initial District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference and as depicted in the Initial District Boundary Map. Initial District Boundary Map: means the map of the District Boundaries attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. Maximum Debt Authorization: means the total Debt the Districts are permitted to issue as set forth in Section IX.B.8 of this Service Plan. Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term during which a District’s Debt Mill Levy may be imposed on property developed in the Service Area for residential use, which shall include residential properties in a mixed-use development. This maximum term shall not exceed forty (40) years from December 31 of the year of the first imposition of the Debt Mill Levy. Operating Mill Levy: means a property tax mill levy imposed on Taxable Property for the purpose of funding District administration, operations and maintenance as authorized in this Service Plan, including, without limitation, repair and replacement of Public Improvements, and imposed at a rate not to exceed the limitations set in Section IX.B of this Service Plan. Planned Development: means the private development or redevelopment of the properties in the Service Area, commonly referred to as the Montava development, under an Approved Development Plan. Project: means the installation and construction of the Public Improvements for the Planned Development. 10 Public Improvements: means the improvements and infrastructure the Districts are authorized by this Service Plan to fund and construct for the Planned Development to serve the future taxpayers and inhabitants of the Districts, except as specifically limited in this Service Plan. Public Improvements shall include, without limitation, the improvements and infrastructure described in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Public Improvements do not include Regional Improvements. Regional Improvements: means any regional public improvement identified by the City as provided in Section X of this Service Plan, for funding, in whole or part, by a Regional Mill Levy levied by the Districts. Regional Mill Levy: means the property tax mill tax imposed on Taxable Property for the purpose of planning, designing, acquiring, funding, constructing, installing, relocating and/or redeveloping the Regional Improvements and/or to fund the administration and overhead costs related to the Regional Improvements as provided in Section X of this Service Plan. Service Area: means the property within the Initial District Boundaries and the property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries. Special District Act: means Article 1 in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Service Plan: means this service plan for the Districts approved by the City Council. Service Plan Amendment: means a material modification of the Service Plan approved by the City Council in accordance with the Special District Act, this Service Plan and any other applicable law. State: means the State of Colorado. TABOR: means Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. Taxable Property: means the real and personal property within the Initial District Boundaries and within the Inclusion Area Boundaries when added to the District Boundaries that will subject to the ad valorem taxes imposed by the Districts. Vicinity Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated by reference depicting the location of the Service Area within the regional area surrounding it. III. BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION The area of the Initial District Boundaries includes approximately 10 acres and the total area proposed to be included in the Inclusion Area Boundaries is approximately 988.5 acres. A legal description and map of the Initial District Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit A and 11 Exhibit B, respectively. A legal description and map of the Inclusion Area Boundaries are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. It is anticipated that the Districts’ boundaries may expand or contract from time to time as the Districts undertake inclusions or exclusions pursuant to the Special District Act, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service Plan. The location of the Service Area is depicted in the vicinity map attached as Exhibit F. IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BENEFITS & ASSESSED VALUATION A. Project and Planned Development. The Districts are intended to enable the Montava Vision and Master Plan (the “Master Plan”). The Master Plan is the result of an unprecedented collaborative effort including: public meetings, a weeklong public charrette, and extensive City Staff involvement. The foundation of the 860-acre development is the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (the MVSAP), City Plan, and the Climate Action Plan. Montava will be a unique community - the name itself is a combination of “Mon” for our ever-present mountains and the Ute Indian word “tava,” which means “sun”. “Mountain Sun” is both a reflection of the history and beauty of our area, and a commitment to renewable energy which is a foundational principal of the Project. Montava is planned as an extension of the City by providing a town center connected to surrounding development with community commercial and retail services including grocery, full and limited service restaurants, coffee and juice bar, service-oriented businesses like insurance/hair/legal, City Recreation Center, Poudre Library, and many more uses. The transportation plan will tie the Project into the surrounding community including downtown Fort Collins. Any employment that is enabled by the Project will provide opportunity for anyone in the surrounding areas. Montava is a community that will serve all of Fort Collins. In a study commissioned by the Developer of the Project, Bob Gibbs Consulting, projects by 2022 that Montava will have statistical market demand of up to 88,900 square feet and new retail development producing up to $27.5 million in sales. At full build out, total additional demand could grow to 218,000 square feet of new retail development and $70.1 million in gross sales annually. The Project is currently anticipated to contain between 200,000 and 400,000 square feet of office for employment opportunity, and between 70-100 acres of light and green industrial development, and residential development including approximately 2,000 single family homes and 2,400 multi-family units in a wide variety of types, sizes, and configurations. The anticipated population at build-out, which is anticipated to occur over 25+ years, is approximately 11,073 persons. The total assessed value at 5 years (2024) is estimated to be $36,593,000, and the total assessed value at 10 years (2029) is estimated to be $76,202,500. The total City tax paid in 5 years is estimated to be $968,739 and total City tax paid in 10 years is estimated to be $3,643,555. Approval of this Service Plan by the City Council does not imply approval of the development of any particular land-use for any specific area within the Districts. Any such approval must be contained within an Approved Development Plan. 12 B. Public Benefits. In addition to providing a portion of the Public Improvements and Regional Improvements, the organization of the Districts is intended to enable the Project to deliver a number of extraordinary direct and indirect public benefits, including: smart growth management through (i) Large-Scale Comprehensive Master Planning, (ii) New Urbanism, (iii) Argi-Urban Development, (iv) Zero Energy Ready Homes, (v) Non-potable Water System, and (vi) Affordable/Workforce Housing (collectively, the “Public Benefits”). The Public Benefits to be enabled under this Service Plan are specifically described in Exhibit J attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Service Plan, no District shall be authorized to issue any Debt or to impose a Debt Mill Levy or any Fees for payment of Debt unless and until the delivery of the Public Benefits specifically related to the phase of the Planned Development of a portion of the Project to be financed with such Debt, Debt Mill Levy or Fees, are secured in a manner approved by the City Council. To satisfy this precondition to the issuance of Debt and to the imposition of the Debt Mill Levy and Fees, delivery of the Public Benefits for each phase of the Project and the Planned Development must be secured by the following methods, as applicable: 1. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more of the Districts, each such District must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City by either (i) agreeing to provide those Public Benefits as a legally enforceable multiple- fiscal year obligation of the District under TABOR, or (ii) securing performance of that obligation with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City, and any such intergovernmental agreement must be approved by the City Council by resolution; 2. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided by one or more Developers of the Planned Development, each such Developer must either (i) enter into a development agreement with the City under the Developer’s applicable Approved Development Plan, which agreement must legally obligate the Developer to provide those Public Benefits before the City is required to issue building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for structures to be built under the Approved Development Plan for that phase of the Planned Development, or (ii) secure such obligations with a surety bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City, and all such development agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution; or 3. For any portion of the Public Benefits to be provided in part by one or more of the Districts and in part by one or more of the Developers, an agreement between the City and the affected District(s) and Developers that secures such Public Benefits as legally binding obligations using the methods described in subsections 1 and 2 above, and all such agreements must be approved by the City Council by resolution. C. Assessed Valuation. 13 The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately zero $0.00 for purposes of this Service Plan and, at build out, is expected to be One Hundred Forty Five Million Dollars ($145,000,000). These amounts are expected to be sufficient to reasonably discharge the Debt as demonstrated in the Financial Plan. V. INCLUSION OF LAND IN THE SERVICE AREA Other than the real property in the Inclusion Area Boundaries, the Districts shall not include any real property into the Districts without the City Council’s prior written approval and in compliance with the Special District Act. Once a District has issued Debt, it shall not exclude real property from the District’s boundaries without the prior written consent of the City Council. VI. DISTRICT GOVERNANCE The Districts’ Boards shall be comprised of persons who are a qualified “eligible electors” of the Districts as provided in the Special District Act. It is anticipated that over time, the End Users who are eligible electors will assume direct electoral control of the Districts’ Boards as development within the Service Area progresses. The Districts shall not enter into any agreement by which the End Users’ electoral control of the Boards is removed or diminished. VII. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED POWERS A. General Grant of Powers. The Districts shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements, the Regional Improvements and related operation and maintenance services, within and without the Service Area, as such powers and authorities are described in the Special District Act, other applicable State law, common law and the Colorado Constitution, subject to the prohibitions, restrictions and limitations set forth in this Service Plan. If, after the Service Plan is approved, any State law is enacted to grant additional powers or authority to metropolitan districts by amendment of the Special District Act or otherwise, such powers and authority shall not be deemed to be a part hereof. These powers and authority shall only be available to or exercised by the Districts if the City Council first approves a Service Plan Amendment to specifically allow the exercise of such powers or authority by the Districts. B. Prohibited Improvements and Services and other Restrictions and Limitations. The Districts’ powers and authority under this Service Plan to provide Public Improvements and services and to otherwise exercise their other powers and authority under the Special District Act and other applicable State law, are prohibited, restricted and limited as hereafter provided. Failure to comply with these prohibitions, restrictions and limitations shall 14 constitute a material modification under this Service Plan and shall entitle the City to pursue all remedies available at law and in equity as provided in Section XVII of this Service Plan: 1. Eminent Domain Restriction The Districts shall not exercise their statutory power of eminent domain without first obtaining resolution approval from the City Council. This restriction on the Districts’ exercise of their eminent domain power is being exercised voluntarily acquiesced to by the Districts and shall not be interpreted in any way as a limitation on the Districts’ sovereign powers and shall not negatively affect the Districts’ status as political subdivision of the State as conferred by the Special District Act. 2. Fee Limitation Any Fees imposed for the repayment of Debt, if authorized by this Service Plan, shall not imposed by any of the Districts upon or collected from an End User. In addition, Fees imposed for the payment of Debt shall not be imposed unless and until the requirements for securing the delivery of the relevant portion of the Public Benefits have been satisfied in accordance with Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, this Fee limitation shall not apply to any Fee imposed to fund the operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of Public Improvements or the administration of the Districts. 3. Operations and Maintenance The primary purpose of the Districts is to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop and finance a portion of the Public Improvements. The Districts shall dedicate the Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction or owners’ association in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan and the City Code, provided that nothing herein requires the City to accept a dedication. The Districts are specifically authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity. Additionally, the Districts are authorized to operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not otherwise conveyed or dedicated to the City or another appropriate governmental entity until such time that the Districts dissolve. 4. Fire Protection Restriction The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire protection facilities or services, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the Poudre Fire Authority. The authority to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain fire hydrants and related improvements installed as part of the water system shall not be limited by this subsection. 15 5. Public Safety Services Restriction The Districts are not authorized to provide policing or other security services. However, the Districts may, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(7), as amended, furnish security services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. 6. Grants from Governmental Agencies Restriction The Districts shall not apply for grant funds distributed by any agency of the United States Government or the State without the prior written approval of the City Manager. This does not restrict the collection of Fees for services provided by the Districts to the United States Government or the State. 7. Golf Course Construction Restriction Acknowledging that the City has financed public golf courses and desires to coordinate the construction of public golf courses within the City’s boundaries, the Districts shall not be authorized to plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain a golf course unless such activity is pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City. 8. Television Relay and Translation Restriction The Districts are not authorized to plan for, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain television relay and translation facilities and services, other than for the installation of conduit as a part of a street construction project, unless such facilities and services are provided pursuant to prior written approval from the City Council. 9. Sales and Use Tax Exemption Limitation The Districts shall not exercise any sales and use tax exemption otherwise available to the Districts under the City Code. 10. Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Acknowledging that the City and other existing special districts operating within the City currently own and operate treatment facilities for potable water and wastewater that are available to provide services to the Service Area, the Districts shall not plan, design, acquire, construct, install, relocate, redevelop, finance, own, operate or maintain such facilities without obtaining the City Council’s prior written approval either by intergovernmental agreement or as a Service Plan Amendment. 11. Sub-district Restriction 16 The Districts shall not create any sub-district pursuant to the Special District Act without the prior written approval of the City Manager. 12. Privately Placed Debt Limitation Prior to the issuance of any privately placed Debt, the issuing District shall obtain the certification of an External Financial Advisor substantially as follows: We are [I am] an External Financial Advisor within the meaning of the District’s Service Plan. We [I] certify that (1) the net effective interest rate (calculated as defined in C.R.S. Section 32-1-103(12)) to be borne by [insert the designation of the Debt] does not exceed a reasonable current [tax- exempt] [taxable] interest rate, using criteria deemed appropriate by us [me] and based upon our [my] analysis of comparable high yield securities; and (2) the structure of [insert designation of the Debt], including maturities and early redemption provisions, is reasonable considering the financial circumstances of the District. 13. Special Assessments The Districts shall not impose special assessments without the prior written approval of the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS Exhibit E summarizes the type of Public Improvements that are projected to be constructed and/or installed by the Districts. The cost, scope, and definition of such Public Improvements may vary over time. The total estimated costs of Public Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit G, are approximately Three Hundred Twenty-Five Million One Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates are based upon preliminary engineering, architectural surveys, and reviews of the Public Improvements and include all construction cost estimates together with estimates of costs such as land acquisition, engineering services, legal expenses and other associated expenses. Maps of the anticipated location, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements are attached hereto as Exhibit H. Changes in the Public Improvements or costs, which are approved by the City in an Approved Development Plan and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section IV.B of this Service Plan, shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment. In addition, due to the preliminary nature of the Project, the City shall not be bound by this Service Plan in reviewing and approving the Approved Development Plan and the Approved Development Plan shall supersede the Service Plan with regard to the cost, scope and definition of Public Improvements. Provided, however, any agreement approved and entered into under Section IV.B of this Service Plan for the provision of a Public Improvement that is also a Public Benefit, shall supersede both this Service Plan and the applicable Approved Development Plan. 17 Except as otherwise provided by an agreement approved under Section IV.B of this Service Plan: (i) the design, phasing of construction, location and completion of Public Improvements will be determined by the Districts to coincide with the phasing and development of the Planned Development and the availability of funding sources; (ii) the Districts may, in their discretion, phase the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements or defer, delay, reschedule, rephase, relocate or determine not to proceed with the construction, completion, operation, and maintenance of Public Improvements, and such actions or determinations shall not constitute a Service Plan Amendment; (iii) the Districts shall also be permitted to allocate costs between such categories of the Public Improvements as deemed necessary in their discretion. The City Code has development standards, contracting requirements and other legal requirements related to the construction and payment of public improvements and related to certain operation activities. Relating to these, the Districts shall comply with the following requirements: A. Development Standards. The Districts shall ensure that the Public Improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City Code and of other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction, as applicable. The Districts directly, or indirectly through any Developer, will obtain the City’s approval of civil engineering plans and will obtain applicable permits for construction and installation of Public Improvements prior to performing such work. Unless waived by the City Council, the Districts shall be required, in accordance with the City Code, to post a surety bond, letter of credit, or other approved development security for any Public Improvements to be constructed by the Districts. Such development security may be released in the City Manager’s discretion when the constructing District has obtained funds, through Debt issuance or otherwise, adequate to insure the construction of the Public Improvements, unless such release is prohibited by or in conflict with any City Code provision, State law, or any agreement approved and entered into under Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Any limitation or requirement concerning the time within which the City must review the Districts’ proposals or applications for an Approved Development Plan or other land use approval is hereby waived by the Districts. B. Contracting. The Districts shall comply with all applicable State purchasing, public bidding and construction contracting. C. Land Acquisition and Conveyance. The purchase price of any land or improvements acquired by the Districts from the Developer shall be no more than the then-current fair market value as confirmed by an independent MAI appraisal for land and by an independent professional engineer for improvements. Land, easements, improvements and facilities conveyed to the City shall be free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and easements, unless otherwise approved by the City 18 Manager prior to conveyance. All conveyances to the City shall be by special warranty deed, shall be conveyed at no cost to the City, shall include an ALTA title policy issued to the City, shall meet the environmental standards of the City and shall comply with any other conveyance prerequisites required in the City Code. D. Equal Employment and Discrimination. In connection with the performance of all acts or activities hereunder, the Districts shall not discriminate against any person otherwise qualified with respect to its hiring, discharging, promoting or demoting or in matters of compensation solely because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, marital status, or physical or mental disability, and further shall insert the foregoing provision in contracts or subcontracts entered into by the Districts to accomplish the purposes of this Service Plan. IX. FINANCIAL PLAN/PROPOSED DEBT This Section IX of the Service Plan describes the nature, basis, method of funding and financing limitations associated with the acquisition, construction, completion, repair, replacement, operation and maintenance of Public Improvements. A. Financial Plan. The Districts’ Financial Plan, attached as Exhibit I and incorporated by reference, reflects the Districts’ anticipated schedule for incurring Debt to fund Public Improvements in support of the Project. The Financial Plan also reflects the schedule of all anticipated revenues flowing to the Districts derived from Districts mill levies, Fees imposed by the Districts, specific ownership taxes, and all other anticipated legally available revenues. The Financial Plan is based on economic, political and industry conditions as they exist presently and reasonable projections and estimates of future conditions. These projections and estimates are not to be interpreted as the only method of implementation of the Districts’ goals and objectives but rather a representation of one feasible alternative. Other financial structures may be used so long they are in compliance with this Service Plan. The Financial Plan incorporates all of the provisions of this Section IX. Based upon the assumptions contained therein, the Financial Plan projects the issuance of Bonds to fund Public Improvements and anticipated Debt repayment based on the development assumptions and absorptions of the property in the Service Area by End Users. The Financial Plan anticipates that the District will have the ability to acquire, construct, and complete all or a portion Public Improvements needed to serve the Service Area. The Financial Plan demonstrates that the Districts will have the financial ability to discharge all Debt to be issued as part of the Financial Plan on a reasonable basis. Furthermore, the Districts will secure the certification of an External Financial Advisor who will provide an opinion as to whether such Debt issuances are in the best interest of the Districts at the time of issuance. 19 B. Mill Levies. It is anticipated that the Districts will impose a Debt Mill Levy and an Operating Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries. In doing so, the following shall apply: 1. Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum The Aggregate Mill Levy shall not exceed in any year the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, which is sixty (60) mills. 2. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies The Regional Mill Levy shall not be counted against the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum. 3. Operating Mill Levy Each District may impose an Operating Mill Levy of up to sixty (60) mills until that District imposes a Debt Mill Levy. Once the District imposes a Debt Mill Levy of any amount, the District’s Operating Mill Levy shall not exceed twenty (20) mills at any point. 4. Gallagher Adjustments In the event the State’s method of calculating assessed valuation for the Taxable Property changes after January 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Districts’ Aggregate Mill Levy, Debt Mill Levy, Operating Mill Levy, and Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, amounts herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the District’s Board in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by such mill levies, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. 5. Excessive Mill Levy Pledges Any Debt issued with a mill levy pledge, or which results in a mill levy pledge, that exceeds the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum or the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan and shall not be an authorized issuance of Debt unless and until such material modification has been approved by a Service Plan Amendment. 6. Refunding Debt 20 The Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term may be exceeded for Debt refunding purposes if: (1) a majority of the issuing District’s Board is composed of End Users and have voted in favor of a refunding of a part or all of the Debt; or (2) such refunding will result in a net present value savings. 7. Maximum Debt Authorization The Districts anticipate approximately Three Hundred Twenty-Five Million One Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($325,194,543) in project costs in 2018 dollars as set forth in Exhibit G, and anticipate issuing approximately One Hundred Sixty Three Million Dollars ($163,000,000) in Debt to pay such costs as set forth in Exhibit I, which Debt issuance amount shall be the amount of the Maximum Debt Authorization. In addition, no District shall issue any Debt unless and until delivery of the relevant portion of the Public Benefits have been secured as required in Section IV.B of this Service Plan. The Districts collectively shall not issue Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. Bonds, loans, notes or other instruments which have been refunded shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization. Intergovernmental Capital Pledge Agreements among two or more of the Districts pledging the collection and payment of property taxes or Fees by one District for the repayment of Debt by a separate issuing District shall not count against the Maximum Debt Authorization. The Districts must obtain from the City Council a Service Plan Amendment prior to issuing Debt in excess of the Maximum Debt Authorization. C. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount. The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate at the time the Debt is issued. The maximum interest rate on any Debt, including any defaulting interest rate, is not permitted to exceed Twelve Percent (12%). The maximum underwriting discount shall be three percent (3%). Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, the Special District Act, other applicable State law and federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities. D. Interest Rate and Underwriting Discount Certification. The Districts shall retain an External Financial Advisor to provide a written opinion on the market reasonableness of the interest rate on any Debt and any underwriter discount paid by the Districts as part of a Debt financing transaction. The Districts shall provide this written opinion to the City before issuing any Debt based on it. E. Disclosure to Purchasers. In order to notify future End Users who are purchasing residential lots or dwellings units in the Service Area that they will be paying, in addition to the property taxes owed to other taxing governmental entities, the property taxes imposed under the Debt Mill Levy, the Operating Mill Levy and possibly the Regional Mill Levy, Districts shall not be authorized to 21 issue any Debt under this Service Plan until there is included in the Developer’s Approved Development Plan provisions that require the following: 1. That the Developer, and its successors and assigns, shall prepare and submit to the City Manager for his approval a disclosure notice in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit K (the “Disclosure Notice”); 2. That when the Disclosure Notice is approved by the City Manager, the Developer shall record the Disclosure Notice in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s Office; and 3. That the approved Disclosure Notice shall be provided by the Developer, and by its successors and assigns, to each potential End User purchaser of a residential lot or dwelling unit in the Service Area before that purchaser enters into a written agreement for the purchase and sale of that residential lot or dwelling unit. F. External Financial Advisor. An External Financial Advisor shall be retained by the issuing Districts to provide a written opinion as to whether any Debt issuance is in the best interest of the issuing Districts once the total amount of Debt issued by the Districts exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). The External Financial Advisor is to provide advice to the issuing Districts’ Boards regarding the proposed terms and whether Debt conditions are reasonable based upon the status of development within the Districts, the projected tax base increase in the Districts, the security offered and other considerations as may be identified by the Advisor. Each issuing District shall include in the transcript of any Bond transaction, or other appropriate financing documentation for related Debt instrument, a signed letter from the External Financial Advisor providing an official opinion on the structure of the Debt, stating the Advisor’s opinion that the cost of issuance, sizing, repayment term, redemption feature, couponing, credit spreads, payment, closing date, and other material transaction details of the proposed Debt serve the best interest of the Districts. Debt shall not be undertaken by the Districts if found to be unreasonable by the External Financial Advisor. G. Disclosure to Debt Purchasers. Any Debt of the Districts shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form: “By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Debt agrees and consents to all of the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on this Debt contained herein, in the resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Debt and in the Service Plan of the District. This Debt is not and cannot be a Debt of the City of Fort Collins” Similar language describing the limitations with respect to the payment of the principal and interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the 22 offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a Developer of property within the Service Area. H. Security for Debt. The Districts shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the Districts’ obligations; nor shall anything in the Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in the event of default by the Districts in the payment of any such obligations. I. TABOR Compliance. The Districts shall comply with the provisions of TABOR. In the discretion of the Districts’ Boards, the Districts may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by a District will remain under the control of the District’s Board. J. Districts’ Operating Costs. The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the Districts’ organization and initial operations, are anticipated to be $200,000, which will be eligible for reimbursement from Debt proceeds. In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the Districts will require operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be operated and maintained. The first year’s operating budget is estimated to be $100,000. Ongoing administration, operations and maintenance costs may be paid from property taxes collected through the imposition of an Operating Mill Levy as set forth in Section IX.B.3, as well as other revenues legally available to the Districts. X. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS The Districts shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, funding, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, administration and overhead costs related to the provision of Regional Improvements. At the discretion of the City, the Districts shall impose a Regional Improvement Mill Levy on all property within the Districts’ boundaries under the following terms: A. Regional Mill Levy Authority. The Districts shall seek the authority to impose an additional Regional Mill Levy of five (5) mills as part of the Districts’ initial TABOR election. The Districts shall also seek from the electorate in that election the authority under TABOR to enter into an intergovernmental 23 agreement with the City obligating the Districts to pay as a multiple-fiscal year obligation the proceeds from the Regional Mill Levy to the City. Obtaining voter-approval of the Regional Mill Levy and this intergovernmental agreement shall be a precondition to the Districts issuing any Debt and imposing the Operating Mill Levy, the Debt Mill Levy and any Fees for the repayment of Debt under this Service Plan. B. Regional Mill Levy Imposition. The Districts shall each impose the Regional Mill Levy at a rate not to exceed five (5) mills within one year of receiving written notice from the City Manager to the Districts requesting the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy and stating the mill rate to be imposed. C. City Notice Regarding Regional Improvements. Such notice from the City shall provide a description of the Regional Improvements to be constructed and an analysis explaining how the Regional Improvements will be beneficial to property owners within the Service Area. The City shall make a good faith effort to require planned developments that (i) are adjacent to the Service Area and (ii) will benefit from the Regional Improvement also impose a Regional Mill Levy, to the extent possible. D. Regional Improvements Authorized Under Service Plan. If so notified by the City Manager, the Regional Improvements shall be considered public improvements that the Districts would otherwise be authorized to design, construct, install re- design, re-construct, repair or replace pursuant to this Service Plan and applicable law. E. Expenditure of Regional Mil Levy Revenues. Revenue collected through the imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall be expended as follows: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement If the City and the Districts have executed an intergovernmental agreement concerning the Regional Improvements, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be used in accordance with such agreement; 2. No Intergovernmental Agreement If no intergovernmental agreement exists between the Districts and the City, then the revenue from the Regional Mill Levy shall be paid to the City, for use by the City in the planning, designing, constructing, installing, acquiring, relocating, redeveloping or financing of Regional Improvements which benefit the End Users of the Districts as prioritized and determined by the City. F. Regional Mill Levy Term. 24 The imposition of the Regional Mill Levy shall not exceed a term of twenty-five (25) years from December 31 of the tax collection year after which the Regional Mill Levy is first imposed. G. Completion of Regional Improvements. All Regional Improvements shall be completed prior to the end of the twenty-five (25) year Regional Mill Levy term. H. City Authority to Require Imposition. The City’s authority to require the initiation of the imposition of a Regional Mill Levy shall expire fifteen (15) years after December 31st of the year in which the Districts first imposes a Debt Mill Levy. I. Regional Mill Levy Not Included in Other Mill Levies. The Regional Mill Levy imposed shall not be applied toward the calculation of the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum. J. Gallagher Adjustment. In the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after January 1, 2018, or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement, the Regional Mill Levy may be increased or shall be decreased to reflect such changes; such increases or decreases shall be determined by the Districts’ Boards in good faith so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the Regional Mill Levy, as adjusted, are neither enhanced nor diminished as a result of such change occurring after January 1, 2018. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation will be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. XI. CITY FEES The Districts shall pay all applicable City fees as required by the City Code. XII. BANKRUPTCY LIMITATIONS All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the Aggregate Mill Levy Maximum, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and Fees, have been established under the authority of the City in the Special District Act to approve this Service Plan. It is expressly intended that by such approval such limitations: (i) shall not be set aside for any reason, including by judicial action, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (ii) are, together with all other requirements of State law, included in the “political or governmental powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 903, and are also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable 25 non-bankruptcy law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 943(b)(6). XIII. ANNUAL REPORTS AND BOARD MEETINGS A. General. Each of the Districts shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Clerk no later than September 1st of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the Districts has been issued. They Districts may file a consolidated annual report. The annual report may be made available to the public on the City’s website. B. Board Meetings. Each of the Districts’ Boards shall hold at least one public board meeting in three of the four quarters of each calendar year, beginning in the first full calendar year after the Districts’ creation. Notice for each of these meetings shall be given in accordance with the requirements of the Special District Act and other applicable State Law. This meeting requirement shall not apply until there is at least one End User of property within the District. Also, this requirement shall no longer apply when a majority of the directors on the District’s Board are End Users. C. Report Requirements. Unless waived by the City Manager, each of the Districts’ annual report must include the following: 1. Narrative A narrative summary of the progress of the District in implementing its Service Plan for the report year. 2. Financial Statements Except when exemption from audit has been granted for the report year under the Local Government Audit Law, the audited financial statements of the District for the report year including a statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) as of December 31 of the report year and the statement of operation (i.e., revenue and expenditures) for the report year. 3. Capital Expenditures Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of the capital expenditures incurred by the District in development of improvements in the report year. 4. Financial Obligations 26 Unless disclosed within a separate schedule to the financial statements, a summary of financial obligations of the District at the end of the report year, including the amount of outstanding Debt, the amount and terms of any new District Debt issued in the report year, the total assessed valuation of all Taxable Property within the Service Area as of January 1 of the report year and the current total District mill levy pledged to Debt retirement in the report year. 5. Board Contact Information The names and contact information of the current directors on the District’s Board, any District manager and the attorney for the District shall be listed in the report. The District’s current office address, phone number, email address and any website address shall also be listed in the report. 6. Other Information Any other information deemed relevant by the City Council or deemed reasonably necessary by the City Manager. D. Reporting of Significant Events. The annual report of each District shall also include information as to any of the following that occurred during the report year: 1. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District’s boundaries as of December 31 of the report year. 2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered into or proposed as of December 31 of the report year. 3. Copies of the District’s rules and regulations, if any, or substantial changes to the District’s rules and regulations as of December 31 of the report year. 4. A summary of any litigation which involves the District’s Public Improvements as of December 31 of the report year. 5. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the report year. 6. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument. 27 7. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period. E. Failure to Submit. In the event the annual report is not timely received by the City Clerk or is not fully responsive, notice of such default shall be given to the District’s Board at its last known address. The failure of the District to file the annual report within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of such default notice by the City Clerk may constitute a material modification of the Service Plan, at the discretion of the City Manager. XIV. SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENTS This Service Plan is general in nature and does not include specific detail in some instances. The Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts to provide required improvements, services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for numerous amendments. Modification of the general types of improvements and facilities making up the Public Improvements, and changes in proposed configurations, locations or dimensions of the Public Improvements, shall be permitted to accommodate development needs provided such Public Improvements are consistent with the then-current Approved Development Plans for the Project and any agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Section IV.B of this Service Plan. Any action of one or more of the Districts, which is a material modification of this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided in Section XV of this Service Plan or that does not comply with the provisions of this Service Plan, shall be deemed to be a material modification to this Service Plan unless otherwise expressly provided in this Service Plan. All other departures from the provisions of this Service Plan shall be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether such departures are a material modification under this Service Plan or the Special District Act. XV. MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with C.R.S. Section 32-1-207 as a Service Plan Amendment. No modification shall be required for an action of the Districts that does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan, unless otherwise provided in this Service Plan. Departures from the Service Plan that constitute a material modification requiring a Service Plan Amendment include, without limitation: 1. Actions or failures to act that create materially greater financial risk or burden to the taxpayers of any of the Districts; 2. Performance of a service or function, construction of an improvement, or acquisition of a major facility that is not closely related to an improvement, service, function or facility authorized in the Service Plan; 28 3. Failure to perform a service or function, construct an improvement or acquire a facility required by the Service Plan; and 4. Failure to comply with any of the preconditions, prohibitions, limitations and restrictions of this Service Plan. XVI. DISSOLUTION Upon independent determination by the City Council that the purposes for which any District was created have been accomplished, the District shall file a petition in district court for dissolution as provided in the Special District Act. In no event shall dissolution occur until the District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other financial obligations as required pursuant to the Special District Act and any other applicable State law. In addition, if within three (3) years from the date of the City Council’s approval of this Service Plan no agreement contemplated under Section IV.B of this Service Plan has been entered into by the City with any of the Districts and/or any Developer, despite the parties conducting good faith negotiations attempting to do so, the City may opt to pursue the remedies available to it under C.R.S. Section 32-1-701(3) in order to compel the Districts to dissolve in a prompt and orderly manner. In such event: (i) the limited purposes and powers of the Districts, as authorized herein, shall automatically terminate and be expressly limited to taking only those actions that are reasonably necessary to dissolve; (ii) the Board of Directors of each of the Districts will be deemed to have agreed with the City regarding its dissolution without an election pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-704(3)(b); (iii) the Districts shall take no action to contest or impede the dissolution of the Districts and shall affirmatively and diligently cooperate in securing the final dissolution of the Districts, and (iv) subject to the statutory requirements of the Special District Act, the Districts shall thereupon dissolve. XVII. SANCTIONS Should any of the Districts undertake any act without obtaining prior City Council approval or consent or City Manager approval or consent under this Service Plan, that constitutes a material modification to this Service Plan requiring a Service Plan Amendment as provided herein or under the Special Districts Act, or does not otherwise comply with the provisions of this Service Plan, the City Council may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions, as it deems appropriate: 1. Exercise any applicable remedy under the Special District Act; 2. Withhold the issuance of any permit, authorization, acceptance or other administrative approval, or withhold any cooperation, necessary for the District’s development or construction or operation of improvements or provision of services; 29 3. Exercise any legal remedy under the terms of any intergovernmental agreement under which the District is in default; or 4. Exercise any other legal and equitable remedy available under the law, including seeking prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief against the District, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Service Plan or applicable law. XVIII. CONCLUSION It is submitted that this Service Plan, as required by C.R.S. Section 32-1-203(2), establishes that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts; 2. The existing service in the Service Area to be served by the Districts is inadequate for present and projected needs; 3. The Districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the Service Area; and 4. The Service Area does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. XIX. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Districts agree to incorporate the City Council’s resolution approving this Service Plan, including any conditions on any such approval, into the copy of the Service Plan presented to the District Court for and in Larimer County, Colorado. 30 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Initial District Boundaries 31 EXHIBIT B Initial District Boundary Map 32 EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Inclusion Area Boundaries 33 EXHIBIT D Inclusion Area Boundary Map 34 EXHIBIT E Public Improvements Description of Public Improvements a. Streets. On-site and off-site streets, curbs, gutters, culverts, other drainage facilities, sidewalks, bridges, parking facilities, paving, lighting, grading, utility relocation necessitated by public rights-of- way, monumentation, signage, snow removal, streetscapes and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. b. Water. On-site and off-site potable and non-potable water supply improvements, including water rights, storage facilities, transmission and distribution lines, pumping stations, fire hydrants, meters, facilities, equipment, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. c. Storm and Sanitary Sewer. On-site and Off-site storm and sanitary sewer collection and transmission improvements, including storage facilities, collection mains and laterals, pumping stations, lift stations, transmission lines, storm sewer, flood and surface drainage facilities and systems, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. d. Parks and Recreation. On-site and off-site public park, open space and recreation facilities or services, including parks, bike paths, pedestrian ways, public plazas and courtyards, water features, signage, monumentation, art, gardens, farm facilities, orchards, picnic areas, recreation facilities, playground equipment/areas, park shelters, public area landscaping and weed control, streetscaping, outdoor lighting of all types, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities. 35 EXHIBIT F Vicinity Map 36 EXHIBIT G Public Improvement Cost Estimates JOB NO. DATE: BY: 1230.0001.00 6/27/2018 JAZ No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total $11,000,000 $21,499,312 $105,255,350 $15,732,500 $11,081,500 $13,814,500 $10,286,290 $8,000,000 $44,215,395 $240,884,847 $48,176,969 $36,132,727 $325,194,543 This is a conceptual opinion of cost and supplied only as a guide. TST is not responsible for fluctuation in costs of material, labor or unforeseen contingencies. Total Infrastructure Cost EARTHWORK NONPOTABLE WATER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) ADMINISTRATIVE & MISCELLANEOUS Contingency (20% of Costs) Engineering / Survey / C. M. (15% of Costs) CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF COST PROJECT: Montava Metropolitan Districts Additional Costs Construction Costs WATER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) LANDSCAPING, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, AND FARM FACILITIES STORM SEWER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) RECREATION FACILITIES SANITARY SEWER (ONSITE & OFFSITE) STREETS (ONSITE & OFFSITE) 37 EXHIBIT H Public Improvements Maps 38 EXHIBIT I Financial Plan MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 1 Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan 2050 Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds 2082 SP#1 SP#2 SP#3 SP#4 SP#5 SP#6 [All Plans] TotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotal Available Available Available Available Available Available Available YEAR Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 2017 0000000 2018 0000000 2019 0000000 2020 230,00000000 230,000 2021 478,93200000 478,932 2022 794,52900000 794,529 2023 1,205,14200000 1,205,142 2024 1,339,851 205,0000000 1,544,851 2025 1,662,875 517,1240000 2,179,999 2026 1,762,647 769,8420000 2,532,489 2027 1,762,647 1,278,2950000 3,040,942 2028 1,868,406 1,426,517 365,000 0 0 0 3,659,923 2029 1,868,406 1,730,960 450,505 0 0 0 4,049,871 2030 1,980,510 1,834,818 760,743 0 0 0 4,576,071 2031 1,980,510 1,834,818 1,277,699 0 0 0 5,093,028 2032 2,099,341 1,944,907 1,392,033 160,000 0 0 5,596,280 2033 2,099,341 1,944,907 1,687,015 409,531 0 0 6,140,793 2034 2,225,301 2,061,601 1,788,236 738,100 0 0 6,813,239 2035 2,225,301 2,061,601 1,788,236 1,102,856 0 0 7,177,994 2036 2,358,819 2,185,297 1,895,530 1,448,399 110,000 0 7,998,046 2037 2,358,819 2,185,297 1,895,530 1,575,975 189,824 0 8,205,446 2038 2,500,348 2,316,415 2,009,262 1,670,534 260,701 0 8,757,260 2039 2,500,348 2,316,415 2,009,262 1,670,534 450,159 0 8,946,719 2040 2,650,369 2,455,400 2,129,818 1,770,766 506,187 95,000 9,607,540 2041 2,650,369 2,455,400 2,129,818 1,770,766 605,019 35,155 9,646,527 2042 2,809,392 2,602,724 2,257,607 1,877,012 641,320 258,772 10,446,827 2043 2,809,392 2,602,724 2,257,607 1,877,012 641,320 208,530 10,396,585 2044 2,977,955 2,758,888 2,393,063 1,989,633 679,800 382,075 11,181,414 2045 2,977,955 2,758,888 2,393,063 1,989,633 679,800 411,614 11,210,953 2046 3,156,632 2,924,421 2,536,647 2,109,011 720,588 474,086 11,921,385 2047 3,156,632 2,924,421 2,536,647 2,109,011 720,588 474,086 11,921,385 2048 3,346,030 3,099,886 2,688,846 2,235,551 763,823 502,531 12,636,668 2049 3,346,030 3,099,886 2,688,846 2,235,551 763,823 502,531 12,636,668 2050 3,546,792 3,285,879 2,850,177 2,369,684 809,652 532,683 13,394,868 2051 3,546,792 3,285,879 2,850,177 2,369,684 809,652 532,683 13,394,868 2052 3,759,600 3,483,032 3,021,187 2,511,865 858,231 564,644 14,198,560 2053 3,759,600 3,483,032 3,021,187 2,511,865 858,231 564,644 14,198,560 2054 0 3,692,014 3,202,458 2,662,577 909,725 598,523 11,065,298 2055 0 3,692,014 3,202,458 2,662,577 909,725 598,523 11,065,298 2056 0 3,913,535 3,394,606 2,822,332 964,309 634,434 11,729,216 2057 0 3,913,535 3,394,606 2,822,332 964,309 634,434 11,729,216 2058 0 0 3,598,282 2,991,672 1,022,167 672,500 8,284,622 2059 0 0 3,598,282 2,991,672 1,022,167 672,500 8,284,622 2060 0 0 3,814,179 3,171,172 1,083,497 712,850 8,781,699 2061 0 0 3,814,179 3,171,172 1,083,497 712,850 8,781,699 2062 0 0 0 3,361,443 1,148,507 755,621 5,265,571 2063 0 0 0 3,361,443 1,148,507 755,621 5,265,571 2064 0 0 0 3,563,129 1,217,418 800,959 5,581,505 2065 0 0 0 3,563,129 1,217,418 800,959 5,581,505 2066 0000 1,290,463 849,016 2,139,479 2067 0000 1,290,463 849,016 2,139,479 1 2050 2082 YEAR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 1 2050 2082 YEAR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Development Summary (Aggregate) Development Projection -- Buildout Plan (updated 6/20/18) Residential Development Commercial Development Product Type SFDs MF Retail Office Industrial Base $ ('18) $450,000 $225,000 $150/sf $200/sf $100/sf Res'l Totals Comm'l SF Total* 2017 - - - - - - - 2018 - - - - - - - 2019 - - - - - - - 2020 160 50 210 20,000 - - 20,000 2021 175 150 325 20,000 - 30,000 50,000 2022 170 125 295 20,000 - 40,000 60,000 2023 180 100 280 25,000 15,000 20,000 60,000 2024 180 - 180 25,000 - - 25,000 2025 180 180 360 - 25,000 30,000 55,000 2026 180 90 270 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 2027 160 90 250 10,000 10,000 40,000 60,000 2028 175 180 355 10,000 - - 10,000 2029 175 80 255 - 10,000 40,000 50,000 2030 160 100 260 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 2031 130 - 130 10,000 - 40,000 50,000 2032 140 - 140 20,000 - - 20,000 2033 150 100 250 - 30,000 50,000 80,000 2034 140 100 240 10,000 20,000 50,000 80,000 2035 - 120 120 - - 30,000 30,000 2036 - 110 110 - - - - 2037 - 100 100 10,000 - 50,000 60,000 2038 - 110 110 - 10,000 - 10,000 2039 - 75 75 - - 25,000 25,000 2040 - - - - 20,000 - 20,000 2041 - 75 75 - - - - 2042 - 75 75 10,000 20,000 - 30,000 2043 - - - - 10,000 - 10,000 2044 - - - - 10,000 - 10,000 2045 - - - - - - - 2046 - - - - - - - 2047 - - - - - - - 2,455 2,010 4,465 210,000 200,000 445,000 855,000 MV @ Full Buildout $1,104,750,000 $452,250,000 $1,557,000,000 $31,500,000 $40,000,000 $44,500,000 $116,000,000 (base prices;un-infl.) AV @ Full Buildout $112,104,000 $33,640,000 (base prices;un-infl.) 77% of AV 23% of AV notes: Platted/Dev Lots = 10% MV; one-yr prior Base MV $ inflated 2% per annum 7/13/2018 E MMD Fin Plan 18 Dev Summary Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co. 4 Jul 13, 2018 2:10 pm Prepared by D.A. Davidson & Co Quantitative Group~CB (Montava MD 17:SPLBE) SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Combined Results ~~~~~~~~ GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 SUBORDINATE BONDS, SERIES 2019B ~~~ [ Preliminary -- for discussion only ] Dated Date 12/01/2023 12/01/2027 12/01/2031 12/01/2035 12/01/2039 12/01/2044 12/01/2019 Delivery Date 12/01/2023 12/01/2027 12/01/2031 12/01/2035 12/01/2039 12/01/2044 12/01/2019 Sources: SERIES 2023A SERIES 2027A SERIES 2031A SERIES 2035A SERIES 2039A SERIES 2044A SERIES 2019B Total Bond Proceeds: Par Amount 32,325,000.00 33,655,000.00 32,805,000.00 30,630,000.00 11,695,000.00 8,925,000.00 12,522,000.00 162,557,000.00 32,325,000.00 33,655,000.00 32,805,000.00 30,630,000.00 11,695,000.00 8,925,000.00 12,522,000.00 162,557,000.00 Uses: SERIES 2023A SERIES 2027A SERIES 2031A SERIES 2035A SERIES 2039A SERIES 2044A SERIES 2019B Total Project Fund Deposits: Project Fund 28,445,025.00 29,615,583.33 28,867,575.00 26,953,325.00 10,293,091.67 7,853,450.00 12,146,340.00 144,174,390.00 Other Fund Deposits: Debt Service Reserve Fund 2,586,975.00 2,693,216.67 2,625,225.00 2,451,475.00 934,108.33 714,550.00 12,005,550.00 Cost of Issuance: Other Cost of Issuance 1,293,000.00 1,346,200.00 1,312,200.00 1,225,200.00 467,800.00 357,000.00 375,660.00 6,377,060.00 32,325,000.00 33,655,000.00 32,805,000.00 30,630,000.00 11,695,000.00 8,925,000.00 12,522,000.00 162,557,000.00 5 39 EXHIBIT J “PUBLIC BENEFITS” 1. Large-Scale Comprehensive Master Planning: The approximately 914-acre Service Area will be comprehensively master-planned, with an emphasis on multi-modal transportation, through the new Planned Unit Development Overlay Regulations as the Montava PUD Master Plan (the “Montava development”). The Montava development design will include coordinated, interconnecting trail, street, sidewalk, transit and storm drainage systems which will both (i) correct existing infrastructure deficiencies within the boundaries of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan; and (ii) provide opportunities to connect infrastructure in such area to existing City infrastructure. The Districts will have authority to build and, in some cases, to maintain these public systems and can also be used to facilitate the construction of “off-site” public infrastructure required by the City’s Land Use Code or Municipal Code for individual projects within the Montava development. 2. New Urbanism: New Urbanism is an urban design movement which promotes environmentally friendly habits by creating walkable neighborhoods containing a wide range of housing and job types. The Montava development has been designed by the industry leaders, DPZ, and New Urbanism resonates throughout the Montava development. The Montava development will implement New Urbanism by one or more of the following: a. Creating a mixed-use town center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric; b. Developing the Montava development as a series of neighborhoods with centers, based on a 5-minute walk shed; c. Integrating a wide variety of housing types and intensities within each neighborhood; d. Creating walkable streets and trails that connect meaningful destinations; e. Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets; f. Integrating market rate and affordable housing. 3. Agri-Urban Development: This is a concept promoted in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. There will be an approximately 40-acre organic farm in the Montava development. The land will either be donated or sold at a substantially discounted amount to the Poudre Valley Cooperative which entity will in turn enter into a long-term lease with the farmers. A wide variety of high-quality, organic, locally-grown produce from the farm will be available to the entire Fort Collins community. While there may be other uses on the farm in the long term, the primary business model is organic produce. 40 4. Zero Energy Ready Homes: Residential development in the Montava development will be built to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home “ZERH” standard. 5. Non-potable Water System: There is only one quarter section of land within the Montava development that does not have adequate coffin wells to provide all needed irrigation water for that quarter section. In all other areas, the Developer commits to the development of a non-potable water system which will incorporate the historical usage of these wells for the irrigation needs of the Montava development. 6. Affordable/Workforce Housing: At least ten percent (10%) of the total housing units approved in the Montava development will be affordable or workforce housing, whether owner-occupied or leased, ranging from sixty percent (60%) to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Fort Collins’ AMI for a family of four (“Required Affordable Units”). The Required Affordable Units will be provided through any of the following mechanisms or any other mechanism mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City: A. The Developer has executed an option contract with the City for the purchase of five (5) acres within the Montava development, at a mutually acceptable location, for development by the City as part of its Affordable Housing Land Bank Program at a time it chooses. B. A continuation of the collaborative effort among developers within the boundaries of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, the City, a community land trust and entities such as Housing Catalyst and Habitat for Humanity on a strategy for long-term affordability of the Required Affordable Units. If a program is developed from this strategic collaborative effort which includes fair and reasonable contributions from all stakeholders, up to five percent (5%) (with the number depending on what the program can manage) of the annual developed single family lots would be contributed to the program at Developer’s cost, but not to exceed the Required Affordable Units. C. Sale of land within the Montava development by the Developer to a non-profit or for- profit builder and the development of that land as part or all of the Required Affordable Units. D. Legally enforceable reservation of acreage within the Montava development for the eventual sale to an entity for development of the Required Affordable Units (i.e. similar to the Land Bank option agreement described in paragraph A above). E. If another method for long-term affordability does not result from the collaborative effort described in paragraph B above, deed restrictions for a twenty (20) year period will be placed on all the Required Affordable Units which are single family units. 41 F. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the Required Affordable Units shall be secured through one of the mechanisms described in paragraphs A through D above (or through any other mutually agreed-upon mechanism) prior to receipt of a building permit for more than fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units approved in the Montava development, and the remaining thirty-five percent (35%) of the Required Affordable Units shall be so secured prior to receipt of a building permit for the last one hundred (100) of the total housing units approved in the Montava development. OTHER BENEFITS* Energy and Water Conservation: In addition to the Zero Energy Ready Homes commitment, the Developer is also: • Working with Fort Collins Utility Services to create a community that is founded on renewable energy use, energy conservation, with community wide impact. An example could include every home having a battery which is charged at night by the City’s wind turbine power generation, and used during the day by Utility Services for solar smoothing. • Exploring a community-wide “in home” conservation approach managed by the Districts as the intermediary between the East Larimer County Water District and individual home owners. By purchasing water for the Montava development with a master meter, the Districts can eliminate the need for excessive water dedications which are needed to account for individual variations in use. By implementing a community-wide water conservation approach managed by the Districts, the Developer could achieve a substantial savings in overall water use. Community Park: Integration is at the heart of what Montava represents. The Developer is working with the City’s Parks Division to create an 80+ acre community park to be an activity and enjoyment hub northeast Fort Collins. The intention is to activate this park from the beginning of the Montava development’s life, not in the distant future as the current Parks and Recreation Policy Plan indicates. The Districts may fund portions of this effort directly, and its use for traditional infrastructure offers flexibility for additional Developer investment and flexible terms that could make the park’s early development possible. Natural Areas: The Developer is working to provide natural areas in several ways, including the naturalization of over 160 acres of storm water land to become a beautiful natural amenity for the entire area, while protecting all of east Fort Collins from floods. The developer will also be incorporating Nature in the City, where possible throughout the Montava development. Both of these efforts can be activated and supported if necessary by Districts. Housing Variety: Housing variety is a critical element of building a Traditional Neighborhood Design community. DPZ specializes in designing communities with a tremendous, and beautiful, integration of diverse and wide ranging housing options. When done intentionally, and with the best expertise which we have hired, providing housing variety creates an incredible living environment that is unlike most of what has been built in the past 40+ years in our 42 country. This costs more money in all phases of planning, designing, and execution of development. The Districts have an indirect impact on our ability to close the gap on these additional costs. Innovation: Innovation is taking many forms in the Montava development. The Developer is working with Colorado State University in multiple areas including agriculture, waste water, energy and affordable housing. The Developer is working with global leader, Siemens, in partnership with Fort Collins Utility Services to create an innovative integration of technology around both energy and daily life. The Developer intends to make Fort Collins Broadband a foundational technology for every home owner from the beginning of the project. Employment: Employment opportunities exist where highly educated and innovative people live, and where community services and amenities are offered to those employees. The Developer is working to create a place where employers will want to open businesses, and their innovative employees will want to live. The Developer has made room in the appropriate areas of the Montava development for employment uses. Community Services: The town center is intended to include uses like community retail and commercial opportunities. The Developer intends to partner with the City to develop a Community Recreation Center, and with the Poudre River Public Library District to develop a library for the next generation. The Districts may be used to help fund various aspects of public facilities like the Community Recreation Center. *(Not considered “Public Benefits” for purposes of the Service Plan) 43 EXHIBIT K Disclosure Notice  NOTICE OF INCLUSION IN A RESIDENTIAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT AND POSSIBLE PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES Legal description of the property and address: (Insert legal description and property address). This property is located in the following metropolitan district: (Insert District Name). In addition to standard property taxes identified on the next page, this property is subject to a metropolitan district mill levy (another property tax) of up to: (Insert mill levy maximum). Based on the property’s inclusion in the metropolitan district, an average home sales price of $300,000 could result in ADDITIONAL annual property taxes up to: (Insert amount). The next page provides examples of estimated total annual property taxes that could be due on this property, first if located outside the metropolitan district and next if located within the metropolitan district. Note: property that is not within a metropolitan district would not pay the ADDITIONAL amount. The metropolitan district board can be reached as follows: (Insert contact information). You may wish to consult with: (1) the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, to determine the specific amount of metropolitan district taxes currently due on this property; and (2) the metropolitan district board, to determine the highest possible amount of metropolitan district property taxes that could be assessed on this property. ESTIMATE OF PROPERTY TAXES Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value Without the District Taxing Entity Mill Levies (2017**) Annual tax levied Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert amount Annual Tax Levied on Residential Property With $300,000 Actual Value With the District (Assuming Maximum District Mill Levy) Taxing Entity Mill Levies (2017**) Annual tax levied Insert District Name Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Larimer County Insert amount $ Insert amount City of Fort Collins Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount Insert entity Insert amount $ Insert amount TOTAL: Insert total $ Insert total **This estimate of mill levies is based upon mill levies certified by the Larimer County Assessor’s Office in December 20__ for collection in 20__, and is intended only to provide approximations of the total overlapping mill levies within the District. The stated mill levies are subject to change and you should contact the Larimer County Assessor’s Office to obtain accurate and current information. FINANCIAL HEALTH OF METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Financial information for (Insert District Name Here) as of (Insert Date of Last Annual Report Here): Notes Amount Total Assessed Value Insert Notes Insert Amount Current Mill Levy & Annual Revenue Insert Mill Insert Amount Current Debt Mill Levy & Annual Revenue Insert Mill Insert Amount Outstanding Debt Insert Term Insert Amount Anticipated Payoff Year Insert Notes Insert Amount Additional information regarding (Insert District Name Here) financial health and formation can be found at the City of Fort Collins website, available at: fcgov.com. In addition, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs may have the following materials available:  Audited Financial Statements  Annual Budget  Annual Report on the Service Plan  Certification of Election Results  Certification of Tax Levies  Notice of Authorization of General Obligation Debt  Notice of Issuance of General Obligation Debt  Transparency – Notice to Electors Available at: https://dola.colorado.gov/lgis/lgFinances.jsf Or Division of Local Government 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 864-7720 Fax: (303) 864-0751 OR Contact the District at: _________Metropolitan District ______ _________[Address]________________ _________[Address]________________ _________[Phone]__________________ _________[Fax]____________________ _________[Email]___________________ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING IN RE MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO I, Hayley M. Budzinski, of lawful age and duly sworn, state: 1. I am a paralegal at the law firm of White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron acting on behalf of the proposed District in the above captioned matter. 2. That, pursuant to Section 32-1-204(1.5), C.R.S., the Notice of Public Hearing on Service Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was provided by U.S. first class mail on August 21, 2018, to the owners of record of all real property within the District as such owners of record are listed in the proposed service plan, as set forth on the list attached hereto as Exhibit B. Signed this 21st day of August, 2018. By: Hayley M. Budzinski 1938.0003; 921444 EXHIBIT B 3.b Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Exhibit B (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SERVICE PLAN 3.b Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Exhibit B (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN RE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-7, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to § 32-1-204(1), C.R.S., a Service Plan (the “Service Plan”) for the proposed Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (“Districts”) has been filed and is available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Fort Collins. A public hearing on the Service Plan will be held by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins (the “City Council”) on Tuesday, September 4, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, or as soon thereafter as the City Council may hear such matter. The Districts are metropolitan districts. Public improvements authorized to be planned, designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped and financed, specifically including related eligible costs for acquisition and administration, as authorized by the Special District Act, except as specifically limited in the Service Plan to serve the future taxpayers and property owners of the Districts as determined by the Board of the Districts in its discretion. The proposed maximum mill levy each District is permitted to impose upon the taxable property within its boundaries and shall be sixty (60) mills for district improvements and operating costs, plus up to five (5) mills for regional improvements if required by the City, subject to the limitations set forth in the Service Plan. The proposed districts will be located generally on the undeveloped property south of Richards Lake Road, west of I-25 Intersection, north of E. Vine Drive, and east of Turnberry Road. A description of the land contained within the boundaries of the proposed Districts is as follows: A parcel of land located in east half of Section 32, and the west half of Section 33, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, and the north half of Section 4, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing approximately 998.49 acres, as further described in the Service Plan. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to § 32-1-203(3.5), C.R.S., any person owning property in the proposed Districts may request that such property be excluded from the Districts by submitting such request to the Fort Collins City Council no later than ten days prior to the public hearing. All protests and objections must be submitted in writing to the City Manager at or prior to the public hearing or any continuance or postponement thereof in order to be considered. All protests and objections to the Districts shall be deemed to be waived unless presented at the time and in the manner specified herein. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS PROVIDED IN COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-069 Published in: Fort Collins Coloradan Published on: August 21, 2018 3.b Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Exhibit B (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) EXHIBIT B MAILING LIST 3.b Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Exhibit B (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) Parcel Owner Address City State Zip 88320‐00‐001 Anheuser‐Busch Foundation c/o Anheuser‐Busch Companies 1 Busch Place St. Louis CO 63118‐1849 88320‐00‐905 Poudre R‐1 School District 2407 LaPorte Ave Fort CollinsCO 80521‐2211 3.b Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Exhibit B (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) EXHIBIT C 3.c Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Exhibit C (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) 3.c Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Exhibit C (7145 : Montava Metro District Service Plan RESO) 2073 2074 MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds Cash-Flow Bonds >>> Surplus Total CF Bond Less Payments Accrued Available for Application Available for Date Bond Interest Toward Interest Less Payments Balance of Sub Bonds Less Payments Balance of Total Surplus Surplus Cum. Surplus CF Bond of Prior Year CF Bond Bonds on Balance Sub Bond + Int. on Bal. @ Toward Accrued Accrued Principal Toward Bond CF Bond CF Bond Cash Flow Release Debt Service Surplus Debt Service Issued 7.00% Interest 7.00% Interest Interest Issued Principal Principal Pmts. 0 0 12/1/19 34,088 0 34,088 0 34,088 12,522,000 0 12,522,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 876,540 0 878,926 0 913,014 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 940,451 0 1,853,465 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,006,283 0 2,859,747 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,076,722 0 3,936,470 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,152,093 0 5,088,562 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,232,739 0 6,321,302 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,319,031 0 7,640,333 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,411,363 0 9,051,696 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,510,159 0 10,561,855 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,615,870 0 12,177,725 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,728,981 0 13,906,706 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,850,009 0 15,756,715 0 12,522,000 0000 0 0 0 876,540 0 1,979,510 0 17,736,225 0 12,522,000 0000 566,350 0 566,350 876,540 566,350 1,551,726 0 19,287,951 0 12,522,000 566,350000 2,150,439 0 2,150,439 876,540 876,540 1,350,157 1,273,899 19,364,208 0 12,522,000 2,150,439000 2,511,994 0 2,511,994 876,540 876,540 1,355,495 1,635,454 19,084,248 0 12,522,000 2,511,994000 1,825,046 0 1,825,046 876,540 876,540 1,335,897 948,506 19,471,639 0 12,522,000 1,825,046000 2,033,246 0 2,033,246 876,540 876,540 1,363,015 1,156,706 19,677,948 0 12,522,000 2,033,246000 2,232,660 0 2,232,660 876,540 876,540 1,377,456 1,356,120 19,699,284 0 12,522,000 2,232,660000 2,420,719 0 2,420,719 876,540 876,540 1,378,950 1,544,179 19,534,055 0 12,522,000 2,420,719000 2,219,940 0 2,219,940 876,540 876,540 1,367,384 1,343,400 19,558,038 0 12,522,000 2,219,940000 2,263,527 0 2,263,527 876,540 876,540 1,369,063 1,386,987 19,540,114 0 12,522,000 2,263,527000 2,621,627 0 2,621,627 876,540 876,540 1,367,808 1,745,087 19,162,835 0 12,522,000 2,621,627000 2,570,385 0 2,570,385 876,540 876,540 1,341,398 1,693,845 18,810,388 0 12,522,000 2,570,385000 2,883,614 0 2,883,614 876,540 876,540 1,316,727 2,007,074 18,120,042 0 12,522,000 2,883,614000 2,557,953 0 2,557,953 876,540 876,540 1,268,403 1,681,413 17,707,032 0 12,522,000 2,557,953000 2,770,585 0 2,770,585 876,540 876,540 1,239,492 1,894,045 17,052,480 0 12,522,000 2,770,585000 2,768,385 0 2,768,385 876,540 876,540 1,193,674 1,891,845 16,354,308 0 12,522,000 2,768,385000 2,938,268 0 2,938,268 876,540 876,540 1,144,802 2,061,728 15,437,382 0 12,522,000 2,938,268000 2,931,668 0 2,931,668 876,540 876,540 1,080,617 2,055,128 14,462,871 0 12,522,000 2,931,668000 3,106,668 0 3,106,668 876,540 876,540 1,012,401 2,230,128 13,245,144 0 12,522,000 3,106,668000 3,105,268 0 3,105,268 876,540 876,540 927,160 2,228,728 11,943,577 0 12,522,000 3,105,268000 3,287,360 0 3,287,360 876,540 876,540 836,050 2,410,820 10,368,807 0 12,522,000 3,287,360000 3,287,735 0 3,287,735 876,540 876,540 725,816 2,411,195 8,683,429 0 12,522,000 3,287,735000 2,565,898 0 2,565,898 876,540 876,540 607,840 1,689,358 7,601,911 0 12,522,000 2,565,898000 2,565,498 0 2,565,498 876,540 876,540 532,134 1,688,958 6,445,086 0 12,522,000 2,565,498000 2,727,816 0 2,727,816 876,540 876,540 451,156 1,851,276 5,044,967 0 12,522,000 2,727,816000 2,718,632 0 2,718,632 876,540 876,540 353,148 1,842,092 3,556,022 0 12,522,000 2,718,632000 1,921,822 0 1,921,822 876,540 876,540 248,922 1,045,282 2,759,662 0 12,522,000 1,921,822000 1,919,222 0 1,919,222 876,540 876,540 193,176 1,042,682 1,910,156 0 12,522,000 1,919,222000 2,030,899 0 2,030,899 876,540 876,540 133,711 1,154,359 889,508 0 12,522,000 2,030,899000 2,033,524 0 2,033,524 876,540 876,540 62,266 951,774 0 205,000 12,317,000 2,033,314 211 0 211 1,217,771 211 1,217,982 862,190 862,190 0 0 0 355,000 11,962,000 1,217,190 581 0 792 1,218,171 792 1,218,963 837,340 837,340 0 0 0 381,000 11,581,000 1,218,340 (169) 0 623 1,299,305 623 1,299,928 810,670 810,670 0 0 0 489,000 11,092,000 1,299,670 (365) 0 258 1,295,380 258 1,295,639 776,440 776,440 0 0 0 519,000 10,573,000 1,295,440 (60) 0 199 500,279 199 500,477 740,110 500,477 239,633 0 239,633 0 10,573,000 500,477 (199) 0 0 499,479 0 499,479 740,110 499,479 257,405 0 497,038 0 10,573,000 499,479000 511,620 0 511,620 740,110 511,620 263,283 0 760,321 0 10,573,000 511,620000 510,528 0 510,528 740,110 510,528 282,804 0 1,043,125 0 10,573,000 510,528000 224,354 0 224,354 740,110 224,354 588,774 0 1,631,900 0 10,573,000 224,354000 222,154 0 222,154 740,110 222,154 632,189 0 2,264,088 0 10,573,000 222,154000 238,192 0 238,192 740,110 238,192 660,405 0 2,924,493 0 10,573,000 238,192000 234,592 0 234,592 740,110 234,592 710,233 0 3,634,726 0 10,573,000 234,592000 15,255,913 0 15,255,913 740,110 740,110 254,431 3,889,157 0 10,573,000 0 15,202,267 53,647 53,647 0 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ __________ 94,764,486 2,082 94,766,568 46,796,398 32,077,616 50,111,224 50,111,224 12,522,000 12,522,000 94,710,840 53,647 53,647 7/13/2018 E MMD Fin Plan 18 D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co. Draft: For discussion purposes only. 3 2073 2074 MONTAVA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Development Projection -- Total Available Revenues -- Service Plan Series 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039 & 2044 Senior Bonds Plus 2019B Cash-Flow Bonds Total Par: $150,035,000 Total Project: $132,028,050 Ser. 2023 Ser. 2027 Ser. 2031 Ser. 2035 Ser. 2039 Ser. 2044 $32,325,000 Par $33,655,000 Par $32,805,000 Par $30,630,000 Par $11,695,000 Par $8,925,000 Par Surplus [Net $28.445 MM] [Net $29.616 MM] [Net $28.868 MM] [Net $26.953 MM] [Net $10.293 MM] [Net $7.853 MM] Total Annual Release Cumulative Cov. of Net DS: Net Available Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Net Debt Surplus 0% D/A Surplus for Debt Svc Service Service Service Service Service Service Service to $15,003,500 $15,003,500 Target $0 0.0% 0 00.0% 0 $0 0 0 0 0.0% 230,000 0 230,000 0 230,000 0.0% 478,932 0 478,932 0 708,932 0.0% 794,529 0 794,529 0 1,503,461 0.0% 1,205,142 $0 0 1,205,142 0 2,708,603 0.0% 1,544,851 1,293,000 1,293,000 251,851 0 2,960,454 119.5% 2,179,999 1,293,000 1,293,000 886,999 0 3,847,453 168.6% 2,532,489 1,353,000 1,353,000 1,179,489 0 5,026,942 187.2% 3,040,942 1,355,600 $0 1,355,600 1,685,342 0 6,712,284 224.3% 3,659,923 1,433,000 1,346,200 2,779,200 880,723 0 7,593,007 131.7% 4,049,871 1,432,200 1,346,200 2,778,400 1,271,471 0 8,864,478 145.8% 4,576,071 1,521,200 1,411,200 2,932,400 1,643,671 0 10,508,149 156.1% 5,093,028 1,521,400 1,408,600 $0 2,930,000 2,163,028 0 12,671,176 173.8% 5,596,280 1,611,200 1,496,000 1,312,200 4,419,400 1,176,880 0 13,848,057 126.6% 6,140,793 1,612,000 1,494,800 1,312,200 4,419,000 1,721,793 566,350 15,003,500 139.0% 6,813,239 1,707,200 1,583,400 1,372,200 4,662,800 2,150,439 2,150,439 15,003,500 146.1% 7,177,994 1,708,000 1,583,200 1,374,800 $0 4,666,000 2,511,994 2,511,994 15,003,500 153.8% 7,998,046 1,813,000 1,677,600 1,457,200 1,225,200 6,173,000 1,825,046 1,825,046 15,003,500 129.6% 8,205,446 1,813,000 1,677,800 1,456,200 1,225,200 6,172,200 2,033,246 2,033,246 15,003,500 132.9% 8,757,260 1,922,000 1,777,400 1,545,000 1,280,200 6,524,600 2,232,660 2,232,660 15,003,500 134.2% 8,946,719 1,920,600 1,777,400 1,545,000 1,283,000 $0 6,526,000 2,420,719 2,420,719 15,003,500 137.1% 9,607,540 2,038,000 1,886,600 1,634,600 1,360,600 467,800 7,387,600 2,219,940 2,219,940 15,003,500 130.0% 9,646,527 2,034,400 1,885,600 1,635,200 1,360,000 467,800 7,383,000 2,263,527 2,263,527 15,003,500 130.7% 10,446,827 2,159,400 1,998,600 1,735,200 1,439,200 492,800 7,825,200 2,621,627 2,621,627 15,003,500 133.5% 10,396,585 2,157,800 2,001,000 1,735,600 1,440,000 $491,800 7,826,200 2,570,385 2,570,385 15,003,500 132.8% 11,181,414 2,289,400 2,122,000 1,840,200 1,525,400 520,800 $0 8,297,800 2,883,614 2,883,614 15,003,500 134.8% 11,210,953 2,288,800 2,121,800 1,839,800 1,527,000 518,600 357,000 8,653,000 2,557,953 2,557,953 15,003,500 129.6% 11,921,385 2,426,000 2,245,000 1,948,400 1,618,000 551,400 362,000 9,150,800 2,770,585 2,770,585 15,003,500 130.3% 11,921,385 2,425,400 2,246,600 1,946,600 1,619,800 552,800 361,800 9,153,000 2,768,385 2,768,385 15,003,500 130.2% 12,636,668 2,572,200 2,381,200 2,063,600 1,715,800 584,000 381,600 9,698,400 2,938,268 2,938,268 15,003,500 130.3% 12,636,668 2,570,400 2,383,400 2,064,600 1,717,200 583,800 385,600 9,705,000 2,931,668 2,931,668 15,003,500 130.2% 13,394,868 2,725,600 2,523,200 2,189,000 1,822,600 618,400 409,400 10,288,200 3,106,668 3,106,668 15,003,500 130.2% 13,394,868 2,726,400 2,525,000 2,191,800 1,817,800 621,400 407,200 10,289,600 3,105,268 3,105,268 15,003,500 130.2% 14,198,560 2,888,600 2,679,000 2,322,600 1,932,000 659,000 430,000 10,911,200 3,287,360 3,287,360 15,003,500 130.1% 14,198,560 2,888,625 2,679,000 2,321,200 1,930,400 659,800 431,800 10,910,825 3,287,735 3,287,735 15,003,500 130.1% 11,065,298 0 2,835,800 2,462,600 2,047,400 695,200 458,400 8,499,400 2,565,898 2,565,898 15,003,500 130.2% 11,065,298 0 2,838,000 2,461,000 2,043,200 698,800 458,800 8,499,800 2,565,498 2,565,498 15,003,500 130.2% 11,729,216 0 3,006,400 2,606,800 2,167,400 736,800 484,000 9,001,400 2,727,816 2,727,816 15,003,500 130.3% 11,729,216 0 3,005,983 2,609,000 2,169,800 737,800 488,000 9,010,583 2,718,632 2,718,632 15,003,500 130.2% 8,284,622 0 0 2,763,000 2,300,000 783,200 516,600 6,362,800 1,921,822 1,921,822 15,003,500 130.2% 8,284,622 0 0 2,767,600 2,297,800 786,200 513,800 6,365,400 1,919,222 1,919,222 15,003,500 130.2% 8,781,699 0 0 2,933,400 2,438,200 833,400 545,800 6,750,800 2,030,899 2,030,899 15,003,500 130.1% 8,781,699 0 0 2,933,575 2,435,400 833,000 546,200 6,748,175 2,033,524 2,033,524 15,003,500 130.1% 5,265,571 0 0 0 2,584,800 881,800 581,200 4,047,800 1,217,771 1,217,771 15,003,500 130.1% 5,265,571 0 0 0 2,585,200 882,800 579,400 4,047,400 1,218,171 1,218,171 15,003,500 130.1% 5,581,505 0 0 0 2,737,200 932,800 612,200 4,282,200 1,299,305 1,299,305 15,003,500 130.3% 5,581,505 0 0 0 2,738,125 934,800 613,200 4,286,125 1,295,380 1,295,380 15,003,500 130.2% 2,139,479 0 0 0 0 990,600 648,600 1,639,200 500,279 500,279 15,003,500 130.5% 2,139,479 0 0 0 0 988,000 652,000 1,640,000 499,479 499,479 15,003,500 130.5% 2,190,420 0 0 0 0 989,200 689,600 1,678,800 511,620 511,620 15,003,500 130.5% 2,190,420 0 0 0 0 989,892 690,000 1,679,892 510,528 510,528 15,003,500 130.4% 953,954 0 0000 729,600 729,600 224,354 224,354 15,003,500 130.8% 953,954 731,800 731,800 222,154 222,154 15,003,500 130.4% 1,011,192 773,000 773,000 238,192 238,192 15,003,500 130.8% 1,011,192 776,600 776,600 234,592 234,592 15,003,500 130.2% 1,071,863 819,450 819,450 252,413 15,255,913 0 130.8% _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 370,892,136 59,500,425 61,943,983 60,380,175 56,383,925 21,484,492 16,434,650 276,127,650 94,764,486 94,764,486 [ EJul1318 23splbE ] [ EJul1318 27splbE ] [ EJul1318 31splbE ] [ EJul1318 35splbE ] [ EJul1318 39splbE ] [ EJul1318 44splbE ] 7/13/2018 E MMD Fin Plan 18 D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co. Draft: For discussion purposes only. 2 2068 0000 1,290,463 899,957 2,190,420 2069 0000 1,290,463 899,957 2,190,420 2070 00000 953,954 953,954 2071 953,954 953,954 2072 1,011,192 1,011,192 2073 1,011,192 1,011,192 2074 1,071,863 1,071,863 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 79,795,615 83,045,374 81,092,792 75,647,626 28,921,818 22,388,911 370,892,136 7/13/2018 E MMD Fin Plan 18 D1-6 SP LB Sum+CFS Prepared by D.A.Davidson & Co. Draft: For discussion purposes only. 1 Election Sept. 25, 2018 Deadline To Consider 2.h Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) Tradeoffs • Scenario A - Development of this parcel will increase land consumption, water consumption and energy demand to deliver greater housing variety, affordable housing, and community amenities. Mitigations • Both - The project will be constructed to maximize the use of the land, reduce consumption of water and energy, and delivery enhancements to storm water control and quality Key Alignment: NLSH 1.1: Improve access to quality housing that is affordable to a board range of income levels; NLSH 1.6, Protect and preserve the quality of life in neighborhoods; ENV 4.1: Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals; ENV 4.9 Sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and its watershed; TRAN 6.1: Improve safety for all modes of travel. ATTACHMENT 4 2.d Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Triple Bottom Line - Montava Metro District (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) ts ATTACHMENT 3 2.c Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Policy Evaluation Matrix (7169 : Montava Metro District Service Plan) MAPLE HILL SUBDIVISION STORYBOOK SUBDIVISION SOD FARM ANHEUSER BUSCH WATERGLEN SUBDIVISION TRAIL HEAD SUBDIVISION L&W CANAL NO. 8 DITCH L&W CANAL N. GIDDINGS RD. C&S RAILROAD I-25 RICHARDS LAKE RD. (CR 52) MOUNTAIN VISTA DR. (CR 50) 427.1 26.1 835 830 820 905 427B AB POND MARTIN/MARTIN C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S 12499 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215 303.431.6100 MARTINMARTIN.COM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MONTAVA MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN DEVELOPED ROUTING SCHEMATIC D1 DIVERSION SUMMARY SWMM ELEMENT Q100 INFLOW (CFS) Q100 DIVERTED (CFS) Q100 REMAINING (CFS) 833.1 408 279 125 842 1000 617 384 POND SUMMARY SWMM ELEMENT Q100 IN (CFS) Q100 OUT (CFS) VOLUME (AC-FT) 425 1069 790 52 426 1170 743 264 430 231 29 6 435 468 415 30 436 1562 1547 25 438 856 0 112 426 OVERFLOW 214 161 94 MONTAVA 1 48 1.6 1 MONTAVA 2 260 171 3 MONTAVA 3-1 144 5.5 4 MONTAVA 3-2 94 3.5 3 POND A 1814 757 190 OUTFALL SUMMARY SWMM ELEMENT Q100 (CFS) 904 161 907 373 909 417 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID AREA (AC) % IMP Q100 (CFS) SB_A 19.4 80 144 SB_A-1 12.5 80 94 SB_B 14.0 50 58 SB_C 102.5 50 363 SB_D 42.2 60 195 SB_E 80.9 25 207 SB_E-1 5.5 80 48 SB_F1 30.7 60 134 SB_F2 16.0 60 104 SB_F3 18.6 60 116 SB_G1 43.7 80 278 SB_G2 33.7 80 220 SB_H 59.3 2 27 SB_I1 63.8 10 86 SB_I2 33.7 2 29 SB_J 64.4 50 313 SB_K 28.7 60 167 SB_L 108.0 60 287 SB_M 44.5 2 25 SB_N 129.1 81 818 SB_O 52.3 10 117 SB_OS-1 45.0 20 162 SB24 33.7 45 280 SB29 268.8 29 1000 SB30 33.5 49 231 SB37 34.6 23 148 SB38 290.7 5 469 SB_200 33.6 5 46 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT SUMMARY SWMM ELEMENT Q100 (CFS) 21 678 25 653 26 391 26.1 265 27 1546 29 682 30 27 31 496 31.1 481 31.2 279 34 757 35 468 72 310 73 139 74 125 74.1 408 75 403 77 1000 229 670 231 990 237 337 242 616 426 529 426_OVERFLOW 214 DESIGN POINT SUMMARY SWMM ELEMENT Q100 (CFS) 16 18 21 678 31 591 31.1 558 427 591 427.1 335 431 1124 435 415 437 353 725 670 729 1000 730 28 820 310 822 327 828 140 829 682 830 140 831 310 833 138 834 1787 835 408 841 408 891 311 905 214 CULVERT SIZE BY DESIGN POINT SWMM ELEMENT BARRELS-SIZE Q100 (CFS) HEADWATER DEPTH (FT) 21 4-8x4 678 4.8 31 4-7x4 591 4.4 31.1 3-8x4 558 4.5 427A 1-9x7 591 8.6 427B 3-7x3.5 591 5.8 427.1 2-6x3.5 335 4.9 431 1-15x10 & 1-5x2 1124 9.9 437 3-6x3 353 4.5 820 2-5X3 310 6.4 830 1-5X3 140 5.3 834 3-9X5 1787 6.7 835 2-5X4 408 6.7 841 2-5X5 408 6.3 905 1-5.5D 214 3.1 1.b Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + MONTAVA NATURAL AREA CONCEPTUAL PLAN GOALS Create a natural area that: • provides diverse, functional habitat for wildlife • increases opportunities for surrounding neighborhoods to connect with nature • enhances connectivity by securing a movement corridor for people and wildlife • supports ecological stormwater management objectives FUTURE PSD SCHOOL FUTURE NATIVE HILL FARM UNDULATING, NATURALIZED TOPOGRAPHY North 0 500 1K 2K Feet USE OF TOPOGRAPHY TO FRAME, SHIELD AND ENHANCE DIVERSE VEGETATION CONNECTED CORRIDORS • primary circulation path (paved, minimum 10’ wide) with secondary and tertiary natural surface trails PLACES FOR RESPITE, GATHERING AND EDUCATION • e.g. an outdoor classroom HABITAT-ENHANCING FEATURES Mountain Vista Dr. Larimer Weld Canal Giddings Rd. Richards Lake Rd. 1.b Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ANHEUSER BUSCH (AB) PLANT BOXELDER CREEK NO. 8 OUTLET DITCH LARIMER & WELD CANAL COLORADO & SOUTHERN RAILROAD BOXELDER WATERSHED DRY CREEK WATERSHED COOPER SLOUGH WATERSHED SH-14 INTERSTATE 25 SB INTERSTATE 25 NB N COUNTY ROAD 15 N COUNTY ROAD 9 N HIGHWAY 1 N COUNTY ROAD 17 N COUNTY ROAD 1 E VINE DR N COUNTY ROAD 3 N HIGHWAY 287 N COUNTY ROAD 7 E COUNTY ROAD 70 E COUNTY ROAD 82 E COUNTY ROAD 66 N OVER LAND TRL N SHIELDS ST E DOUGLAS RD W COUNTY ROAD 72 LAPORTE AVE E COUNTY ROAD 58 E COUNTY ROAD 64 W VINE DR W COUNTY ROAD 80 W MULBERRY ST E HIGHWAY 14 N TAFT HILL RD W COUNTY ROAD 54G N COUNTY ROAD 11 E COUNTY ROAD 48 E COUNTY ROAD 60 E COUNTY ROAD 56 E COUNTY ROAD 62 E COUNTY ROAD 52 W COUNTY ROAD 70 GIDDINGS RD E MULBERRY ST E LINCOLN AVE N COLLEGE AVE TURNBERRY RD RIVERSIDEAVE W ELIZABET H ST COUNTRY CLUB RD E COUNTY ROAD 74 TERRY LAKE RD E COUNTY ROAD 50 E COUNTY ROAD 72 E COUNTY ROAD 76 W COUNTY ROAD 68 W COUNTY ROAD 66 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR HACKAMORE R D S SHIELDS ST LINDENMEIER RD N COUNTY ROAD 5 REMINGTON ST E WILLOX LN N COUNTY ROAD 13 GREGORY RD W WILLOX LN W LAUREL ST S OVERLAND TRL S COUNTY ROAD 1 E COUNTY ROAD 66E LABRADO R LN S COUNTY ROAD 3 N COUNTY ROAD 19 S COUNTY ROAD 23 E COUNTY ROAD 62E N COUNTY ROAD 21 W DOUGLAS RD W COUNTY ROAD 60E S 6TH ST N 6TH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W COUNTY ROAD 56 E COUNTY ROAD 54 E COUNTY ROAD 68 W COUNTY ROAD 60 W COUNTY ROAD 64 W COUNTY ROAD 78 N COUNTY ROAD 23E N COUNTY ROAD 9 E COUNTY ROAD 62 N COUNTY R OAD 19 N COUNTY ROAD 11 N COUNTY ROAD 11 E COUNTY ROAD 56 N COUNTY ROAD 17 E COUNTY ROAD 64 ¦¨§25 ¦¨§25 Cooper Slough Selected Plan (2017) Upper Cooper Slough Drainage Basin 0 1 $ Miles Legend Cooper Slough Basin Boundary Cooper Slough Boxelder Creek Irrigation Canal !! !! !! Drainage Paths ! !! ! ! Anheuser Busch Property C&S Pond Sod Farm Pond Cooper Slough 1.b Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) (Turnberry Road to Timberline Road) Two-Lane Collector Two-Lane Collector  Extend Maple Hill Road east of Bar Harbor Drive to Timberline Road extension within project site. Bar Harbor Drive (Richards Lake Road to Country Club Road) Two-Lane Collector Two-Lane Collector  Due to needs of the City’s proposed park, Bar Harbor as it exists today would remain. The extension of Bar Harbor from Country Club to Mountain Vista would be eliminated. Source: DPZ; Nelson\Nygaard, June 2018. 1.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) Landscape/Irrigation Maintenance Irrigation schedule to be reduced (frequency & duration) after plants are established (1 year) Irrigation schedule regulated by automatic irrigation controllers Overhead spray nozzle precipitation is less than 0.75 inches per hour Water features are recirculating No automatic fill valves Hardscape areas are constructed of pervious materials (recommended) Dedicated irrigation meter (not required for Tier II SF) Soil conditioned with 6 cubic yards organic amendment/1,000 sq. ft. topsoil Irrigation System Design, Continued Swing joints installed Soquel Creek Water District, 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, CA 95010 Telephone: (831)475-8500, Fax: (831)475-4291 1.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) hydrozones was utilized Invasive plants are not used (recommended) Master shut-off valve present High flow sensor present Project Meets Requirements A pressure regulator is used if the water pressure (at meter) is greater than 80 psi Irrigation system designed, maintained and managed to meet or exceed 75% efficiency for overhead spray and 81% for drip systems Soquel Creek Water District, 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, CA 95010 Telephone: (831)475-8500, Fax: (831)475-4291 1.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing) · SURPLUS WATER: 382.6 ACRE-FEET WELL #2 WELL #3 WELL #4 WELL #5 WELL #6 WELL #10 WELL #11 WELL #12 WELL #13 WELL #14 WELL #15 WELL #20 WELL #18 WELL #19 PORTNER WELL #1 PORTNER WELL #2 WELL #16 WELL #17 Date Issued: Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Revision Title Date Designed: Drafted: Reviewed: Location: Project: Client: Client Address: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO MONTAVA HF2M, INC. 430 N. COLLEGE AVE., SUITE 410 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W A T E R P L A N N I N G & D E S I G N 3 2 3 W D r a k e R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 4 F o r t C o l l i n s , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 2 5 9 7 0 . 2 8 2 . 1 8 0 0 SH, MR, EP SH, MR MR, EP 09.17.2018 LI - 1.0 N O R T H 200' 400' 800' SCALE: 1"=400' 0' NON-POTABLE WATER USE STUDY DEVELOPMENT SCOPE & IRRIGATION WELLS DEVELOPMENT SCOPE & IRRIGATION WELLS ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER USE ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE: 635 ACRE-FEET DECREED ANNUAL VOLUME AVAILABLE FROM WELLS: 2,380 ACRE-FEET ANNUAL WATER SURPLUS: 1,745 ACRE-FEET *ESTIMATED ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER USE IN THE TABLE ABOVE FOR QUADRANT 2 DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 160.0 ACRE-FEET FOR THE ORGANIC FARM. 1.b Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Applicant Packet (7158 : Montava PUD Pre-App Hearing)