No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 12/10/2019 - Memorandum From Clay Frickey Re: Early Routing Of Materials For The Montava Pud Master PlanAgenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 15, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, ODP180002 (PUD Overlay) STAFF Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay to develop 850 acres in the northeast area of Fort Collins, roughly bound by Vine Dr on the south, Turnberry Rd on the west, the Budweiser brewery on the east and Richards Lake Rd on the north (parcels # 8833000001, 8833000006, 8832000001, 8833000002, 8832000002, 8704000001, 8704000002, 8832000905). The land is currently undeveloped and in agricultural use. The Master Plan includes a mix of housing, schools, parks, commercial, employment, natural areas and agricultural uses. Approximately 5,000 dwelling units are projected. Project planning to date has included multiple neighborhood meetings, a weeklong design charrette and two pre-application hearings with City Council. The proposed project includes portions of the following zone districts: Low- Density Mixed-Use (LMN), Employment (E), and Industrial (I). The proposed project is going through the new PUD process, which will require a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council, who is the decision maker for PUD’s greater than 640 acres in size. APPLICANT: Angie Milewski BHA Design 1603 Oakridge Dr. Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Anheuser-Busch Foundation 1 Busch Pl Saint Louis, MO 63118 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay (ODP180002), with conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Montava is a proposed New Urbanist community in northeast Fort Collins. Currently, the land sits vacant and operates as an agricultural use. The idea behind New Urbanism is that communities are walkable with a mix of uses and different housing types. To achieve the goals of New Urbanism, Montava proposes the following: • A series of phased developments organized by transect zones rather than the underlying zoning • An interconnected network of streets and trails that accommodate all modes of travel • Unique design standards for Montava Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 2 • Sites for schools, parks, and civic uses • Integration of a natural area and stormwater improvements Staff finds the proposed Montava PUD Master Plan, which sets forth the specific entitlements and restrictions of which the PUD Overlay is comprised, complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC). More specifically: • The PUD Master Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The PUD Master Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards, so long as the Board approves the proposed conditions of approval. • The PUD Master Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.29 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay of Article 4 – Districts, so long as the Board approves the proposed conditions of approval. • The proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendment complies with the Minor Amendment criteria of City Plan. • The proposed Master Street Plan amendment complies with the Minor Amendment criteria of City Plan. • The proposed Parks and Recreation Policy Plan amendment complies with the Minor Amendment criteria of City Plan. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 3 Table of Contents 1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES .............................................................................................. 4 2. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES ............................................................. 4 City Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan ............................................................................................................................ 6 Transportation Master Plan ................................................................................................................................ 7 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan ...................................................................................................................... 7 Nature in the City ............................................................................................................................................... 7 3. OVERVIEW OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY PROCESS AND STANDARDS...... 8 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Modifications and Variances .............................................................................................................................. 8 PUD Review Process ......................................................................................................................................... 8 PUD Review Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 9 4. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2.15, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REVIEW PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Conceptual Review ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Neighborhood Meetings ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Application Submittal.......................................................................................................................................... 9 5. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT CITYWIDE (ARTICLE 3 Standards) ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Section 3.4.8(C) – Parks and Trails – General Standard ................................................................................ 10 Section 3.6.1 – Master Street Plan .................................................................................................................. 10 Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements ...................................................................... 11 Section 3.7.3 – Adequate Public Facilities ....................................................................................................... 12 6. COMPLIANCE WITH DIVISION 4.29, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY .................... 13 PUD Master Plan Review Procedure – 4.29(D) ............................................................................................... 13 Permitted Uses – 4.29(E) ................................................................................................................................. 15 Modification of Densities and Development Standards – 4.29(G) ................................................................... 20 Analysis of Modified Density and Development Standards ............................................................................. 29 7. PLAN AMENDMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 33 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan .......................................................................................................................... 33 Master Street Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan .................................................................................................................... 35 8. PUBLIC OUTREACH ................................................................................................................................... 35 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 36 Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 4 STAFF ANALYSIS 1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES The subject property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins in the 1980s as part of four separate annexations: • East Vine Drive Seventh Annexation – August 16, 1983 • Country Club East Annexation – September 6, 1983 • Allen, Moore, Lind Annexation – May 1, 1984 • Albrecht Annexation – October 20, 1987 Poudre School District acquired parcel #8832000905 in 1998 for a future school. None of the land has developed further since annexation. The surrounding land uses and zoning include: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North County FA-1 - Farming Vacant agricultural South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Community Commercial (CC) Residential, vacant agricultural East Industrial (I) Anheuser-Busch brewery, I-25 West Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Residential (Storybrook and Maple Hill Neighborhoods) 2. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES Due to the size and scope of Montava, numerous adopted citywide plans and policies apply to the development. Several standards in the Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD) section of the Land Use Code contain criteria requiring compliance with these adopted plans and policies. This section summarizes the relevant plans and policies applicable to Montava. As necessary, this staff report includes analyses related to these plans and policies. Since numerous sections of the Land Use Code require compliance with City Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Attachment 35 highlights all principles and policies of those plans with which Montava complies. Subsequent sections of this staff report will reference these summaries and Attachment 35 when discussing their compliance with these adopted plans and policies. City Plan City Plan is the comprehensive plan for Fort Collins. At the time the application for the Montava PUD Overlay was submitted, the 2011 City Plan was in effect. In April 2019, City Council adopted a new City Plan that repealed and replaced the 2011 version. As such, there are references to both the 2011 and 2019 City Plan policies in the staff report and applicant materials. The 2019 City Plan is organized based on seven outcome areas that form the basis of the City’s Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. These outcome areas are: • Neighborhood Livability and Social Health • Culture and Recreation • Economic Health • Environmental Health • Safe Community • Transportation • High Performing Community Three core values guide the vision for City Plan: livability, community, and sustainability. Each outcome area has a series of statements indicating how the principles and policies of each outcome area align with the core values. Action plans accompany each outcome area to ensure implementation of City Plan. Other than High Performing Community, Montava influences each outcome area. For the purposes of this proposed PUD Master Plan, it is Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 5 important to keep in mind the vision statements of each outcome area as they relate to Montava’s design. These vision statements are: Neighborhood Livability and Social Health • Encouraging a welcoming, equitable community that celebrates diversity • Requiring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to serve existing development and new growth • Maintaining our unique character and sense of place • Encouraging the development of quality and affordable housing options for residents of all income levels • Managing where and how the city grows in the future • Reducing the impacts of our built environment on the natural environment • Providing residents with opportunities to live healthy, safe, and active lifestyles • Preserving historic resources and character-defining features that make Fort Collins unique • Promoting the use of sustainable-building and site-design techniques • Creating a distinctive and attractive community that is appealing to workers, visitors, and residents Culture and Recreation • Highlighting and fostering human interactions with natural systems through art and interpretive information in parks and along trails • Increasing access to arts, culture and recreation opportunities for all residents and visitors • Ensuring that arts, culture, history and creativity are integrated into our local economy • Aligning parks and recreation facilities and programs with the needs of the community • Showcasing resource conservation and environmental stewardship through art displays and City management of parks and recreational areas • Providing programs and amenities that enhance the lives of residents and help attract new businesses and workers • Supporting the representation of a diverse range of cultures in arts and cultural offerings • Supporting and encouraging creative industries and local businesses Economic Health • Supporting the creation of a climate economy, and innovations and pilot projects that will help the City explore ways in which it can use technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is cost effective • Supporting an innovation, creative and entrepreneurial atmosphere • Coordinating efforts among City, regional, state and federal programs to create an innovation ecosystem • Ensuring development and redevelopment opportunities can meet our employment space needs • Developing climate adaptation and resiliency plans that ensure businesses and workers are able to adapt to abrupt and long-term changes to our climate • Reducing identified barriers of workforce attraction and retention, including access and affordability of housing and childcare • Supporting workforce development and connecting qualified workers with employers • Supporting local, unique and creative businesses to thrive and grow Environmental Health • Providing access to natural areas and environmentally sensitive community separators to create opportunities to experience nature • Integrating new technologies related to climate and energy into existing City systems • Protecting, enhancing and restoring ecosystems in both urban and natural contexts • Supporting climate action initiatives that will help us become a carbon neutral community • Providing affordable and equitable access to nature and the environment Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 6 • Supporting the development of a climate economy, preparing our businesses for climate change and encouraging economic resiliency • Protecting and improving the quality of our air, water and night skies • Recognizing the interrelationship between a healthy environment and human health • Preparing our community for the impacts of climate change • Ensuring the climate action solutions are affordable and accessible for all residents and businesses Safe Community • Using ecosystem services and other natural functions of the environment to enhance our safety and help protect us from natural hazards • Mitigating risks posed by natural hazards to businesses and property • Encouraging healthy living through active transportation and physical activity • Ensuring that hazard-mitigation efforts and investments are made equitably • Supporting business recovery following natural disasters • Ensuring Fort Collins remains a safe, low-crime community that is attractive to new businesses and workers • Guiding development away from high-risk areas • Improving access to healthy foods for residents and access to markets for local and regional producers • Creating public spaces that are safe and welcoming for all residents • Improving safety in all neighborhoods Transportation • Adapting to changes in technology, demographics and mobility-as-a-service with new transportation modes and partnerships • Identifying the types of transit services that can grow and leverage changing transportation technologies, while still providing access to a broad section of the community to critical transit services • Integrating land use and transportation planning and investments • Continuing to reach a broad area of the city with transit services to support those without access to other modes • Providing programs that facilitate well-informed travel-behavior decisions • Providing a safe, convenient and connected transportation network for all modes • Coordinating regional connections • Building an equitable bicycle and pedestrian network to serve residents of all ages and abilities • Creating a transportation system that helps us reach our climate action goals • Designing the City’s transportation facilities and network to be reliable, affordable, efficient, connected and comfortable Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan covers, roughly, the area bound by I-25 on the east, Richards Lake Road and the Number 8 Outlet Ditch on the north, Turnberry Road on the west, and Vine Drive on the south. This area of Fort Collins contains a significant portion of the undeveloped land within the Growth Management Area (GMA). Planning staff initiated the first Mountain Vista Subarea Plan in 1998, with a subsequent update in 2009. This plan envisions: • Distinct community design with a wide range of housing types in a mixed-use setting • Agri-urban development that connects with the agricultural heritage of Mountain Vista • A community commercial district anchoring the area • Opportunities for major employers to locate near the existing Anheuser-Busch facility • A transportation network that provides connectivity for all modes • Preservation of existing natural features Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 7 In 2016, City Council reconfirmed the direction contained in the Mountain Vista Subarea plan after considering two contrasting development scenarios (Rural Scenario and Open Lands Preservation Scenario). Montava proposes amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan in order for the PUD Master Plan to comply with it. Transportation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan establishes a vision and suite of policies to achieve build out of the Master Street Plan. City Plan now contains the Transportation Master Plan within the body of the document rather than it being a separate document. Pages 158-217 of City Plan discusses the Transportation Master Plan. The Master Street Plan adopted as part of City Plan allows for amendments. Montava proposes amendments to the Master Street Plan in order for the PUD Master Plan to comply with it. Parks and Recreation Policy Plan The Park Planning & Development Department uses the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan as their guiding document for the buildout of the Fort Collins parks and recreation system. The purpose of the adopted Parks and Recreation Policy Plan is to assess the park and recreation needs of the Fort Collins community, evaluate the City’s current services, and provide clear and implementable recommendations to deliver the level of service needed to meet the community’s changing needs. The vision of this plan states: Fort Collins’ parks, trails, and recreation facilities give quality of life and beauty to our city. These essential assets connect people to place, self, and others. Fort Collins’ residents treasure and care for this legacy and will build on the past to provide for future generations. The goal statements of the Plan are to: • Ensure Fort Collins’ parks, trails, and recreation legacy for future generations • Provide a wide variety of high quality recreation services and opportunities for all residents • Create an interconnected regional and local trail system • Develop parks and recreation facilities and programs that promote community in the City • Focus on enhanced sustainability and green practices One of the major findings of this plan is the need for additional parks in areas slated for new development. The plan also proposes a timeline for development of all future parks. Per this timeline, the proposed North Community Park located within the Montava development will not build out until 2025. This plan also indicates that the North Community Park should be 100 acres in size. Montava proposes a reduced size for the community park, currently shown as 80 acres in the PUD Master Plan documents; this will require that the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan be amended. Nature in the City The Nature in the City Strategic Plan was adopted unanimously by City Council in March 2015. The plan provides the vision, goals and policies ensuring that access to nature remains a defining community attribute as infill and redevelopment continues to urbanize Fort Collins. The plan vision is "a connected open space network accessible to the entire community that provides a variety of experiences and functional habitat for people, plants and wildlife." The three plan goals are: 1) Easy Access to Nature: Ensure every resident is within a 10-minute walk to nature from their home or workplace. 2) High Quality Natural Spaces: Conserve, create and enhance natural spaces to provide diverse social and ecological opportunities. 3) Land Stewardship: Shift the landscape aesthetic to more diverse forms that support healthy environments for people and wildlife. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 8 The proposed project directly supports the following plan policies: • Increase connectivity for plant and wildlife species (C1). • Increase connectivity for residents (C2). • Support and protect the multiple values of the City’s ditch system (LU6). • Encourage natural drainages to be re-created (LU9). • Promote and preserve urban agriculture that supports a triple-bottom-line approach (LU10). • Provide quiet spaces in the City to escape from the urban environment (CP5). Montava proposes master planning and site design elements that further Nature in the City goals and policies by: transforming the No. 8 ditch into an enhanced site amenity; providing space for a working organic farm; establishing a menu of Nature in the City design features that can be integrated throughout the project as it develops over time; buffering existing onsite natural features; and creating/restoring/enhancing open space areas. 3. OVERVIEW OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY PROCESS AND STANDARDS Purpose Section 4.29 of the Land Use Code contains standards for PUD Overlays. The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage coordinated master planning of large, multi-phased development projects (over 50 acres), coordinated master planning of large projects and innovative design while meeting community goals, without being bound by all underlying requirements in the Land Use Code. A PUD Master Plan is the written document associated with a PUD Overlay that sets forth the general development plan and the customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development standards. A PUD Master Plan guides subsequent Project Development Plan (PDP) applications, similar to an Overall Development Plan (ODP), but provides greater predictability for both developers and the community over time. The PUD process also allows for applicants to propose modified design and engineering standards. In return for flexibility on land use and design, PUDs must provide additional public benefit beyond a typical development and mitigate potential impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Some of the potential public benefits identified in the PUD ordinance include: 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 f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and adopted plans and policies. Modifications and Variances Modifications to land uses, densities, and development and engineering standards must meet the criteria for approval outlined in the PUD code section, LUC 4.29. This staff report will dedicate significant discussion to the requested modifications for the Montava PUD. PUDs may also obtain vesting for the proposed land uses, densities, development standards, and engineering standards applicable to the development, which locks standards in place for a specified period of time. The applicant may request extended vesting beyond the typical three-year vesting period specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) of the Land Use Code. Applicants may also request variances to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) as part of the PUD process. Engineering staff processes LCUASS variances as part of the PUD application, and the City Engineer is the decision maker on those variances. PUD Review Process Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 9 Section 2.15 of the Land Use Code outlines the review process for PUD applications. Applicants must hold two neighborhood meetings: one prior to submittal of a formal development application and one after one round of staff review. The Planning & Zoning Board is the decision maker on PUDs from 50 – 640 acres in size. For PUDs over 640 acres, the Planning & Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council, with City Council rendering a final decision. Because the Montava PUD is greater than 640 acres in size, City Council is the decision maker on this application. PUD Review Criteria In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan and the PUD Overlay with which the Master Plan is associated, the decision maker must find that it satisfies the following criteria: a) The Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of the PUD ordinance; b) The Master Plan provides high quality urban design; c) The Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; d) The Master Plan will result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and e) The Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent that modifications or variances have been approved. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2.15, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REVIEW PROCEDURE PUD submittals must comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 2.15 of the Land Use Code. Montava has complied with all procedural requirements as follows: Conceptual Review Staff held a conceptual review meeting for Montava on October 11, 2018. Neighborhood Meetings Applicants seeking approval of a PUD Master Plan must conduct two neighborhood meetings. One must occur prior to submittal of a formal development application while the second must occur after one round of staff review. Staff convened two neighborhood meetings for Montava in accordance with the Land Use Code on October 11, 2018 and December 19, 2018. Application Submittal Montava submitted a formal development review application on October 23, 2018. Staff performed four rounds of review of the Montava PUD Master Plan. Notice All forms of notice have complied with the requirements of this section of the Land Use Code. Planning staff posted two signs (#392) on the Montava property on September 17, 2018. The boundary for notification extends more than 1,000 feet from the boundaries of Montava, exclusive of right-of-way. The mailing list contains 4,206 addresses. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT CITYWIDE (ARTICLE 3 STANDARDS) Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 10 Similar to ODPs, PUD Master Plans establish the overall land use, transportation and design framework for future development applications covered by the PUD. Most of the standards in Article 3 are addressed in subsequent PDPs. Staff will analyze each phase of the Montava development for compliance with Article 3 as part of each PDP submittal. Four Article 3 standards, however, require discussion at the PUD Master Plan level: Sections 3.4.8(C), 3.6.1, 3.6.4, and 3.7.3. Section 3.4.8(C) – Parks and Trails – General Standard Section 3.4.8(C) requires all development to provide for, accommodate or otherwise connect to the parks and trails identified in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan (2009) that are associated with the development site (both on- site and off-site). Montava plans for and shows that portion of the Number 8 Ditch regional trail that runs through the site. A series of trails runs throughout Montava, providing adequate off-street bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in accordance with this standard. The PUD Master Plan also accommodates the Northeast Community Park, as indicated in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. The Parks and Recreation Policy Plan indicates that this community park should be 100 acres in size. Montava proposes an 80-acre park instead. Staff finds the proposed 80-acre park is sufficient to meet future community park needs within the Mountain Vista Subarea. An amendment to the Parks and Recreation Policy Master Plan reflecting the smaller park size will accompany the PUD Master Plan for approval by City Council. Staff recommends a condition of approval making approval of the PUD Overlay contingent upon Council adoption of an amendment to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan reflecting the smaller, 80-acre park proposed by Montava. Section 3.6.1 – Master Street Plan This section of the Land Use Code requires compliance with the Master Street Plan (MSP). The existing infrastructure in northeast Fort Collins is under-developed to serve future needs in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Due to these existing conditions, significant changes and improvements are necessary to accommodate future anticipated growth and regional traffic. The applicant completed two documents related to transportation that inform the staff review and recommendation: • Transportation Report for a Master Street Plan Amendment (Attachment 17). This report reviews the whole northeast area, analyzes future growth, including buildout of Montava and other parcels as well as regional travel, and recommends necessary changes to the Master Street Plan in terms of general roadway locations and classifications. • Master Transportation Impact Study (TIS) (Attachment 9). This document is a typical Master TIS – it reviews the specific impact of Montava and identifies a list of improvements needed as the project develops. Specific intersection analysis and determination of the timing and responsibility for improvements will occur at the later PDP stages. Montava proposes numerous changes to the Master Street Plan, as outlined in the table below. The table identifies the streets and classifications called for as part of the applicant’s Master Street Plan amendment. Page 2-2 of the attached Master Street Plan Amendment provides a map showing the proposed changes described below. Location Request Type Current MSP Designation Recommended Designation Timberline Road 1. Conifer to Mountain Vista Drive 2. Mountain Vista Drive to Country Club Road 3. Country Club Road to Giddings Road Realignment Addition Addition Four-Lane Arterial n/a n/a Four-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Collector Giddings Road 4. Suniga Drive to Mountain Vista Dr Addition Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 11 Location Request Type Current MSP Designation Recommended Designation Turnberry Road 5. Mountain Vista Dr to Suniga Drive Addition n/a Two-Lane Arterial Mountain Vista Drive 6. Giddings to Timberline Road Realignment Four-Lane Arterial Four-Lane Arterial Conifer Street 7. Timberline to Giddings Addition n/a Two-Lane Collector Country Club Road 8. Timberline Road to Mountain Vista Realignment Two-Lane Collector Two-Lane Collector Maple Hill Road 9. Turnberry Road to Timberline Road Addition, Reclass n/a Two-Lane Collector Bar Harbor Drive1 10. Country Club Road to Conifer Deletion Two-Lane Collector n/a Vine Drive2 11. Connection to Suniga Realignment Two-Lane Arterial Two-Lane Arterial Canal Access Road 12. Vine Dr to Busch Dr Deletion Two-Lane Collector n/a Various Collectors 13. Within the Montava development Addition Two-Lane Collector Two-Lane Collector Notes: 1. In addition to the roadway deletion between Country Club and Mountain Vista, City staff recommends deleting Bar Harbor between Mountain Vista and Conifer, future development will determine a future collector location Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 12 improvement requirements, such as road widening and specific intersection geometric and traffic control improvements. • Upon full buildout, the Montava development will include about 4,000-5,000 residential dwelling units, 400,000 square feet of office and commercial uses, 100 acres of industrial uses, and a farm. Upon buildout, the overall vehicular trip generation from Montava onto the area roads could exceed 40,000 daily trips. • Internal to the development, a public street system of collector and local roads will manage trips that PDP submittals will address in detail. Access to the surrounding arterials will occur in three directions: east to Giddings Road, south to Mountain Vista, Giddings and Timberline, and north to Richards Lake Road. Neighborhood-scale streets will connect to the west towards Turnberry. • External to the development, the TIS reviewed the function and operations of area roadways and intersections. The report identifies improvements such as road widening (Timberline and Mountain Vista), new roads (Suniga, Turnberry extension), and numerous intersection improvements including new intersections, auxiliary turn lanes, signals and roundabouts. These intersection improvements would bring the PUD Master Plan into compliance with the City’s roadway and intersection Level of Service standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours. • The site is within the Fort Collins city limits but is adjacent to areas that remain in unincorporated Larimer County. Some impacted roadways are in the County’s jurisdiction (i.e. Country Club Road and others). The City is sensitive to the impact on County roads and has requested that Montava develop a transportation system that minimizes these impacts. Such improvements include a more robust and higher capacity road system to the south (Turnberry, Timberline and Giddings) and West (Suniga). The City will also require detailed intersection review at the PDP level of County intersections (such as Lemay / Country Club) to identify needed improvements and work cooperatively with the County. Detailed traffic review will be required with each PDP submittal. For bicycles and pedestrians, Montava will be incorporating bicycle and pedestrian elements in all new roadways, including internal roads and nearby area roads. This includes sidewalks as required by City standards (attached or detached) and bike lanes (including the potential for raised / protected bike lanes). The PUD Master Plan drawings show a trail system that can connect into future County trails. The Master TIS included an analysis of Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service, including walking and biking routes to school. Each phase of development will provide bike and pedestrian improvements as required to meet City standards. In summary, the increase in traffic due to the proposed development will be managed by a series of improvements over a long period of time as the phases are built. Upon completion, Montava will meet the Transportation Levels of Service (LOS) requirements. Section 3.7.3 – Adequate Public Facilities The purpose of the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) section of the Land Use Code is to ensure development projects provide public facilities and services concurrent with the impacts of the development. This means developments must provide adequate streets, access for emergency services, and utilities. As stated previously, PUDs do not grant approval to build any portion of the development. The applicant must file individual PDPs for each phase of the proposed development. At that time, staff will analyze each application for compliance with this section of the Land Use Code. At a high level, however, staff has worked with the applicant, utility providers, and emergency services to ensure compliance with the Adequate Public Facilities provisions of the Land Use Code at the PUD Master Plan level. East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District and Boxelder Sanitation District have indicated their ability to serve Montava (attachment 39). Significant regional stormwater improvements are identified in the Cooper Slough Master Drainageway Plan, which impact the Montava property. As part of the development, Montava will be partnering with the City to design and construct these improvements using a phased approach. Since Montava will also be using regional improvements to satisfy a portion of their onsite stormwater requirements, it is anticipated the improvements will be funded as part of a cost share agreement between Montava and the City. The Master TIS identified roadway/intersection improvements needed to meet Adequate Public Facilities standards upon buildout. Each phase of the development must construct improvements associated with that phase compliant with APF requirements. If a needed improvement is not feasible or proportional, then the City would determine an Alternative Mitigation Strategy, such as alternate mode Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 13 improvements, fee in lieu, or other options. APF and its specific applications will apply at the PDP stage. Montava meets the requirements of the Land Use Code at the PUD Master Plan level. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH DIVISION 4.29, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY PUD Master Plan Review Procedure – 4.29(D) PUD applications must comply with the general review criteria in section 4.29(D)(2), further described below. Section 4.29(D)(2)(a): The PUD Master Plan must achieve the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 (A) and (B). Sections 4.29(A) and (B) contain several statements providing the purpose and objectives of a PUD Master Plan. The Code language reads: 4.29(A) – Purpose 1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. 2) Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for real property within an approved PUD Overlay. 3) Positions large areas of property for phased development. 4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards. 5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards. 4.29(B) – Objectives 1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. 2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits significantly greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: 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 f. Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies 3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics 4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area 5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. Montava achieves the purpose and objectives of 4.29(A) and (B). Montava will be the largest development in the history of Fort Collins in terms of land area. The PUD Master Plan establishes a phased approach to achieve build out of the entire Montava community. Per the applicant’s design narrative, Montava would be the largest net zero ready development in the country upon build out. Montava’s proposed mix of uses, variety of housing, system of open space, pedestrian orientation, incorporation of urban agriculture, energy efficient design, and unique design standards would all be firsts in Fort Collins at this scale. The PUD Master Plan would ensure a holistic approach to achieving the unique vision of Montava. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 14 Section 4.29(D)(2)(b): The PUD Master Plan must provide high quality urban design within the subject property or properties. Montava proposes a unique approach to urban design for Fort Collins. Montava employs a transect model for establishing unique districts throughout the development. The transect concept reflects traditional development patterns with higher density, more intense uses at the core of the community with reduced density and intensity toward the edge of the community. Rather than land use dictating design, Montava proposes a design that varies by transect zone irrespective of land use. This approach is also known as a form-based design . Within each transect zone, buildings may have different frontage types that allow for subtle variety while retaining a cohesive feel to each transect zone. In Transect Zone 5, for example, buildings may be built to the back of the sidewalk, akin to Downtown Fort Collins. Transect Zone 3.2, however, requires a sixteen-foot setback, establishing a character distinct from that of other transect zones. Landscaping also varies in each transect zone along with allowable projections into setback areas, fencing, building height, window requirements, lot size, and other design features. Staff finds this approach will result in a high-quality and cohesive urban design for the entire Montava development. Section 4.29(D)(2)(c): The PUD Master Plan must result in development generally in compliance with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. Montava’s narrative contains the applicant’s assessment of the development’s compliance with City Plan, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, and Climate Action Plan. Attachment 35 contains all applicable principles and policies from City Plan, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and Nature in the City Strategic Plan. Staff finds the PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with City Plan and other adopted plans and policies provided Council amends the Mountain Vista Sub-Area Plan, Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, and Master Street Plan as previously in conjunction with this application. Section 4.29(D)(2)(d): The PUD Master Plan must, within the PUD Overlay, result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities. Montava achieves compatibility within the PUD Overlay through the placement and organization of the various transect zones along with the design standards and proposed uses for each transect zone. Montava proposes denser, more intense uses in Transect Zone 5 at the core of the community, with lower density and intensity toward the edges of the development. Each transect zone also has specific design standards to all future development, regardless of land use. This form-based approach to regulation ensures each building is compatible with others within the zone. Montava’s permitted use list reflects the concept of allowing the most intense uses in the town center with intensity decreasing towards the development’s edge. A more in-depth analysis of the permitted uses sought by Montava is described in greater detail later in this report. At a high level, all of the public infrastructure proposed for Montava meets the requirements of the PUD Overlay code section. Staff supports the framework of streets and amendments to the Master Street Plan to implement these changes to the street network as proposed by the applicant. Montava proposes a number of different street types that closely mirror those required by the LCUASS. As part of this PUD Master Plan, Montava sought a variance to five street sections in LCUASS as well as approval for one new street section, which have been approved by the City Engineer. The proposed cross-sections can accommodate all utility providers, so Montava will have the physical space to provide adequate utility service and stormwater conveyance. Montava also provides an adequate trail system in accordance with this standard (Attachment 20). The Trails Master Plan identifies a regional trail running along the Number 8 Ditch through Montava; the plans demonstrate this trail connection in accordance with the Trails Master Plan. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 15 Section 4.29(D)(2)(e): The PUD Master Plan must be consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3), except to the extent such development standards have been modified or are inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. Section 5 of this staff report outlined compliance with three relevant Article 3 standards. Later sections of this staff report will discuss the modification requests to Article 3 and how they comply with the Land Use Code. Staff finds Montava complies with this provision. Permitted Uses – 4.29(E) PUD Master Plans may propose that any use allowed in the underlying zone district be vested or guaranteed into the future. PUD Master Plans may propose additional uses, along with their proposed level of review. Attachment 40 shows the permitted uses and their level of review for the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, Employment, and Industrial zones. The applicant must demonstrate that each use satisfies the criteria found in section 4.29(E)(2) of the Land Use Code: a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; and b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay. d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay. Rather than use the underlying zoning, Montava utilizes the concept of transect zones to organize the development. The transect zone concept is a central tenet of New Urbanism. Traditionally, towns developed with more intense uses at the core with a reduction in development intensity towards the periphery. Montava borrows this framework to establish distinct areas of the development with a unified look and feel. Transect zone 2 represents areas more rural in character with transect zone 5 accommodating development more akin to a main street or town center. Each proposed transect zone includes additional uses beyond what the underlying zone district permits. What follows is a discussion of how the proposed additional uses meet the aforementioned criteria. Additional Uses in the Industrial (I) Zone Montava proposes the following uses in addition to those permitted in the Industrial (I) zone: • Single-family Detached Residential • Accessory Dwelling Units • Single-family Attached Residential • Multi-family Residential • Bed and breakfast up to 6 beds • Lodging Establishment • Farm Animals • Value-added Agriculture • Food Membership Distribution Site • Open-air Farmers Market • Neighborhood Support/Recreation Facilities Every transect zone sits atop a portion of land zoned Industrial (I). Montava proposes a community with a different character than contemplated by the I zone. Much of the land close to the Anheuser-Busch plant was designated Industrial due to its proximity to the plant. Both City Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 16 envisioned a desire for other industrial uses close to the I-25/Mountain Vista Drive interchange and other existing industrial uses. As discussed in the recent City Plan Update employment and land supply analysis, industrial and office users now look for different attributes when selecting a development site. Both plans also recognize the need for additional residential development in Northeast Fort Collins, with an activity center located between Turnberry Road and I-25 on Mountain Vista Drive. To balance these priorities, Montava proposes a neighborhood development pattern north of Mountain Vista Drive, with an industrial park south of Anheuser-Busch. Transect Zone 5 would allow Light Industrial uses, subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board, to allow some level of industrial activity within the town center. A natural area would line the eastern boundary of Montava to provide a buffer between the development and Anheuser-Busch. At its narrowest, the natural area would provide a roughly 400-foot buffer. This allows for ample industrial development opportunities near Anheuser-Busch while providing an adequate buffer between the plant and Montava. The proposed additional uses are common in a neighborhood with a commercial focal point, and these uses would support City Plan’s vision for new neighborhoods. The exception is the allowance for farm animals and value-added agriculture, both of which would support the working farm. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan promotes development that supports the agricultural roots of the area, and the working farm fulfills this policy direction. The proposed uses are compatible with one another. More intense uses, such as lodging establishments and the two farm-related uses, must locate away from existing neighborhoods so as to minimize the impact on adjacent neighborhoods. None of the proposed uses degrade the natural environment more than any other permitted uses. For these reasons and by fulfilling the policies outlined in City Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, these proposed uses are appropriate for the Montava PUD Master Plan. Additional Uses in the Employment (E) Zone Montava proposes the following uses in addition to those permitted in the Employment (E) zone:: • Accessory Dwelling Units • Neighborhood Support/Recreation Facilities The purpose of the Employment (E) zone is to provide an area for primary employers. The E zone would consider the proposed uses as non-primary uses. Non-primary uses may make up only 25% of projects in the E zone. Montava proposes most of the land zoned E be locations for a series of neighborhoods, commercial development, and schools. Most of these uses are also non-primary uses in the E zone. City Plan policy states the need for more Accessory Dwelling Units and supports small-scale recreation opportunities and gathering spaces within neighborhoods. Both of these uses also fit into the neighborhood context envisioned by Montava. Accessory Dwelling Units add to the mix of housing, while Neighborhood Support/Recreation Facilities provide support space and recreation opportunities close to neighborhoods. Neither use detracts from the natural environment. Both uses are compatible with the other uses within the development and in adjacent neighborhoods. As such, both uses are appropriate for the Montava PUD Master Plan. Additional Uses in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone Montava proposes the following uses in addition to those permitted in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone. Transect Zones 5 and 4 cover land zoned LMN. The uses in bold text are proposed in Transect Zone 4. All of the uses listed below are proposed in Transect Zone 5: • Accessory Dwelling Units • Multi-family Buildings Over 14 Units • Inn up to 12 Rooms • Light Industrial • Workshop and Custom Small Industry • Parking Garage, Lots, and Structures Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 17 • Plant Nurseries and Greenhouses These transect zones serve a different function than the LMN zone. City Plan envisions neighborhoods as the building blocks of Fort Collins. Neighborhoods surround districts that provide amenities and jobs to the community as expressed in City Plan. As for LMN neighborhoods, City Plan states: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a predominance of low- density housing combined with complementary neighborhood serving uses that are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods are intended to meet a wide range of everyday living needs for residents, providing a variety of housing choices, gathering places, services and conveniences, neighborhood parks, and other amenities in a compact setting that encourages walking, bicycling, and transit use. A Neighborhood Commercial District or non-retail neighborhood center, such as a school, recreation facility, park, or other gathering place provides a focal point. Montava proposes a community layout that differs from the existing zone district boundaries. Transect Zone 5 forms the nucleus of the development around the intersection of Timberline and Mountain Vista, with a small pocket of this transect west of the working farm. This zone allows the highest intensity and density uses with a more urban character. Transect Zone 4 wraps around Transect Zone 5, providing supportive residential density and neighborhood-scale commercial uses. Transect Zone 5 is a logical location for all of the proposed additional uses. As the focal point for the community, each of the uses supports Montava’s vision for a dynamic town center that caters to a wide range of needs in the community. Since Transect Zone 4 buffers Transect Zone 5 from adjacent neighborhoods, more intense uses will have minimal impact on adjacent neighborhoods. These uses also help make Montava a walkable, vibrant community as envisioned by City Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The uses proposed in Transect Zone 4 support the town center and Montava’s overall vision by permitting uses limited in their intensity and density. One section of Transect Zone 4, however, poses challenges with compatibility to the abutting Storybook neighborhood. Storybook lines Montava’s western edge, south of the future Northeast Regional Park. The edge of Storybook consists entirely of single-family detached homes. Montava proposes Transect Zone 4 lots with roughly 100- foot depths abutting Storybook. Twelve-room inns and multi-family buildings with more than 14 units would be atypical in a LMN neighborhood. Transect Zone 4’s design standards mitigate the impact of these proposed uses, along with the shallow lots. The maximum building height in Transect Zone 4 is three stories. LMN permits three-story non-residential and multi-family buildings and 2.5 story single-family detached buildings. Transect Zone 4 requires a minimum eight-foot setback from the front property line. Parking stalls must be at least 18 feet deep with an adjoining, 23-foot minimum drive aisle. The building setback, parking stall, and drive aisle reduces the buildable area of the lot by 49% along Storybook’s edge. Uses with a higher parking requirement could also need a second row of parking, reducing the buildable lot area by another 18%. This reduces the practicality of locating inns and multi-family along Storybook’s edge. Given these constraints, staff finds that the proposed uses, in conjunction with the proposed design standards, would be compatible with existing adjacent neighborhoods. None of the proposed additional uses adversely impact the natural environment. Montava’s site design, design standards, and location of transects ensure compatibility with other uses within Montava and surrounding neighborhoods. Staff finds the proposed uses are appropriate for the Montava PUD Master Plan. All Commercial/Retail Uses Under 2,000 Square Feet in Transect Zone 4 Montava proposes allowing all commercial/retail uses permitted in the underlying zoning in Transect Zone 4 as long as the use is under 2,000 square feet, subject to a Type I Administrative Hearing Officer review. The LMN, E, and I zones permit the following commercial/retail uses: • Adult day/respite care centers • Adult-oriented uses • Animal boarding Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 18 • Artisan and photography studios and galleries • Bars and taverns • Bed and breakfast establishments with six (6) or fewer beds • Bed and breakfast establishments. • Child care centers • Clubs and lodges • Community facilities • Convenience retail stores • Convenience retail stores with fuel sales • Convenience shopping centers • Convention and conference center • Day shelters, provided that they do not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet and are located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of a Transfort route • Dog day-care facilities • Drive-in restaurants • Enclosed mini-storage facilities • Equipment rental without outdoor storage • Equipment, truck and trailer rental establishments • Food catering or small food product preparation • Frozen food lockers • Funeral homes • Gasoline stations • Grocery store • Health and membership clubs • Indoor kennels • Limited indoor recreation establishments • Lodging establishments • Microbrewery/distillery/winery • Mixed-use dwelling units • Music studios • Neighborhood support/recreation facilities • Offices, financial services and clinics • Open-air farmers market • Parking lots and parking garages (as a principal use) • Personal and business service shops • Places of worship or assembly • Plant nurseries and greenhouses • Plumbing, electrical and carpenter shops • Print shops • Recreational uses • Retail and supply yard establishments with outdoor storage • Retail stores • Retail stores with vehicle servicing • Sales and leasing of mobile homes, farm implements, heavy excavation equipment • Schools • Small animal veterinary facilities • Standard and fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through facilities) • Unlimited indoor recreational uses and facilities • Vehicle and boat sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage • Vehicle major repair, servicing and maintenance establishments • Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics • Veterinary hospitals Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 19 Depending on which portion of Transect Zone 4 designated land, the underlying zoning may not allow these uses. Section 2.3 of the applicant’s proposed PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards prohibits some of the uses listed above. Those uses appear in the above list highlighted in bold. Montava’s objective in allowing small commercial and retail spaces in Transect Zone 4 is to add to the mix of uses in each neighborhood, at a neighborhood-appropriate scale. A fine-grain mix of uses leads to efficient and diverse use of the land, in accordance with the PUD Overlay objectives. Two uses listed above could have a negative impact on the natural environment: gas stations and convenience stores with fuel sales can cause soil contamination due to their underground storage tanks. In both cases, the 2,000 square foot limitation on the size of the use makes it practically infeasible to build either use in Transect Zone 4. At the scale proposed, staff finds the proposed uses in Transect Zone 4 are appropriate for the Montava PUD Master Plan. All Industrial and Employment Uses in the Industrial and Employment Special District Montava proposes all permitted uses within both the Industrial and Employment zones within the Montava Industrial and Employment Special District on the south end of the development. This land currently has Employment zoning. The uses this would add to the district are: • Adult day/respite care centers • Adult-oriented uses • Airports and airstrips • Animal boarding • Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided that they are at least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three quarters [¾] of a mile) from any other such use and from any fueling station • Day shelters, provided that they do not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet and are located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of a Transfort route • Equipment rental without outdoor storage • Equipment, truck and trailer rental establishments • Facility for medical marijuana research and development cultivation • Farm implement and heavy equipment sales • Frozen food lockers • Gasoline stations • Heavy industrial uses • Indoor kennels • Junk yards • Major public facilities • Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations • Medical marijuana research and development facility • Medical marijuana testing facility • Medical marijuana-infused product manufacturers • Music facility, multi-purpose • Outdoor storage facilities • Plumbing, electrical and carpenter shops • Recreational uses • Recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage • Recycling facilities • Research laboratories • Resource extraction, processes and sales establishments • Retail and supply yard establishments with outdoor storage • Retail marijuana cultivation facility • Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility • Retail marijuana testing facility • Retail stores with vehicle servicing • Sales and leasing of mobile homes, farm implements, heavy excavation equipment Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 20 • Transport terminals (truck terminals, public works yards, container storage) • Unlimited indoor recreational uses and facilities • Vehicle and boat sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage • Vehicle major repair, servicing and maintenance establishments • Vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance establishments • Wildlife rescue and education centers All of the uses above would help retain opportunities for industrial users to locate in northeast Fort Collins, per the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and City Plan. Many of these uses do pose potential issues related to their impact on the natural environment. Staff would analyze these impacts during PDP review. Land Use Code section 3.4 would apply and would ensure that human health, natural habitats and other environmental resources would be protected. These uses would be compatible with other uses in Montava in that they sit apart from the rest of the development. Mountain Vista Drive and the proposed natural area separate this special district from the rest of the development. The Anheuser-Busch brewery lies north of the special district, which is compatible with the proposed uses for this special district. All permitted uses in the Employment and Industrial zones are appropriate for the property. Nearly all of Montava has Employment or Industrial zoning currently. Without the PUD Master Plan, Montava could develop any of the uses listed above on land with Industrial zoning. This proposal merely confines most of the Industrial uses permitted under the Land Use Code to an area that will have the least impact on adjacent properties and in closest proximity to Anheuser- Busch and I-25. Modification of Densities and Development Standards – 4.29(G) PUD Master Plans may seek modifications to density requirements in Article 4 as well as Article 3 development standards. Section 4.29 contains its own set of modification criteria for PUD Master Plans that supersedes the modification criteria in section 2.8 of the Land Use Code. These modification criteria are: (a) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the applicable purposes, and advance the applicable objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The modified density or development standard significantly advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; (c) The modified density or development standard is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; and (d) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. Montava proposes higher densities than permitted in the LMN zone. Montava also proposes design standards that replace significant portions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. Montava seeks modification or replacement of the following standards with replacement by the following sections of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards application document: Land Use Code Standard Replacement/Modified Standard Site Planning and Design Standards 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) - Full Tree Stocking Section 5.8 - Frontage 3.2.1(E)(1) - Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities Section 7.2 - Modifications to Land Use Code Standards 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) - Foundation Plantings Section 7.2 - Modifications to Land Use Code Standards 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Section 7.2 - Modifications to Land Use Code Standards 3.2.2(K) - Parking Lots - Required Number of Off- Street Spaces for Type of Use Section 6.5 - Required Vehicular Parking 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions Section 6.7 - Vehicular Parking Lot Design 3.2.3 - Solar Access, Orientation, Shading N/A, remove standard 3.2.4 - Site Lighting Section 5.12 - Exterior Lighting Building Standards Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 21 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility, all except (I) and (J) Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings, Chapter 9 – Architectural Character 3.5.2 - Residential Building Standards, all except (D) Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings 3.5.3 - Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings Supplementary Regulations 3.8.7 - Signs Chapter 8 – Signage 3.8.8 - Lots Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings 3.8.9 - Yards Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings 3.8.10 - Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements Section 6.5 – Required Vehicular Parking 3.8.11 - Fences and Walls Section 5.10 – Fencing and Walls 3.8.14 - Preemption Uses Refer to the uses not permitted under Chapter 2 - Use, and to compliance with all development standards of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.15 - Housing Model Variety Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings 3.8.17 - Building Height Section 5.6 – Height 3.8.19 - Setback Regulations Section 5.5 – Setbacks 3.8.25 - Permitted Uses; Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses Refer to the applicable standards of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards 3.8.26 - Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units Oil and Gas modification request, Attachment 34 3.8.28 - Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations Allow extra occupancy rental houses in Transect T4 subject to the occupancy limits and separation requirements of the LMN zone, and modified to allow extra occupancy rental houses in Transect T5 subject to the occupancy limits and separation requirements of the MMN zone, with both subject to basic development review and the occupancy restriction contained in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.30 - Multi-family and Single-family Attached Dwelling Development Standards Chapter 5 – Lots and Buildings, Chapter 10 – Civic Space 3.8.34 - Short Term Rentals Chapter 2 – Use, Section 6.5 – Required Vehicular Parking Zone District and Density Standards Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 9 Division 4.27 - Employment District (E) Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 9 Division 4.28 - Industrial District (I) Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 9 The proposed modifications all work in concert to fulfill the vision of Montava. Montava proposes a form-based approach to regulation rather than the use-based approach found in the Land Use Code. The modified development standards reflect this design approach. The following section starts with a comparison of the proposed modifications with the requirements of the Land Use Code. An analysis follows that addresses compliance with Section 4.29(G) by taking all modifications into account rather than a standard-by-standard approach. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 22 environmental contribution to the public realm. Instead, Montava proposes a set of frontage types that each have specific landscaping requirements. Most of the proposed frontage types require landscaping consistent with Land Use Code standards. The frontage types permitted in Transect Zone 5 fall below the requirements of the full tree stocking standard. This is due to the reduced building setbacks and lack of landscaped area on private lots between buildings and the sidewalk allowed in these frontage types. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) - Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities The purpose of this standard is to ensure more intense developments provide a buffer between their activities and adjacent properties. This standard contemplates redevelopment or infill scenarios, rather than master planned communities with coordinated design. This standard also provides the Director discretion for when to invoke this standard. Montava seeks relief from this standard as it imposes practical difficulties due to the landform of Transect Zones 5, 4, 3.2, and 3.1. Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) - Foundation Plantings The purpose of the foundation plantings requirement is to screen exposed sections of building walls. Montava requests three exemptions to this standard: • Buildings in Transect Zone 5, which have little to no setback from sidewalks • Where building walls are located within five feet of lot lines • Where walls or fencing visually obscure the building wall from view at frontages Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The purpose of this standard is to minimize the visual impact of parking lots in the public realm and mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. Developments may also meet this requirement by using low walls or fences. Similar to the foundation plantings modification, Montava seeks three exemptions to the parking lot perimeter landscaping standard: • Residential uses in T5 do not require screening • Non-residential uses do not require screening • Mid-block parking lots in T5 only require screening from streets Transect Zones 3.2, 4, and 5 permit uses that could necessitate a parking lot. Off-street parking in Transect Zones 3.2, 4, and 5 must provide fencing or line the parking lot with buildings to provide screening per section 6.3 and 6.4 of the PUD Design Standards. At issue is the provision of landscape screening on side lot lines between properties. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities The purpose of this code section is to provide ample bike parking throughout Fort Collins. The table below provides a comparison of Montava’s proposed bicycle parking requirements found in Section 6.10 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards and the requirements of this Land Use Code section. Use Min. Required Min. Required Proposed Min. Enclosed Required Min. Enclosed Proposed Restaurant/bar Fast food - 1.5/1,000 sq. ft. Standard - 1/1,000 sq. ft. Bar - 1/500 sq. ft. 1/1,000 sq. ft. 0% 0% General 1/4,000 sq. ft. 1 / 4,000 sq. ft. 20% 0% Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 23 retail/commercial Section 3.2.2(K) - Parking Lots – Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use The City’s off-street parking requirements aim to provide a right-sized parking solution by land use. The Montava Design Standards provide minimum parking requirements based on land use as well, but with different requirements based on transect zone for residential uses. Residential Parking Standards Section 3.2.2(K) requires the following for residential parking: Attached Dwelling Parking Requirements (Non-TOD) 1 bedroom or less 1.5 spaces 2 bedrooms 1.75 spaces 3 bedrooms 2 spaces 4 bedrooms or more 3 spaces Attached Dwelling Parking Requirements (TOD) 1 bedroom or less 0.75 spaces 2 bedrooms 1 spaces 3 bedrooms 1.25 spaces 4 bedrooms or more 1.5 spaces Rent by the bedroom projects 0.75 spaces per bedroom Single-family Detached Homes 40 ft. or less of frontage 2 spaces More than 40 ft. of frontage 1 space Parking spaces may only count towards meeting these minimums if residents incur no extra fee for parking. Outside of the Transit Oriented Development Overlay (TOD), the Land Use Code stipulates no maximum parking for residential. Within the TOD, the maximum parking is 115% of the minimum required parking. Units affordable to households earning less than 60% AMI only need to provide half the parking required in the TOD. Section 3.8.10 also contains parking requirements for single-family and two-family homes, consistent with the aforementioned parking requirements. Montava proposes the following parking requirements for residential projects by transect zone. All numbers correspond to the amount of spaces required per dwelling unit: Use T5 T4 T3.2 T3.1 Single-family Detached n/a 1.5 2 2 Single-family Attached 1 1.5 2 n/a Accessory Dwelling Units 0.5 1 1 n/a Multi-family 0.75 1 1.5 n/a Affordable Housing 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 Montava’s parking requirements do not consider the number of bedrooms for attached housing. Instead, Montava proposes minimum parking per dwelling unit with higher requirements for development further away from the town center. Transect Zone 5 proposes a shared parking district to offset some of the parking demand in the town center. Section 6.3 of the Montava PUD Design Standards allow on-street parking to count towards meeting the parking minimums in Transect zones 3.2 and 4. Similarly, Section 6.4 allows on-street parking in the Transect zone 5 to count towards meeting the parking minimums if these on-street spaces are within 800 feet of the use. Parking in Transect zones 3.1, 3.2, and 4 would be largely consistent with current Land Use Code standards. Transect zone 5 proposes the most divergence from the Land Use Code standard and would require modifications for virtually all residential development. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 24 Non-Residential Parking Standards Montava’s proposed non-residential parking requirements compare to the Land Use Code as follows: Use Range per Land Use Code Range per Design Standards Restaurant/Bar 5 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 10 / 1,000 sq. ft. 5 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 10 / 1,000 sq. ft. General Commercial 2 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 4 / 1,000 sq. ft. 2 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 4 / 1,000 sq. ft. Office 1 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 3 / 1,000 sq. ft. 1 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 4 / 1,000 sq. ft. Light Industry/Workshop 1 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 2 / 1,000 sq. ft. 1 / 1,000 sq. ft. – 4 / 1,000 sq. ft. Industrial 0.5 per employee – 0.75 per employee 0.5 per employee minimum Lodging 0.5 per key – 1 per key 0.5 per key – 1 per key Section 3.2.3 - Solar Access, Orientation, Shading Montava seeks general relief from the solar access, orientation, and shading standards. The purpose of this Land Use Code standard is to allow homeowners to retrofit their homes with solar panels and encourage home design that employs passive heating and cooling methods that are more energy efficient than a typical home. Chapters 5 and 9 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards address the various elements of the solar access, orientation, and shading standards found in the Land Use Code. Chapter 5 establishes setbacks, building height, lot size, and building orientation requirements for the whole development. Chapter 9 discusses architectural character and requires solar orientation when practical throughout the development. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting Montava proposes alternative standards for site lighting. Land Use Code section 3.2.4 establishes appropriate lighting levels and design standards for a variety of contexts along with an allowance for alternative compliance. Section 3.2.4 aims to prevent over lighting and support Fort Collins’s vision for protecting the night sky from light pollution. Section 5.12 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards detail the proposed Montava lighting regulations. Montava’s lighting standards are largely consistent with the Land Use Code, with the exception of allowing uplighting in limited cases. Division 3.5 - Building Standards Division 3.5 of the Land Use Code comprises general architectural standards for all projects and specific building standards for residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional, large retail establishments, and convenience shopping centers. Rather than apply building design standards based on use, Montava proposes building standards that vary by transect. What this allows Montava to accomplish is a unique feel for every neighborhood within the community. Each section of Division 3.5 contains standards that address myriad topics including setbacks, architectural compatibility, orientation to the street, and lot size, amongst others. In the following section, the comparison between existing Land Use Code standards and proposed design standards will focus on each component of the proposed design standards for Montava and which element of 3.5 it will replace. Lot Size Section 3.5.2(E) establishes dimensional requirements for residential projects. Section 3.8.6(A) requires minimum lot sizes based on zone district for group homes, which Montava proposes in Transect Zones 4 and 5. Montava proposes lot sizes that vary by transect as follows. District Width Depth (Minimum) Area (Maximum) T5 20 feet min. 500 feet max. 30 feet 200,000 square feet Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 25 T4 20 feet min. 250 feet max. 50 feet 60,000 square feet T3.2 30 feet min. 70 feet N/A T3.1 50 feet min. 80 feet N/A Setbacks Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 require setbacks based on land use and the street frontage classification as shown in the following tableclassification. Use Arterial Non-arterial < Full Arterial > Full Arterial Residential 30 feet min. 15 feet min. N/A N/A Multi-family 15 feet min. 9 feet min. N/A N/A Commercial, Mixed-use, Institutional N/A N/A 15 feet max. 10 – 25 feet Montava proposes setbacks that vary by transect and building type as follows. District Building Front Side Street Side Rear Rear Alley T5 All 2 feet min. 12 feet max. 2 feet min. 12 feet max. 0 feet or 5 feet min. 0 feet min. 0 feet min. T4 Principal Buildings 8 feet min. 16 feet max. 2 feet min. 0 feet or 5 feet min. 0 feet min. 0 feet min. T4 Outbuildings 2 feet min. 2 feet min. 0 feet or 5 feet min. 0 feet min. 0 feet min. T3.2 Principal Buildings 12 feet min. 6 feet min. 6 feet min. 12 feet min. 0 feet min. T3.2 Outbuildings 2 feet min. 4 feet min. 6 feet min. 6 feet min. 0 feet min. T3.1 Principal Buildings 16 feet min. 10 feet min. 10 feet min. 12 feet min. 20 feet min. T3.1 Outbuildings 30 feet min. 6 feet min. 6 feet min. 6 feet min. 3 feet min. Additionally, Montava proposes the following setbacks based on land use and street frontage type: • 30-foot setback from arterial streets for single-family residential buildings except where exterior walls exceed STC 50 • 15-foot setback from arterial streets for multi-family residential buildings except where exterior walls exceed STC 50 • 15-foot setback from arterial streets for residential components of mixed-use buildings except where exterior walls exceed STC 50. Buildings may use a stepback to also achieve this standard. STC 50 refers to Sound Transmission Class walls with a rating of 50. STC ratings indicate how well walls attenuate sound. STC 50 walls provide enough sound proofing for residents to hear loud sounds next door faintly. Architectural Character Controls for architectural character are found throughout the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Chapter 9 of the Montava Design Standards addresses architectural design at a broad level. This chapter establishes requirements for building materials, openings, foundations, solar orientation, mechanical equipment and refuse storage, and outbuildings. Chapter 5 legislates for lot dimensions, setbacks, building orientation, building height, and frontages within each transect zone. Each of these design elements drive the form buildings may take. Division 3.5 of the Land Use Code goes into greater detail about architectural standards based on use. Based on the applicant’s modification request, Chapter 9 of Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 26 the Montava Design Standards would modify all standards in Article 3 that regulate architecture. These standards are: • 3.5.1(A) - (I): Provides standards all developments must adhere to with respect to building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale, materials, color, and privacy considerations • 3.5.2(F) and 3.5.2(G): Design of various types of garage doors • 3.5.3(D) and 3.5.3(E): Require variations in massing along with regulations for wall articulation, facades, entrances, awnings, base and top treatments, encroachments, drive thru lane width, and illumination Section 3.8.7 - Signs The City’s sign standards are designed to mitigate the impact of commercial signs in zone districts that are primarily residential. Montava’s overall design mixes commercial and residential uses, blurring separations between both. Overall, the requests for modification of selected sign standards alleviate the separation requirements that would naturally occur in other parts of the city and provide an equal opportunity for signs. Section 3.8.9 - Yards Section 3.8.9 of the Land Use Code limits architectural projections and solar panels and associated equipment to extending no more than three feet into a required yard. Fire escapes may extend no more than six feet into a required yard. Table 5.8-5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards allows various architectural projections to extend further into a required yard than Section 3.8.9. Some of these projections include enclosed porches, stoops, terraces, and awnings. These projections allow for a more urban, intimate feel for the community. Section 3.8.10 - Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements This section of the Land Use Code mirrors requirements in 3.2.2(K) as discussed earlier in this staff report. Section 3.8.11 - Fences and Walls Section 3.8.11 requires fencing and walls to be no closer than two feet from the back of sidewalk. Montava would permit fencing and walls to be within two feet of sidewalks in Transect zones 4 and 3.2. Montava also proposes varying fencing requirements based on frontage type. Section 3.8.11 only dictates height requirements based on where the fence is located on the lot. Fences and walls could also rise to a height of eight feet in Transect Zone 5. The Land Use Code would not allow a fence taller than six feet without some sort of demonstrated, unique security purpose. Section 3.8.14 - Preemption Uses This section of the Land Use Code prescribes a review process for unpermitted uses that must be allowed because of preemption by a sovereign jurisdiction or court order. Montava proposes this section reference the permitted use list and development standards found in the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Section 3.8.15 - Housing Model Variety 3.8.15 does not apply to lots created after March 27, 1997. Since Montava is creating new lots after that date, Montava does not need to seek a modification to this standard. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 27 Section 3.8.17 - Building Height Section 3.8.17 outlines how to measure height, maximum heights for stories, construction methods for various structures, and exemptions from building height regulations. Montava proposes replacement of this section with section 5.6 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Section 3.8.19 - Setback Regulations This Land Use Code section identifies allowed features within setbacks and provides for alternative setbacks in three instances: contextual front setbacks, front setbacks on corner lots, and setback reductions for public purpose. Chapter 5 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards would replace Section 3.8.19. Sections 5.5 and 5.8 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards establish setback requirements by transect and projections allowed within setbacks based on frontage type. Section 3.8.25 - Permitted Uses; Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses The applicant proposes modifying this standard to instead refer to the applicable standards of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Section 3.8.26 - Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Buildings The purpose of section 3.8.26 is to separate residential land uses and high occupancy building units from existing industrial uses through buffering, in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, air pollutants, hazardous materials or site contamination, or danger from fires or explosions. City Council adopted Ordinance No. 114, 2018, increasing the buffer distance for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) designated setback distance, adding a new 1,000-foot or COGCC setback distance for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations, providing options for reduced buffers from permanently plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells, and creating an additional means of disclosure to future property owners as part of any required recorded declaration. Montava proposes a modification to this standard to allow for reduced oil and gas buffers of 150 feet from two on- site, permanently plugged and abandoned dry wells in the proposed limits of development. Buffer distances vary based on the intensity of the industrial use. The typical buffer distance for oil and gas operations (including plugged and abandoned wells) from residential development is 500 feet, and 1,000 feet for high occupancy building units. These standards can be reduced to 150 feet for permanently abandoned wells through an alternative compliance request, provided that a Buffer Reduction Plan is prepared which, at minimum: • Clearly identifies and discusses the proposed buffer reduction and ways the plan will equally well or better eliminate or minimize nuisances and reduce the adverse effects; and • Includes information regarding environmental testing and monitoring for the site. Montava is requesting a reduced buffer distance of 150 feet for two permanently abandoned oil wells located within the limits of the PUD Master Plan through a modification request. The two existing wells never produced oil or gas resources. The modification of standard request applies only to the two onsite abandoned well sites. The proposed Plan has demonstrated that it better eliminates potential nuisances and reduces adverse effects by: 1. Identifying and verifying locations of underground wells; 2. Minimizing grading in the areas near underground well sites; and 3. Conducting preliminary testing and documentation to ensure well sites meet applicable United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and State residential regulations. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 28 Soils and groundwater testing and documentation have been completed and found that the two onsite abandoned oil well sites meet applicable USEPA and State regulations. The applicant completed preliminary site testing through a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and ground penetrating radar techniques. City staff then received a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) summary report from TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) on June 19, 2019, for the two onsite abandoned wells. TRC reported that the investigation results demonstrate that the risk to human health or the environment does not exceed the USEPA, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) or Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) requirements. The Montava PUD Master Plan complies with the alternative compliance standards established in Section 3.8.26 of the Land Use Code; however, because alternative compliance would be determined at the time of a PDP, rather than at the PUD level, the Montava applicant requests a modification to this standard to guarantee a 150-foot buffer around the plugged and abandoned wells at this stage in the process. Staff has determined that 150-foot buffers, rather than the required 500-foot buffers would be appropriate for the two abandoned wells. The applicant also developed a Sampling and Monitoring Plan, which includes a requirement for five years of monitoring and soil testing post-construction. Future development plan submittals shall comply with the Montava PUD Sampling and Monitoring Plan for the two onsite abandoned wells. The PUD Master Plan shows no playgrounds, parks, recreational fields or community gathering spaces within the reduced 150- foot buffers. Future subdivision plats and project development plans for any property within 1,000 feet of existing oil wells must include a note informing future property owners that certain lots are in proximity to an existing oil well location. Section 3.8.28 - Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations Section 3.8.28 contains standards for extra occupancy rental houses by zone district. Montava seeks modifications as follows: • Allow extra occupancy rental houses in Transect Zone 4, subject to the occupancy limits and separation requirements of the LMN zone • Allow extra occupancy rental houses in Transect Zone 5, subject to the occupancy limits and separation requirements of the MMN zone • Extra Occupancy Rental Houses in both Transect Zones 4 and 5 would be subject to a basic development review and the occupancy restrictions contained in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. Section 3.8.30 - Multi-family and Single-family Attached Dwelling Development Standards The Land Use Code standards in Section 3.8.30 regulate the following: • Mix of housing types • Access to a park, central feature or gathering place • Block requirements • Building setbacks and height at certain intersections • Design standards, including: o Buffer yards o Variation among buildings o Variation in color o Entrances o Roofs Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 29 o Facades and walls o Colors and materials Montava proposes that multi-family and single-family attached dwellings would be subject to the same standards as any other building, and design standards would be determined based on transect zone. Section 3.8.34 - Short Term Rentals The applicant proposes this section of the Land Use Code refer to the permitted use list in the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards rather than those found in the Land Use Code. 3.8.34 refers to Article 4 of the Land Use Code as to where short term rentals may locate within the City. This proposed modified standard would use the permitted use list as part of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards instead. Montava also proposes no parking requirement for short term rentals. The Land Use Code requires one parking space for every two bedrooms rented on a short-term basis. Divisions 4.5, 4.27, and 4.28 – Density Standards Chapter 2 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards replaces all of the permitted use lists found in these divisions. Chapter 3 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards replaces all density requirements in each zone. LMN’s maximum density is 9 dwelling units per acre unless the development provides 10% of its units as affordable to households earning less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI), in which case the maximum is 12 dwelling units per acre. Phases 1a, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 4b of the Montava PUD Master Plan have minimum densities in excess of 9 dwelling units per acre. The remaining residential phases propose minimum densities of 7 dwelling units per acre but could exceed the LMN minimum density through the anticipated provision of Accessory Dwelling Units. All phases in the LMN zone, therefore, must seek a modification to the densities allowed in the zone. Chapters 5 and 9 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards replace all other requirements in each zone related to lots, site layout, and building design. Analysis of Modified Density and Development Standards The following section provides a synthesized analysis of all the modification of standard requests for the Montava PUD Master Plan, as described in the sections above. Section 4.29(G)(3)(a) - The modified density or development standard is consistent with the applicable purposes, and advance the applicable objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) The Montava PUD Master Plan is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the PUD Overlay. The foundation for the modification requests is a form-based approach to regulation rather than one that focuses primarily on land use. The Land Use Code contains elements of form-based codes by legislating for building design, site layout, and other urban design issues. Still, various categories of uses require different design treatments. Montava proposes transect zones with their own design characteristics. This means all buildings, irrespective of use, must conform to the design criteria for Montava. The result is areas of the development that have their own identity rather than design fluctuating on a lot-by-lot basis due to their use as prescribed by the Land Use Code. This approach meets the purpose and objective statements of the PUD Overlay as follows: Section 4.29(A)(1) - Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved PUD Master Plan The PUD Master Plan sets the stage for subsequent PDP and Final Plan submittals. The Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards provide all of the requisite design standards for subsequent Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 30 development proposals to follow. Staff finds that the design standards work in harmony to establish a unique, coordinated character for the development in an innovative way. Section 4.29(A)(2) - Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for real property within an approved PUD Overlay The Master Plan drawings show each phase of development to position the property to develop over time like an Overall Development Plan (ODP). The site drawings and design standards also show the general circulation pattern for vehicles, land use mix, range of densities, and protection of natural habitats and features that an ODP would show. Staff finds that these elements effectively substitute the PUD Master Plan for an ODP. Section 4.29(A)(3) - Positions large areas of property for phased development Montava establishes a phasing plan for the development on sheet 7 of the PUD Master Plan drawings (Attachment 3), in accordance with this standard. Section 4.29(A)(4) - Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards The Montava PUD Master Plan demonstrates innovation in community planning in Fort Collins. Montava integrates natural systems throughout the development. The working farm, natural area, Number 8 Ditch, and trail system are all integral to the site and improve upon existing conditions. The entire development is oriented to provide views of Long’s Peak and maintain adequate access to sunlight for active and passive solar energy systems. Montava’s design standards take a form-based approach to regulation rather than one based on use. These standards will yield districts with coordinated design and aesthetics regardless of the land uses present. Montava’s mix of uses and design approach would not be possible under the strict application of the Land Use Code. As outlined in Attachment 35, staff finds that Montava furthers the objectives of all applicable City plans, policies, and standards. Section 4.29(A)(5) - Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards This PUD Master Plan proposes numerous changes to the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and design standards as outlined earlier in the staff report. Section 4.29(B)(1) - Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas The PUD Master Plan provides the framework and high-level vision for developing the land within Montava’s boundaries in accordance with this standard. Section 4.29(B)(2) - In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits significantly greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: 1. Diversification in the use of land; 2. Innovation in development; 3. More efficient use of land and energy; 4. Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; 5. Furtherance of the City's adopted plans and policies; and 6. Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 31 Montava delivers public benefit in exchange for flexibility in site design. A major public benefit from Montava is a comprehensive, master-planned approach to development on a large swath of land. Absent a PUD Master Plan for this area, northeast Fort Collins would likely develop in a piece meal fashion, with little coordination among property owners. Montava provides a comprehensive framework for development along with proposed public improvements and amenities commensurate with the scope of development. These public improvements and amenities include: • Complete street network • Trail network • Three schools – elementary, middle, and high school • Natural area • Stormwater channels • Community park • Library • Fire station • Distributed open space One of the largest deviations from existing Land Use Code standards and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is the diverse range of uses proposed for the area. Most of Montava currently has Employment or Industrial zoning, which would not allow the range of residential uses and mixing of uses envisaged by the PUD Master Plan. While the Land Use Code allows and even incentivizes a mix of uses within neighborhoods, the Montava PUD Overlay would allow a wider range of uses in Transect Zones 4 and 5 and incentivizes the mixing of these uses through streamlined review processes. Montava also proposes agricultural uses along with a working farm, which is an innovative approach to providing community amenities within a development. The PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards are also unique in Fort Collins. No previous development project has approached urban design at this scale. Montava proposes a project with buildings closer to the sidewalk, creating a more intimate built environment that would be create a unique sense of place and vibrancy. Montava’s proposed residential densities and fine grain mix of uses result in a more efficient use of land than would be required by the Land Use Code; each residential phase of Montava would have higher densities than the typical neighborhood in Fort Collins. Transect Zones 4 and 5 allow a wider range of uses than the Land Use Code would permit in conjunction with unified design standards. The combination of these two features allow Montava to control for compatibility via design rather than through buffer yards and encourages the mixing of uses, resulting in a more efficient use of the land. As discussed in Attachment 35, staff finds that Montava furthers the City’s adopted plans and policies and the development pattern of Montava is also consistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies. Section 4.29(B)(3) - Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics One of the main design features of Montava is its orientation towards Long’s Peak. The result is a street grid that is off-axis with a distinct urban design. Generally, the site slopes from northwest to southeast. Montava proposes to take advantage of this topography to convey stormwater. These stormwater conveyance channels also feature trails, providing a convenient, safe alternative for people to get around Montava on foot or bike. The location of the working farm takes advantage of the best soils, located on the northeast corner of the site. The primary natural habitat and feature on the property, the Number 8 Ditch, would be both buffered and significantly enhanced as a wildlife and trail corridor. An Ecological Characterization Study for the project can be found in Attachment 12. Staff finds that the Montava project ensures a high-quality urban design and environmentally sensitive. Section 4.29(B)(4) - Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 32 Montava integrates a community park and three school sites into the fabric of the community, demonstrating cooperation amongst different various owners. Currently, Poudre School District owns the property west of Timberline. Sheet 3 of the PUD Master Plan drawings shows the community park, a Transect Zone 4 neighborhood, and a portion of the town center occupying this site. Poudre School District has provided a letter indicating cooperation between the district and Montava. Since submitting this letter, Poudre School District and Montava agreed on a land swap to satisfy the interests of both parties (Attachment 41). Section 4.29(B)(5) - Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts The density of the development decreases from the town center out to the edges of the community to achieve compatibility with surrounding areas and mitigate potential negative impacts. . The Maple Hill and Waterglen neighborhoods will both face green spaces that mitigate for potential negative impacts from Montava. Montava provides a natural area buffer in excess of 400’ between Waterglen and the Industrial and Employment Special District. Maple Hill receives a smaller buffer, since the elementary school and Transect Zone 3.1 are located adjacent to that neighborhood. The only neighborhood without a green buffer is Storybook. Montava achieves compatibility with Storybook by locating a narrow strip of Transect Zone 4 along the boundary of the neighborhood. This strip of Transect Zone 4 is less than 100 feet in depth, minimizing the potential for large buildings that would be out of scale with Storybook. Staff finds that adjacent neighborhoods are adequately protected and that compatibility would be achieved at the edges of the Montava development. Section 4.29(G)(3)(b) - Modified density or development standards significantly advance the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan A holistic approach to development requires a coordinated set of development standards that work together to manifest the vision of the development. Each of the standards Montava proposes helps create the walkable, urban community envisioned in Montava’s Design Narrative. Staff finds that the modification of standards requested by Montava would significantly advance the vision for the project. Section 4.29(G)(3)(c) - Modified density or development standards are necessary to achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan Montava’s development objective is to create a new series of complete neighborhoods with a full suite of amenities for residents of northeast Fort Collins. Without the overall guidance provided by these design standards and consideration of how all Montava will develop, this land would likely develop in a piece meal manner without the same level of cohesiveness provided by a PUD Master Plan. Staff finds that the development standards requested by Montava are necessary to achieve the project’s vision. Section 4.29(G)(3)(d) - Modified density or development standards are consistent with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies Attachment 35 outlines Montava’s compliance with adopted plans and policies. Staff finds Montava’s proposal is consistent with all applicable plans and policies, with the condition that City Council amend the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Master Street Plan, and Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, per staff’s recommendation. Vesting of PUD Master Plan – 4.29(K) Section 2.2.11(C) grants vested property rights for a three-year period following the recording of a PUD Master Plan. Applicants for PUD Master Plans may request extended vested property rights of modified uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards. PUD Master Plans may also seek vested property rights of current Land Use Code provisions dealing with uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Design Standards. Attachment 19 outlines Montava’s vested property rights request. In summary, Montava seeks extended vesting for the following: Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 33 1. Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards 2. Development Standards of the Land Use Code found in Appendix A of the PUD Master Plan Summary 3. Variances from Engineering Design Standards found in Appendix B of the PUD Master Plan Summary The rationale for this request is that Montava is too large and too complex of a project to complete the necessary public infrastructure improvements within three years. Attachment D to the vested property rights request provides an estimate of the cost of all public infrastructure associated with Montava. This estimate comes to a total of just over $325 million. Even if Montava was able to front $325 million for building all requisite public infrastructure, it would be practically challenging to complete this work in under three years. Montava encompasses over 900 acres of land. It is infeasible to physically install public infrastructure on over 900 acres of land in under three years. For these reasons, staff finds the applicant’s request for extended vested property rights is appropriate and necessary for the completion of the development. Variances – 4.29(L) Applicants may request variances to LCUASS as part of a PUD Master Plan. Section 4.29(L) allows the City Engineer to approve these variances in advance of approval of a PUD Master Plan and that these variances shall apply on all subsequent development applications implementing the PUD Master Plan. Decision makers for the PUD Master Plan may not alter or condition these approved variances. Attachment 5 contains all of the requested variances to LCUASS along with letters of approval from the City Engineer in compliance with this standard. 7. PLAN AMENDMENTS City Plan provides development projects the ability to request amendments to City Plan and elements thereof. City Council approves these amendments by resolution with recommendations from boards and commissions that serve in an advisory capacity. Montava proposes amendments to three documents that are elements of City Plan: • Mountain Vista Subarea Plan • Master Street Plan • Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Mountain Vista Subarea Plan The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan envisioned a large employment district with some industrial and residential zoned land on the Montava site. Instead, Montava proposes amending the plan based on the land use mix found in the PUD Master Plan. These changes necessitate amendments to the Framework Plan map and Policy MV-LU- 1.1. Since City Council must approve these plan amendments, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring Council’s adoption of the proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendments. Framework Plan Amendments The Framework Plan map shows a number of elements Montava proposes to amend. These elements include: Existing Framework Plan Map Proposed Amendment Half mile buffer between Anheuser-Busch and residential uses west of the brewery Removal of buffer Street network that reflects 2009 Master Street Plan Updated Master Street Plan that reflects Montava PUD Master Plan Land use predominantly employment and industrial Land use predominantly mixed-use Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 34 Anheuser-Busch previously requested the buffer from residential uses during the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan process. This buffer would have taken the form of employment uses between Giddings Road and Anheuser- Busch. This concept fit into the vision of providing opportunities for a large business center in northeast Fort Collins. Instead of a half-mile buffer containing employment uses, Montava shows a natural area and working farm along the east edge of the development. These features provide a buffer that varies in depth from approximately 480 feet up to a half mile. This buffer will help form a contiguous network of open space along with trail connections, which will provide community-wide benefit. The working farm helps fulfill the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan’s desire for development that acknowledges the area’s agricultural heritage. The working farm makes agriculture integral to the development and helps fulfill that vision. Both the natural area and farm provide greater community benefit while providing relief to residential uses from Anheuser-Busch. Staff supports the amendment to remove the language recommending a half-mile buffer between Anheuser-Busch and any residential uses in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The Mountain Vista Subarea Framework Plan map shows the adopted Master Street Plan roadway designations. Montava proposes numerous changes to the Master Street Plan that would affect the location of arterial and collector roadways that are shown on the Framework Map. As shown on the Montava Framework Plan.. The amended Framework Plan map identifies the following changes: • Mountain Vista Drive would extend to Turnberry Road • Bar Harbor Drive would no longer continue through Montava • Country Club Road would not connect through Montava as a collector • Giddings Road would continue south and loop into Suniga Road Section 5 of the staff report discussed compliance with the Master Street Plan and finds that the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan are acceptable. As such, staff supports the changes to the street network on the Montava Framework Plan map. The zoning and land use components of the Mountain Vista Subarea Framework Plan reflect the desire for a primary employment area in Mountain Vista. With Anheuser-Busch as a major employer and business anchor, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan aimed to build upon Anheuser-Busch's presence and provide opportunities for businesses to locate near an interchange on I-25. Over the past two decades, however, commercial enterprises have shifted their preferences from large, suburban campuses to smaller spaces in a more urban context. The City Plan Trends and Forces Report evaluated employment and industrial lands citywide, concluding the following: • Land in northeast Fort Collins requires significant infrastructure investment, deterring commercial and industrial development. • Fort Collins has a surplus of 990 acres of land zoned for employment uses and 725 acres zoned for industrial uses based on build out of all vacant land by 2040. • Compounding this issue is rising home prices in Fort Collins. Job growth in Fort Collins has outstripped wage growth and construction of new housing. Since 2010, employment in Larimer County grew by 3.2% annually while housing grew by 1.3% annually. Home prices during this same timeframe increased by 4.4% annually while median household income rose by just 1.8%. • Current zoning will result in a shortage of 3,700 low-density housing units and 2,500 high-density housing units by 2040 with a 4,200-unit surplus of medium-density housing units. This confluence of high job growth, low wage growth, and low housing production speaks to the need for rebalancing land set aside for employment uses versus residential uses. Switching the land use mix to comprise predominantly residential uses with some employment and industrial opportunities provides greater balance to the overall land use pattern of Fort Collins and the Mountain Vista Subarea. Staff supports allowing a greater amount of residential uses for Montava and amending the Framework Plan map to reflect this change. Modify Policy MV-LU-1.1 Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 35 This policy states: The Mountain Vista subarea will provide approximately equal amounts of residential and non- residential land uses. This subarea’s northeast portion will include an Industrial and Employment business center adjacent to the existing Anheuser-Busch InBev brewery. A centrally-located Community Commercial District (CCD) will serve the surrounding mixed-use neighborhoods and business center. Primary civic uses are expected to include a community park, schools, a potential police substation, and a branch library. The remaining balance of this subarea contains residential uses. As discussed prior, Montava looks to build a series of neighborhoods with commercial, employment, and industrial uses as a secondary component to the development. This is the reverse of what Policy MV-LU-1.1 prescribes. Based on the data from the City Plan Trends and Forces Report, fulfilling Policy MV-LU-1.1 as it is currently written would further exacerbate the trends of job growth outpacing housing production and may not be fully viable in northeast Fort Collins. Transect Zone 5 and the Industrial district would still provide some opportunities for primary employers and industrial enterprises to locate in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Montava proposes 100 acres for light industrial users and could support 160,000 square feet of commercial uses and 400,000 square feet of office uses. Staff thus supports the proposed amendment to this policy. Master Street Plan Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code requires compliance with the Master Street Plan. Section 5 of this staff report discussed compliance with Section 3.6.1 and found Montava to comply with the Master Street Plan as long as City Council approves the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan. Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Section 3.4.8(C) requires compliance with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. Section 5 of this staff report analyzed Montava against the requirements of the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. Staff finds Montava to comply with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan if City Council adopts an amendment to this plan requiring an 80-acre park in northeast Fort Collins. 8. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff convened two neighborhood meetings for Montava in accordance with Land Use Code requirements on October 11, 2018 and December 19, 2018. See Attachments 36 and 37 for neighborhood meeting summaries. Neighbors expressed concern about the following elements of Montava: • Traffic on Timberline Road and Country Club Road • Potential for truck traffic to spill onto Waterglen Drive • Pedestrian connections along irrigation ditches • Poor cell coverage in northeast Fort Collins • Stormwater drainage impacting nearby properties • Impact of Turnberry Road extension on existing neighborhoods and adjacent property owners • Coordination with Larimer County and the Colorado Department of Transportation • Impact to utility providers • Viability of the development • Phasing plan Staff also allowed those interested in Montava to provide their feedback online at http://ourcity.fcgov.com/montava. Ten interested parties provided comments online. These comments addressed: Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 36 • Traffic • Need for a grocery store • Question about provision of affordable housing • Bicycle connectivity • Street intersection treatments (roundabouts vs. traffic signals) The Montava applicant presented at the Super Board and Commission meeting on February 4, 2019. These meetings provide members of all boards and commissions to provide input and request further meetings to discuss issues of citywide importance. Attendees commented on the following: • Question about how the development is getting water • Curious about when the community will be completed • Need for urgent care in that area of Fort Collins • Question about if a more water efficient development could result in lower water dedications • Bus service, retail, and the town center need to be prominent to allow residents in northeast Fort Collins the ability to accomplish their daily needs without getting in their car • Question about how Montava will provide affordable housing o Would Habitat for Humanity be a partner? o How will units be affordable in perpetuity? • Desire to keep housing prices attainable in the long-term • Would Metro District assessment keep property values lower? • Interest rates will play a large role in how Montava develops • Question if Montava is within the GMA All public comments received to-date on the Montava project are provided in Attachment 42. 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS In evaluating the request for the proposed Montava PUD Master Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The PUD Master Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration and Division 2.15 – Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure. B. The PUD Master Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Approval is contingent upon City Council adopting the proposed amendments to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan as proposed by the Montava PUD Master Plan. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council adopting the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan as proposed by the Montava PUD Master Plan. C. The PUD Master Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.29 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay of Article 4 – Districts, subject to the following condition of approval: 1. Approval is contingent upon City Council adopting the proposed amendments to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Master Street Plan and Parks and Recreation Policy Plan as proposed by the Montava PUD Master Plan. D. The proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendment complies with the Minor Amendment criteria of City Plan. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 37 E. The proposed Master Street Plan amendment complies with the Minor Amendment criteria of City Plan. F. The proposed Parks and Recreation Policy Plan amendment complies with the Minor Amendment criteria of City Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, ODP180002 with conditions. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of the Master Street Plan amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan amendments. Agenda Item 1 Item #1, Page 38 ATTACHMENTS 1. Montava PUD Master Plan Summary 2. PUD Master Plan Design Narrative 3. Sheets 1 through 7 of the Montava PUD Master Plan 4. PUD Master Plan Land Uses, Densities, and Development Standards 5. Variances from Engineering Standards 6. Context Diagram 7. Master Drainage Report 8. Preliminary Water Demand Memorandum 9. Master Traffic Impact Study 10. Phase I Environmental Assessment 11. Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Report 12. Ecological Characterization Study 13. Approved Jurisdictional Determination Letter 14. Review Type Comparison to Land Use Code 15. Staff Review Comments from Round 3 and Responses 16. Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan Amendment Request 17. Master Street Plan Amendment Request 18. Letters of Intent 19. Vested Property Rights Request 20. Parks Diagram 21. Bicycle Plan 22. Block Level Detail Studies 23. Arterial Intersection Diagram 24. Pedestrian Sheds 25. Grading and Utility Plans 26. Street Sections Booklet 27. Information Regarding TCEF Percentages 28. Information Regarding Stormwater Design Assumptions 29. Information Regarding Utility Location and Design Assumptions 30. Information Regarding Natural Areas Design and Partnership 31. Information Regarding Park, Trail, Grade-Separated Crossings 32. CoGCC – Well Site Information 33. Sampling and Analysis Plan, TRC, June 21, 2019 34. Appendix 12-1, 3.8.26 Alternative Compliance Buffer Reduction Plan 35. Plan Compliance 36. Neighborhood Meeting Summary – October 11, 2018 37. Neighborhood Meeting Summary – December 19, 2018 38. Notification of Mineral Rights Holders 39. Ability to serve letters 40. Permitted use list by zone district 41. Poudre School District land swap agreement 42. Public comments PUD Master Plan Summary NOVEMBER 26, 2019 MONTAVA – PUD MASTER PLAN The Montava – PUD Master Plan is a long–term plan for the development of approximately 999 acres of contiguous land in the Mountain Vista Subarea of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (“City”), proposed and approved in accordance with Land Use Code Division 4.29, which master plan will direct and guide subsequent project development plans and final plans therein. The Montava – PUD Master Plan includes the following documents: 1. This PUD Master Plan Summary 2. Montava PUD Master Plan PUD Design Narrative 3. Sheets 1 through 7 of the Montava – PUD Master Plan: Sheet 1 Cover Sheet Sheet 2 Existing Conditions & Natural Features Map Sheet 3 Illustrative Master Plan Sheet 4 Annotated Illustrative Master Plan Sheet 5 Existing Zoning Sheet 6 PUD Transect Districts and Special Districts Sheet 7 Development Phasing Plan 4. Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards 5. Permitted Land Use Code Development Standards, Appendix A to this PUD Master Plan Summary 6. Variances from Engineering Design Standards and Proposed Alternate Designs submitted with such variances, Appendix B to this PUD Master Plan Summary VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS Pursuant to the PUD Overlay Regulations, the uses, densities and development standards of the Land Use Code and those for which modifications have been granted, and the Engineering Design Standards for which variances have been granted are eligible for vested property rights. Therefore, the applicant submitted a vested property rights request to the City which requests vested property rights for the items described in Appendix C to this Master Plan Summary. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The following documents were submitted to the City as part of the required submittal items for the Montava – PUD Master Plan, and are on file in the Planning Department of the City and are requested to be incorporated into the Montava record: Context Diagram Master Drainage Report Preliminary Water Demand Memorandum Master Traffic Impact Study Phase 1 Environmental Assessment Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Report Ecological Characterization Report Approved Jurisdictional Determination Letter Review Types compared with current Land Use Code Staff review comments and applicant’s responses Mountain Vista Subarea Plan amendment request Master Street Plan Amendment Request Letters of Intent Vested Property Rights Request The following documents were prepared to assist in the City’s evaluation of Montava – PUD Master Plan and to facilitate preparation and evaluation of future project development plans and final development plans within the Montava – PUD Master Plan. They are on file in the Planning Department of the City and are requested to be incorporated into the Montava record. Nothing herein requires that any future project development plans or final development plans be designed in accordance with such supplemental information nor does it prevent the use of designs not included in such information. Rather, the purpose of the following documents is to memorialize discussions which have taken place between City staff and the Developer on these matters as a baseline for future project development plan and final development plan preparation and evaluation. Parks Diagram Bicycle Plan Block Level Detail Studies Arterial Intersections Diagram Pedestrian Sheds Grading and Utility Plans Street Sections Booklet Information regarding TCEF percentages Information regarding stormwater design assumptions Information regarding utility location and design assumptions Information regarding Natural Areas design and partnership Information regarding park, trail, grade-separated crossings COGCC well site documentation Sampling and Analysis Plan, TRC, June 21, 2018 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Conceptual Agreement – Natural Areas – Montava Partnership Vested property rights are not requested for the Supplemental Documentation. Appendix A to Montava PUD Master Plan Summary Development Standards of the Land Use Code Development Standards of the Land Use Code Sec. Description Appendices* 3.2.1(K) Utilities and Traffic - Minimum dimension requirements for tree/utility and traffic control device separations, with the exception noted in Appendix A-1 Appendix A-1 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys And Easements – Transportation Network Design and Implementation Appendix A-2 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards Appendix A-3 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Standards Appendix A-4 3.7.3 Adequate Public Facilities Appendix A-5 3.8.7 Signs (all provisions of Sec. 3.8.7 that are not modified by Chapter 8 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards) Appendix A-6 as amended by Ordinance No. 141, 2018 3.8.26 Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units (all provisions of Sec. 3.8.26 that are not modified by Chapter 11 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards) Appendix A-7 3.8.31 Urban Agriculture Appendix A-8 4.29 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Appendix A-9 * Appendices A-1 through A-9 include the text of the Land Use Code Development Standards cited herein, as of the Effective Date of the Montava – PUD Master Plan. Appendix A-1 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection (K) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility and traffic control device separations. Exceptions to these requirements may occur where utilities or traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated locations, as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees. (1) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 2.) Figure 2 Tree/Streetlight Separations *(2) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. (3) Ten (10) feet between trees and water or sewer mains. (4) Six (6) feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. (5) Four (4) feet between trees and gas lines. (6) Street trees on local streets planted within the eight-foot-wide utility easement may conflict with utilities. Additional conduit may be required to protect underground electric lines. * Tree/streetlight separations greater than twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices can be required if determined by the City in connection with a project development plan to be necessary for safe traffic operation. Appendix A-2 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.6.2 - Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys And Easements (A) Purpose . This Section is intended to ensure that the various components of the transportation network are designed and implemented in a manner that promotes the health, safety and welfare of the City. (B) General Standard . Public streets, public alleys, private streets, street-like private drives and private drives shall be designed and implemented in a manner that establishes a transportation network that protects the public health, safety and welfare. Rights-of-way and/or easements for the transportation system shall be sufficient to support the infrastructure being proposed. The transportation network shall clearly identify construction and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed infrastructure. All responsibilities and costs for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of private streets, street- like private drives and private drives shall be borne by the property owners. The City shall have no obligation to operate, maintain or reconstruct such private streets, street-like private drives and private drives nor shall the City have any obligation to accept such private streets, street-like private drives and private drives. (C) Streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat shall conform to the Master Street Plan where applicable. All streets shall be aligned to join with planned or existing streets. All streets shall be designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography of the land. Intersections of streets shall be at right angles unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (D) Cul-de-sacs shall be permitted only if they are not more than six hundred sixty (660) feet in length and have a turnaround at the end with a diameter of at least one hundred (100) feet. Surface drainage on a cul-de-sac shall be toward the intersecting street, if possible, and if not possible a drainage easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac. If fire sprinkler systems or other fire prevention devices are to be installed within a residential subdivision, these requirements may be modified by the City Engineer according to established administrative guidelines and upon the recommendation of the Poudre Fire Authority. (E) Except as provided in subsection (D) above for cul-de-sacs, no dead-end streets shall be permitted except in cases where such streets are designed to connect with future streets on abutting land, in which case a temporary turnaround easement at the end of the street with a diameter of at least one hundred (100) feet must be dedicated and constructed. Such turnaround easement shall not be required if no lots in the subdivision are dependent upon such street for access. (F) If residential lots in a subdivision abut an arterial street, no access to individual lots from such arterial street shall be permitted. (G) Lots having a front or rear lot line that abuts an arterial street shall have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet. (1) Alternative Compliance . Upon request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative lot plan that does not meet the standard of this subsection if the alternative lot plan includes additional buffering or screening that will, in the judgment of the decision maker, protect such lots from the noise, light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street as well as, or better than, a plan which complies with the standard of this subsection. (2) Procedure. Alternative lot plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements as set forth in this Section and landscape plans as set forth in Section 3.2.1. The alternative lot plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better accomplish the purpose of this subsection than would a plan which complies with the standards of this subsection. (3) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative lot plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose of this subsection as well as, or better than, a lot plan which complies with the standard of this subsection. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the lot plan provides screening and protection of the lots adjacent to the arterial street from noise, light and other negative impacts of the arterial street equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard of this subsection. (H) Reverse curves on arterial streets shall be joined by a tangent at least two hundred (200) feet in length. (I) The applicant shall not be permitted to reserve a strip of land between a dedicated street and adjacent property for the purpose of controlling access to such street from such property unless such reservation is approved by the City Engineer and the control of such strip is given to the City. (J) Street right-of-way widths shall conform to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards as approved and amended by the City Council from time to time by ordinance or resolution. (K) Streetscape design and construction, including medians and parkways, shall conform to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards as approved and amended by the City Council from time to time by ordinance or resolution. Any permits that are required pursuant to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards shall be obtained by the applicant before the construction of the street, streetscape, sidewalk, alley or other public way (as applicable) is commenced. (L) Public alleys shall be controlled by the following requirements: (1) When Allowed. Public alleys in residential subdivisions shall be permitted only when: (a) they are necessary and desirable to continue an existing pattern or to establish a pattern of alleys that will extend over a larger development area, and (b) they are needed to allow access to residential properties having garages or other parking areas situated behind the principal structure and the principal structure is on a residential local street. Public alleys shall also be provided in commercial and industrial areas unless other provisions are made and approved for service access. (2) Design Construction Requirements. All public alleys shall be constructed in conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution, except those public alleys within the N-C-L, N-C-M and N-C-B zone districts that do not abut commercially zoned properties and that provide access only for carriage houses and habitable accessory buildings as such terms are described in Article 4. Dead-end alleys shall not be allowed. (M) Private Streets. Private streets shall be controlled by the following requirements: (1) When Allowed. Private streets shall be allowed in a development, provided that their function will only be to provide access to property within the development. Private streets shall not be permitted if (by plan or circumstance) such streets would, in the judgment of the City Engineer, attract "through traffic" in such volumes as to render such streets necessary as connections between developments, neighborhoods or other origins and destinations outside of the development plan. (2) Design Requirements. Designs for private streets shall meet all standards for public streets in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. Optional treatments beyond the minimum city standards, such as landscaped medians or other decorative features, will not be approved unless the City determines that such treatments present no safety risk to the public and that the City's utilities will not incur maintenance or replacement costs for their utilities above normal costs associated with the City's standard design. As with public streets, the design of private streets must be completed by or under the charge of a professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. The design for all private streets shall be included in the utility plans for the development. (3) Construction Requirements. The construction of all private streets shall be under the direct supervision of a professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, who must certify that all improvements for private streets have been completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City. In addition, the construction of private streets shall be subject to inspection by the City Engineer for compliance with city standards established in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution, and in accordance with the approved plans for the development. All private streets shall be subject to the same bonding and warranty requirements as are established for public streets. (4) Traffic Control. All traffic control devices for the private street system, such as signs, signals, striping, speed control devices (traffic calming) and speed limits, must meet city standards. All plans for traffic control, including any proposed revisions, must be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer prior to installation thereof. (5) Operation, Maintenance and Reconstruction. The developer of a private street system must submit to the City that portion of the covenants, declarations and/or bylaws of the appropriate property owners association which defines the responsibilities for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of the private street system, the costs of which must be borne by the property owners and not the City. The documents must provide for maintenance, reconstruction, drainage, lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices and any other special conditions. This information must also be shown on the plat and site plan for the development with the added statement that the City has no obligation to perform or pay for repair and maintenance or any obligation to accept the streets as public streets. At the time of recording of the plat, the developer shall also record a notice in the Larimer County, Colorado records showing the location of such street and identifying the property or properties which are burdened with the obligation of operation, maintenance and reconstruction of such street, and affirming that the City has no such obligation, or any obligation to accept such street as a public street. (6) Naming and Addressing. Private streets shall be named and addressed in the same manner as public streets, in accordance with the laws and standards of the City. (7) Gated Developments. Gated street entryways into residential developments are prohibited in accordance with subsection 3.6.3(G). Gated entryways for private streets are also prohibited. (N) Private Drives and Street-Like Private Drives. (1) When Allowed. (a) Internal access or additional cross-access. Private drives shall be allowed in a development, provided that their function will only be to provide access to property within the development or additional cross-access between developments that are also connected by a street(s). Private drives shall not be permitted if (by plan or circumstance) such drives would, in the judgment of the City Engineer, attract "through traffic" in such volumes as to render such drives necessary as connections between developments, neighborhoods or other origins and destinations outside of the development plan. (b) Primary access. A private drive shall be allowed to provide primary access to a development, provided that the drive is in compliance with subparagraph (a) above. (c) Street-Like Private Drives. A street-like private drive shall be allowed as primary access to facing buildings or to parcels internal to a larger, cohesive development plan, or for the purposes of meeting other requirements for streets. Street-like private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street parking, tree-lined border(s), detached sidewalk(s) and crosswalks. Other features such as bikeways, landscaped medians, corner plazas and pedestrian lighting may be provided to afford an appropriate alternative to a street in the context of the development plan. On-street parking for abutting buildings may be parallel or angled. Head-in parking may only be used in isolated parking situations. Such street-like private drives must be similar to public or private streets in overall function and buildings shall front on and offer primary orientation to the street-like private drive. Street-like private drives may be used in conjunction with other standards, such as block configuration, orientation to connecting walkways, build-to-lines, or street pattern and connectivity. (d) Neither a private drive nor a street-like private drive shall be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of this Code. (2) Design Requirements. Private drives shall be designed to meet the following criteria: (a) If any property served by the private drive cannot receive fire emergency service from a public street, then all emergency access design requirements shall apply to the private drive in accordance with Section 3.6.6. An "emergency access easement" must be dedicated to the City for private drives that provide emergency access. (b) Private drives which must comply with Section 3.6.6 for emergency access shall be limited to an overall length of six hundred sixty (660) feet from a single point of access (measured as the fire hose would lay). (c) The design of private drives shall comply with all the standards for Emergency Access as contained in Section 3.6.6. (d) Access locations on public or private streets shall be placed in accordance with City standards. (e) The connection of a private drive with a public street shall be made in accordance with City street standards. (f) If drainage from a private drive is channeled or directed to a public street, such drainage shall be in accordance with City street standards. (3) Construction Requirements. The construction of all private drives shall be under the direct supervision of a professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, who must certify that all improvements for private drives have been completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City. In addition, the construction of private drives that will serve emergency access purposes shall be inspected by the City Engineer for compliance with city standards and the approved plans in the same manner as is required by the City for public streets. (4) Operation, Maintenance and Reconstruction. The developer of a private drive must submit to the City that portion of the covenants, declarations and/or by-laws of the appropriate property owners association which defines the responsibilities for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of the private drive, the costs of which must be borne by the property owners and not the City. The documents must provide for maintenance, reconstruction, drainage, policing and any other special conditions. This information must also be shown on the plat and site plan for the development with the added statement that the City has no obligation to perform or pay for repair and maintenance or any obligation to accept the private drives as public streets. At the time of recording of the plat, the developer shall also record a notice in the Larimer County, Colorado records showing the location of such drive and identifying the property or properties which are burdened with the obligation of operation, maintenance and reconstruction of such drive, and affirming that the City has no such obligation, nor any obligation to accept such drive as a public street or drive. (5) Naming and Addressing. Private drives shall be named, if necessary, to comply with the standards for Emergency Access as contained in Section 3.6.6. Addressing of the property shall be assigned by the City in conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. (6) Gated Developments. Gated street entryways into residential developments are prohibited in accordance with subsection 3.6.3(G). Gated entryways for private drives are also prohibited. (O) Easements. Easements shall be controlled by the following requirements: (1) Public and private easements shall be provided on lots for utilities, public access, stormwater drainage or other public purposes as required and approved by the City Engineer. (2) Pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be provided to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the subdivision and to and from existing and future adjacent neighborhoods and other development; all such pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be constructed in conformity with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. (3) Development plans shall incorporate and continue any public access easements so as to connect them to any such easements that exist on abutting properties. (4) The subdivider shall be responsible for adequate provisions to eliminate or control flood hazards associated with the subdivision in accordance with Chapter 10 of the City Code. Agreements concerning stormwater drainage between private parties shall be subject to City review and approval. (Ord. No. 183, 1998 §2, 10/20/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §92, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 99, 1999 §14, 6/15/99; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §§24—27, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 186, 2000 §2, 1/2/01; Ord. No. 107, 2001 §26, 6/19/01; Ord. No. 087, 2002 §17, 6/4/02; Ord. No. 063, 2004 §1, 4/20/04; Ord. No. 091, 2004 §§14, 15, 6/15/04; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §§12, 13, 12/21/04; Ord. No. 161, 2005 §7, 12/20/05; Ord. No. 104, 2006 §11, 7/18/06; Ord. No. 120, 2011 §13, 9/20/2011; Ord. No. 025, 2013 §12, 2/26/13; Ord. No. 086, 2014 §35, 7/1/14) Appendix A-3 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.6.3 - Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the local street system is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel. For the purposes of this Division, "local street system" shall mean the interconnected system of collector and local streets providing access to development from an arterial street. (B) General Standard. The local street system of any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles). The local street system shall provide multiple direct connections to and between local destinations such as parks, schools and shopping. Local streets must provide for both intra- and inter- neighborhood connections to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them. The street configuration within each parcel must contribute to the street system of the neighborhood. (C) Spacing of Full Movement Collector and Local Street Intersections With Arterial Streets . Potentially signalized, full-movement intersections of collector or local streets with arterial streets shall be provided at least every one thousand three hundred twenty (1320) feet or one-quarter (¼) mile along arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. (D) Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street Intersections With Arterial Streets . Additional nonsignalized, potentially limited movement, collector or local street intersections with arterial streets shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet between full movement collector or local street intersections, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The City Engineer may require any limited movement collector or local street intersections to include an access control median or other acceptable access control device. The City Engineer may also allow limited movement intersection to be initially constructed to allow full movement access. (E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets . All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as the proposed development, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. (F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels . All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land. (G) Gated Developments. Gated street entryways into residential developments shall be prohibited. (H) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative development plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting the standards of this Section. (1) Procedure . Alternative compliance development plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. (2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division, and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile. (Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §§25, 92, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 087, 2002 §18, 6/4/02; Ord. No. 161, 2005, §8, 12/20/05) Appendix A-4 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements (A) Purpose. In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development, the project shall demonstrate that all adopted level of service (LOS) standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation as set forth in this Section 3.6.4. (B) General Standard. All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation level of service standards. The vehicular level of service standards are those contained in Table 4-3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). The bicycle and pedestrian level of service standards are those contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Mitigation measures for levels of service that do not meet the standards are provided in Section 4.6 of LCUASS. No Transit level of service standards will be applied for the purposes of this Section. Notwithstanding the foregoing, adopted level of service standards need not be achieved where the necessary improvements to achieve such standards are not reasonably related and proportional to the impacts of the development. In such cases, the Director may require improvements or a portion thereof that are reasonably related and proportional to the impacts of the development or the requirement may be varied or waived pursuant to LCUASS Section 4.6. (C) Transportation Impact Study, Nominal Impact. In order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with these standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines as established in LCUASS Chapter 4 . Should a Transportation Impact Study not be required pursuant to LCUASSS Chapter 4, a proposed development shall be deemed to have a nominal impact and shall not be subject to the transportation level of service requirements described in this Section 3.6.4. (Ord. No. 192, 2006 §7, 12/19/06; Ord. No. 109, 2018 , §2, 9/4/18) Appendix A-5 To PUD Master Plan Summary 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities (A) Purpose. The purpose of the adequate public facilities (APF) management system is to establish an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. (B) Applicability. This Section shall apply to all development in the City. (C) APF Management System. (1) APF Management System Established. In order to implement the City's Principles and Policies, the adequate public facilities management system ("APF management system") is hereby established. The APF management system is incorporated into and shall be part of the development review procedures as well as the process for issuance of Building Permits. (2) General Requirements. The approval of all development shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to serve new development. No Building Permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place, or the commitments described in subparagraph (E)(1)(a)(2) below have been made, or with respect to transportation facilities, a variance under LCUASS Section 4.6.7 or an alternative mitigation strategy under LCUASS Section 4.6.8 has been approved. Under this APF management system, the following is required: (a) The City shall adopt and maintain level of service standards for the following public facilities: transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, electrical power and any other public facilities and services required by the City. (b) No site specific development plan or Building Permit shall be approved or issued in a manner that will result in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service standards for the affected facility, except as expressly permitted under this Section 3.7.3 (and the referenced provisions of LCUASS). (D) Level of Service Standards. For the purpose of review and approval of new development and the issuance of Building Permits, the City hereby adopts the following level of service standards for the public facilities and services identified below: (1) Transportation. (a) All development must have access to the Improved Arterial Street Network or to a street for which funds have been appropriated to fund improvement as an arterial street as more specifically required in Division 3.3.2, Subdivision Improvements, (F) Off-site Public Access Improvements. (b) Except as provided in subsection (E)(1) below, all development shall meet or exceed the following transportation level of services standards: 1. The vehicular level of service standards for overall intersection level of service standards contained in Table 4-3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Alternative mitigation strategies are provided in LCUASS Section 4.6.8 2. The bicycle and pedestrian level of service standards are contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Variances for levels of service that do not meet the standards are provided in LCUASS Section 4.6.7. 3. No transit level of service standards contained in Part II of the Multi-modal Transportation Manual will be applied for the purposes of this Section. (c) If any off-site improvements are required by the standards contained in this Section, repayments for the costs of such improvements shall be provided to the developer in accordance with the provisions of 3.3.2(F)(2). (2) Water. All development shall provide adequate and functional lines and stubs to each lot as required by the current City or special district, as applicable, design criteria and construction standards. (3) Wastewater. All development shall provide adequate and functional mains and stubs to each lot as required by the current City or special district, as applicable, design criteria and construction standards. (4) Storm Drainage. All development shall provide storm drainage facilities and appurtenances as required by Sections 26-544 and 10-37 of the Municipal Code and by all current City storm drainage master plans, design criteria and construction standards. (5) Fire and Emergency Services. All development shall provide sufficient fire suppression facilities as required by the Fire Code. (6) Electrical Power Service. All development shall have service provided as described in the Electric Construction Policies, Practices, and Procedures , and the Electric Service Rules and Regulations of the Fort Collins Electric Utility. (E) Minimum Requirements for Adequate Public Facilities. (1) The City's APF management system shall ensure that public facilities and services to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of development. In this regard, the following standards shall be used to determine whether a development meets or exceeds the minimum requirements for adequate public facilities: (a) For transportation facilities, at a minimum, the City shall require that, at the time of issuance of any Building Permit issued pursuant to a site specific development plan, all necessary facilities and services, as described in Section (D)(1) above, are either: 1. in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the development agreement, or 2. funding for such improvements has been appropriated by the City or provided by the developer in the form of either cash, nonexpiring letter of credit, or escrow in a form acceptable to the City. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to improvements required to maintain the applicable transportation facilities' level of service where, as determined by the Director, such improvements are not reasonably related to and proportional to the impacts of the development or currently desired by the City, a Building Permit may be issued pursuant to a site specific development plan provided the developer has: 1. Agreed in the development agreement to install or fund improvements, or a portion thereof, that are reasonably related and proportional to the impacts of the development on the affected transportation facility or facilities; or 2. Obtained a variance regarding the affected transportation facility or facilities under LCUASS Section 4.6.7; or 3. Agreed in the development agreement to implement an alternative mitigation strategy as defined by LCUASS Section 4.6.8, or portion thereof, to adequately mitigate the reasonably related and proportional impacts of the development on the affected transportation facility or facilities; or 4. Funding for such improvements has been appropriated by the City or provided by the developer in the form of either cash, nonexpiring letter of credit, or escrow in a form acceptable to the City. (c) For water and wastewater facilities, at a minimum, the City shall require that, at the time of issuance of any building permit issued pursuant to a site-specific development plan, all necessary facilities and services, as described in Section (D)(2) and (3) above, are in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the approved utility plan and development agreement for the development. (d) For storm drainage facilities, the City shall require that all necessary facilities and services, as described in Section (D)(4) above, are in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the approved drainage and erosion control report, utility plans and development agreement for such development. The timing of installation of such facilities and service shall be as follows: 1. Where multiple building permits are to be issued for a project, twenty-five (25) percent of the building permits and certificates of occupancy may be issued prior to the installation and acceptance of the certification of the drainage facilities. Prior to the issuance of any additional permits, the installation and acceptance of the certification of the drainage facilities shall be required. 2. For projects involving the issuance of only one (1) building permit and certificate of occupancy, the installation and acceptance of the certification of the drainage facilities shall be required prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (e) For fire and emergency services, at a minimum, the City shall require that, at the time of issuance of any building permit issued pursuant to a site-specific development plan, all necessary facilities and services, as described in Section (D)(5) above, are in place and available to serve the site within the new development where the building is to be constructed in accordance with the Fire Code and the development agreement. (f) For electric power facilities, the following minimum requirements shall apply: 1. For residential development: The developer must coordinate the installation of the electric system serving the development with the City's electric utility. In addition, each application for a building permit within the development must show the name of the development, its address, each lot or building number to be served, and the size of electric service required. The size of electric service shall not exceed that originally submitted to the electric utility for design purposes. Costs for installation of the electric service line to the meter on the building will be payable upon the issuance of each building permit. 2. For Commercial/Industrial Development: The following documents/information shall be provided to the City's electric utility with each application for a building permit: a. an approved and recorded final plat; b. the final plan (two [2] copies); c. the utility plan; d. a one-line diagram of the electric main entrance; e. a Commercial Service Information Form (C-1 form) completed by the developer/ builder for each service, and approved by the electric utility (Blank forms are available at the Electric Utility Engineering Department, 970-221-6700); f. the transformer location(s), as approved by the electric utility; g. the name and address of the person responsible for payment of the electric development charges; and h. the name, of the development, building address and lot or building number. 3. Compliance with Administrative Regulations: The developer shall also comply with all other administrative regulations and policies of the electric utility, including, without limitation, the Electric Construction Policies, Practices and Procedures, and the Electric Service Rules and Regulations , copies of which may be obtained from the electric utility. (F) Transportation APF Exception. Nominal Impact. For the purpose of the transportation APF requirements contained in this Section, a proposed development shall be deemed to have a nominal impact and shall not be subject to the APF requirements for transportation if the development proposal is not required to complete a Traffic Impact Study per the requirements in Chapter 4 - Transportation Impact Study of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. (Ord. No. 107, 2001 §29, 6/19/01; Ord. No. 109, 2018 , §3, 9/4/18) Appendix A-6 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.8.7 - Signs 3.8.7.1 - Permanent Signs (A) General. (1) Signs Permitted. Permanent signs shall be permitted in the various zone districts as accessory uses in accordance with the regulations contained in this Section. The regulations contained in this Section 3.8.7.1 apply to permanent signs while temporary signs are regulated under Section 3.8.7.2 unless specifically provided herein. (2) Prohibited Permanent Signs. Rooftop signs and all other signs which project above the fascia wall, portable signs, revolving and rotating signs, inflatable signs, and wind-driven signs (except flags in compliance with this Section 3.8.7.1) shall be prohibited in all zone districts. (3) Nonconforming Signs. (a) Existing signs which were erected without a permit and which, although legally permissible at the time they were erected, have become nonconforming because of subsequent amendments to this Code must be brought into conformance with the provisions of this Section, as amended, within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the amendment which caused the nonconformity. (b) Existing on-premise signs for which a sign permit was issued pursuant to the previous provisions of this Code, and which have become nonconforming because of an amendment to this Code, shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this Section 3.8.7.1 within the period of time specified in the ordinance containing the amendment which causes the nonconformity. In determining such period of time, the City Council shall consider the length of time since the last Code change affecting that same category of signs as well as the cost of bringing the signs into compliance. During the period of time that the signs may remain nonconforming, such signs shall be maintained in good condition and no such sign shall be: 1. structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its content may be changed; 2. structurally altered in order to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements; 3. altered so as to increase the degree of nonconformity of the sign; 4. enlarged; 5. continued in use if a change of use occurs as defined in the zoning ordinance, or if the premises promoted by the sign comes under new ownership or tenancy and such sign is proposed to be remodeled, repainted or otherwise changed for the purpose of displaying the new name or other new identification of the premises; or 6. re-established after damage or destruction if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the appraised replacement cost. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d) below, all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the City shall be removed or made to conform to the provisions of this Article no later than seven (7) years after the effective date of such annexation; provided, however, that during said seven-year period, such signs shall be maintained in good condition and shall be subject to the same limitations contained in subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) above. This subsection shall not apply to off-premises signs which are within the ambit of the just compensation provisions of the Federal Highway Beautification Act and the Colorado Outdoor Advertising Act. (d) All existing signs with flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects not in conformance with the provisions of this Article and located on property annexed to the City after November 28, 1971, shall be made so that such flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects shall cease within sixty (60) days after such annexation, and all existing portable signs, vehicle-mounted signs, banners and pennants located on property annexed to the City after November 28, 1971, shall be removed or made to conform within sixty (60) days after such annexation. (B) Administration. (1) Permit Required; Exceptions. (a) The erection, remodeling, reface, or removal of any permanent sign shall require a permit from the Director, except that no permit shall be required for the erection, remodeling or removal of any of the following signs: 1. Signs that are required by law at the minimum size required, including but not limited to address signs that are required by the applicable Fire Code; 2. One (1) attached sign of any type per building elevation or entrance (whichever provides for more signs on an elevation), provided that the sign does not exceed two (2) square feet in sign area; 3. Three (3) or fewer flags per property, or group of properties that were planned or developed with shared pedestrian or vehicle access, hung separately or together from a rigid, straight, building or ground-mounted flagpole, or flagpoles, and where no flag exceeds thirty-two (32) square feet in area; 4. Signs that are less than one (1) square foot in sign area that are attached to machines, equipment, fences, gates, walls, gasoline pumps, public telephones, utility cabinets, and other such structures, provided that no more than two (2) of such signs are spaced less than ten (10) feet apart, or such signs are not visible from public rights-of-way; and 5. Window signs that are less than six (6) square feet. (b) All sign permit applications shall be accompanied by detailed drawings indicating the dimensions, location and engineering of the particular sign, plat plans when applicable, and the applicable processing fee. (2) Permit Processing. The Director shall review the sign permit application within two (2) business days to determine if it is complete. If it is complete, the Director shall approve or deny the application within three (3) business days after such determination. If it is incomplete, the Director shall cause the application to be returned to the applicant within one (1) business day of the determination, along with written reasons for the determination of incompleteness. (C) Standards and Limitations. (1) Limitations for Residential Districts and Uses. Signs in the N-C-L, N-C-M, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-M-N, M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B, R-C and P-O-L Districts may include and shall be limited to the following: (a) one (1) sign per public vehicular entry to a multi-family development or residential subdivision, provided such sign does not exceed thirty-five (35) square feet in area per face or six (6) feet in height, and has only indirect illumination When such signs are placed on subdivision entry wall structures, only the sign face shall be used to calculate the size of the sign; (b) one (1) detached or attached sign per nonresidential use, provided such sign does not exceed thirty-five (35) square feet in area per face or eight (8) feet in height (for detached signs), and has only indirect illumination; (c) one (1) detached or attached sign per single-family or duplex building with lot frontage on an arterial street, provided that such sign does not exceed four (4) square feet in area per face or five (5) feet in height, and has no illumination. (D) General Limitations for Nonresidential Districts and Uses. Signs in the D, R-D-R, C-C, C-C-N, C-C-R, C-G, C-S, N-C, C-L, H-C, E and I districts, or for any institutional/civic/public, business, commercial or industrial use in a mixed-use district shall be limited to the following: (1) such signs as are permitted in the R-L District; (2) one (1) flag larger than thirty-two (32) square feet in area and within the permitted sign area allowance for the property, provided no other flags are displayed; (3) flush wall signs, projecting wall signs, window signs, freestanding signs and ground signs, provided that the placement and use of all such signs shall be governed by and shall be within the following limitations: (a) For the first two hundred (200) feet in building frontage length, the maximum sign area permitted shall be equal to two (2) square feet of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage length. (b) For that portion of a building frontage which exceeds two hundred (200) feet in length, the maximum sign area permitted shall be equal to one (1) square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage length over such two hundred (200) feet. The sign area permitted hereunder shall be in addition to the sign area permitted under (3)(a) above. (c) In no event shall the total sign allowance for any property be less than one (1) square foot of sign allowance for each linear foot of lot frontage. (d) In no event shall more than three (3) street or building frontages be used as the basis for calculating the total sign allowance as permitted in subsections (3)(a) and (3)(c) above, inclusive. (e) For flush wall signs consisting of framed banners, all banners shall be sized to fit the banner frame so that there are no visible gaps between the edges of the banner and the banner frame. (4) For the purpose of this Section, the sign allowance shall be calculated on the basis of the length of the one (1) building frontage which is most nearly parallel to the street it faces. If a building does not have frontage on a dedicated public street, the owner of the building may designate the one (1) building frontage which shall be used for the purpose of calculating the sign allowance. If the only building frontage which fronts on a dedicated street is a wall containing no signs, the property owner may designate another building frontage on the building on the basis of which the total sign allowance shall be calculated, provided that no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total sign allowance permitted under this Article may be placed on frontage other than the building fascia which was the basis for the sign allowance calculation. In all other cases, the sign allowance for a property may be distributed in any manner among its building and/or street frontages except that no one (1) building or street frontage may contain more sign area than one hundred (100) percent of the sign area provided for by (3)(a) through (3)(c) above, inclusive. (5) In addition to the sign allowance calculation described in paragraph (4) above, a building located in the Downtown (D) Zone District that abuts an alley which has been improved pursuant to the Downtown Development Authority's Alley Enhancement Project may be allowed one (1) flush wall sign not to exceed six (6) square feet, or one (1) projecting wall sign not to exceed six (6) square feet per side, on the rear wall of such building, provided that a public entrance to the building exists in said wall. (E) Limitations for Nonresidential Districts and Nonresidential Uses in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. There is hereby established a "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The boundaries of the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" shall be shown on a map which shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk. Any amendments to this map shall be made in the same manner as amendments to the Zoning Map of the City, as provided in Article 2. The following provisions shall only apply to project development plans proposed in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts and neighborhood service centers, convenience shopping centers, business service uses and auto-related and roadside commercial uses in the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" which are developed on or after January 15, 1993. In addition, all such provisions, except paragraphs (14) and (15) below, shall apply to signs in neighborhood service centers, neighborhood commercial districts, convenience shopping centers, business service uses and auto-related and roadside commercial uses in the "Residential Neighborhood Sign District" which were developed prior to the effective date of this Code, whenever such signs are erected or remodeled pursuant to a permit after January 15, 1993. (1) Signs regulated under this Section shall generally conform to the other requirements of this Section, except that when any of the following limitations are applicable to a particular sign, the more restrictive limitation shall apply. (2) Signs regulated under this Section shall also conform to any locational requirements imposed by the decision maker as a condition of the approval of the development plan. (3) No sign shall project more than twelve (12) inches beyond the building fascia. Under-canopy signs which are perpendicular to the face of the building shall be exempted from this requirement, except that they shall be limited to four (4) square feet in area per face. (4) Freestanding or ground signs shall comply with the following requirements with respect to size, number and height: Use Maximum area per sign face (sf. = square feet) Maximum number of signs permitted per street frontage Maximum height All Institutional, Business and Commercial Uses Not Otherwise Specified in this Table Primary - 32 sf. Primary - 1 Primary - 5 ft. Convenience Shopping Center Primary - 40 sf. Primary - 1 Primary - 8 ft. Neighborhood Service Center, Neighborhood Commercial District Primary - 55 sf. Secondary - 32 sf. Primary - 1 Secondary - 1 Primary - 10 ft. Secondary - 6 ft. (5) Freestanding signs shall be permitted only if constructed with a supporting sign structure, the width of which exceeds seventy (70) percent of the width of the sign face. Freestanding or ground signs shall contain no more than two (2) faces. No freestanding or ground sign shall be located less than seventy-five (75) feet from any directly abutting property which contains an existing or approved residential use or is zoned for residential use. For the purposes of this subsection, the term approved shall mean having current project development plan or final plan approval. (6) All supporting sign structures of a freestanding or ground sign shall match the primary finish and colors of the associated building(s). (7) All signs which are greater than four (4) square feet in area, except ground signs individual letter signs or cabinet signs wherein only the letters are illuminated. (8) The maximum size of flush wall cabinets or individual letters shall be as follows: Use Maximum Cabinet or Individual Letter Height All Institutional, Business and Commercial Uses Not Otherwise Specified in this Table 18" Convenience Shopping Center 24" Neighborhood Service Center, Neighborhood Commercial District 30"* * Any individual tenant space exceeding forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet in floor area shall be permitted one (1) flush wall sign with individual letters not to exceed fifty-four (54) inches in height. The maximum cabinet height shall be fifty-four (54) inches in height. (9) If signs are illuminated, only internal illumination shall be permitted. This requirement shall not apply to freestanding or ground signs. (10) The length of any flush wall sign for an individual tenant space shall be limited to seventy-five (75) percent of the width of the tenant storefront, but no sign shall exceed forty (40) feet in length; provided, however, that any individual tenant space exceeding forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet in floor area shall be permitted one (1) flush wall sign not exceeding fifty-five (55) feet in length. Each tenant space shall be allowed one (1) such flush wall sign on each exterior building wall directly abutting the tenant space. In the event that a tenant space does not have a directly abutting exterior wall, one (1) sign not exceeding thirty (30) square feet may be erected on an exterior wall of the building for the purpose of identifying that tenant space. (11) The location of any flush wall sign shall be positioned to harmonize with the architectural character of the building(s) to which they are attached, including, but not limited to, any projection, relief, cornice, column, change of building material, window or door opening. Flush wall signs shall align with other such signs on the same building. (12) No illuminated sign visible from or within three hundred (300) feet of any property which contains an existing or approved residential use or is zoned for residential use, may be illuminated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. (or one-half [½] hour after the use to which it is pertains is closed, whichever is later) and 6:00 a.m.; provided, however, that this time limitation shall not apply to any lighting which is used primarily for the protection of the premises or for safety purposes or any signage which is separated from a residential use by an arterial street. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "approved" shall mean having current project development plan or final plan approval. (13) One (1) flush wall sign or under-canopy sign per street frontage, not to exceed twelve (12) square feet in area, shall be permitted on or under the fascia of a canopy covering an area used by motor vehicles (including but not limited to service station canopies, canopies over drive-in or drive-through facilities, etc.) (14) For the first two hundred (200) feet in building frontage length in a neighborhood service center, the maximum sign area permitted shall be equal to one and one-quarter (1¼) square feet for each linear foot of building frontage length. For that portion of a building frontage which exceeds two hundred (200) feet in length, the maximum sign area permitted shall be equal to two-thirds (⅔) foot for each linear foot of building frontage length over such two hundred (200) feet. (15) For the first two hundred (200) feet in building frontage length in a convenience shopping center, or any other business or commercial use that is not a neighborhood service center or neighborhood commercial district, the maximum sign area permitted shall be equal to one (1) square foot for each linear foot of building frontage length. For that portion of a building frontage which exceeds two hundred (200) feet in length, the maximum sign area permitted shall be equal to one-half (½) foot for each linear foot of building frontage over such two hundred (200) feet. (16) Window signs shall cover no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the surface area of the window or door in which such signs are placed. Temporary window signs shall not be allowed above the first story of a building. A window sign shall be considered to be a temporary window sign if it is displayed in the same window or door, or same approximate location outside of a window or door, for no more than thirty (30) calendar days within a calendar year. Changes in the message displayed on such sign shall not affect the computation of the thirty-day period of time provided for herein. (F) Measurement of Signs. (1) The area of signs with regular geometric shapes shall be measured using standard mathematical formulas. Regular geometric shapes shall include, but not be limited to, squares, rectangles, triangles, parallelograms, circles, ellipses or combinations thereof. (2) The area of signs with irregular shapes or of individual letter signs shall be the entire area within a single continuous perimeter of not more than eight (8) straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of the sign. (3) The total measured area of a sign shall include the area of all writing, representation, lines, emblems or figures contained within all modules, together with any air space, material or color forming an integral part or background of the display if used to differentiate such sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is placed. (4) The total surface area of all sign faces shall be counted and considered to be part of the maximum total sign area allowance. (5) The area of all freestanding and ground signs shall include the area of the sign face(s) as calculated in subsections (1) through (4) above, together with any portion of the sign structure which exceeds one and one-half (1½) times the area of the sign face(s). (G) Freestanding and Ground Sign Requirement. (1) Ground signs which exceed forty-two (42) inches in height, and freestanding signs which do not maintain free air space between a height of forty-two (42) inches and seventy-two (72) inches above the abutting street elevation, shall be set back from the right-of-way line a distance as established in the sight distance triangle table contained in this subsection. A freestanding sign shall not be construed to have free air space if such sign has a base, the width of which exceeds fifty (50) percent of the width of its face or three (3) feet, whichever is smaller. In addition, freestanding and ground signs shall not be located closer to the right-of-way line than allowed in the tables below that apply to such signs. Sight Distance Triangle Setbacks (See Figure 16) Type of street Y distances (feet) X distances (feet) Safe sight distance (feet) Arterial Right 135 15 500 Left 270 Collector Right 120 15 400 Left 220 Local Right 100 15 300 Left 150 Figure 16 Safe Distance Triangle Setbacks Note: All "X" distances shall be fifteen (15) feet measured perpendicular from the project flowline of the intersecting street. For explanation of distances, see the diagram following. These distances are typical sight distance triangles to be used under normal conditions and may be modified by the Director of Engineering in order to protect the public safety and welfare in the event that exceptional site conditions necessitate such modification. Requirements for Freestanding Signs (See Accompanying Text Below) Distance from street right-of- way line (feet) Maximum height above grade (feet) Maximum size allowed per side (square feet) 0 10 20 5 10 30 10 12 40 15 12 50 20 14 60 25 16 70 30 18 80 36 and more 18 90 Requirements for Ground Signs (See Accompanying Text Below) Distance from street right -of-way line (feet) Maximum height above grade (feet) Maximum size allowed per side (square feet) 0 7 45 5 8.5 60 10 10 75 15 and more 12 90 (2) The maximum size for ground and freestanding signs shall be ninety (90) square feet per side. The maximum height for freestanding signs shall be eighteen (18) feet above grade. The maximum height for ground signs shall be twelve (12) feet above grade. No freestanding or ground sign shall be built within fifteen (15) feet of any interior side lot line. The minimum horizontal distance between freestanding or ground signs located on the same lot shall be seventy-five (75) feet. (3) The maximum combined sign area of all faces of a freestanding or ground sign shall be two (2) times the maximum sign area allowed per side, based on setback. Any limitation imposed under this Article on the size of the face of a sign shall also apply to the entire side of the sign. (4) The required setback of any freestanding or ground sign shall be measured from the street right- of-way line of the street frontage which is the basis for the allotment of such sign. Any such setback shall be measured perpendicularly from the street right-of-way line to the nearest portion of the sign face or structure. (5) When a freestanding or ground sign is placed on a lot with two (2) or more street frontages, such sign shall be said to abut a particular street frontage when it is located closer to that street frontage than any other street frontage. (6) No more than one (1) permanent freestanding or ground sign per street frontage shall be permitted for any property or group of properties that were planned or developed with shared pedestrian or vehicle access. No permanent freestanding or ground sign shall contain more than three (3) cabinets or modules. (7) If a lot has more than one (1) street frontage, the freestanding or ground sign permitted for each frontage must abut the street frontage which is the basis for the allotment of such sign. (8) The sign face of a single face sign must be most nearly parallel to the abutting street frontage. The sign faces of a multi-face sign must be most nearly perpendicular to the abutting street frontage. (9) A drive through use, when located on a lot with frontage on only one (1) street, shall be permitted one (1) additional freestanding or ground that is physically oriented to the drive through lane. Such sign shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and thirty-five (35) square feet in area and shall be limited to one (1) face. Fifty (50) percent of the square footage of such sign shall be exempted from the total allowed for the property. (10) A drive-in use shall be permitted up to eight (8) square feet of signage at each drive-in station (including but not limited to menu boards, signs affixed to gasoline pumps, etc.), provided that the sign is physically oriented to the drive-in station. The square footage of such sign shall be exempted from the total allowed for the property. (11) All supporting structures of ground signs shall be of the same or similar materials or colors of the associated building(s) which house the businesses or activities advertised on the sign. (12) When electrical service is provided to freestanding signs or ground signs, all such electrical service shall be underground. (13) Freestanding signs (pole signs) shall contain no more than thirty (30) percent (forty [40] percent if located within the site distance triangle as described in paragraph 3.8.7.1(G)(1) above) free air space between the top of the sign and the ground, vertically and between the extreme horizontal limits of the sign extended perpendicular to the ground. A base or pole cover provided to satisfy this requirement shall be integrally designed as part of the sign by use of such things as color, material and texture. Freestanding signs that existed prior to December 30, 2011, and that do not comply with this regulation shall be removed or brought into compliance by December 31, 2019, provided that such signs otherwise comply with subparagraph (A)(3)(b) of this Section. (H) Projecting Signs. (1) Signs projecting over private property shall not project more than six (6) feet from the face of the building or beyond the minimum required building setback for the zone district in which located. Such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) square feet per face. (2) No sign may project over a public right-of-way in any zone district, except that signs eight (8) feet or more above grade may project up to forty-eight (48) inches from the face of the building if the total area for such signs is the lesser of one (1) square foot of sign for each linear foot of building or twelve (12) square feet per face. (3) No projecting sign shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. (I) Flush Wall Signs and Individual Letter Signs. No flush wall or individual letter sign shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. Flush wall and individual letter signs may not project more than twelve (12) inches horizontally from the face of the building on which they are erected. Flush wall and individual letter signs that are mounted on mansards or similar architectural features may not project more than twelve (12) inches horizontally, measured at the bottom of the sign, from the surface to which they are mounted. If the individual sections of an individual letter sign are connected by a common structure, commonly known as a "raceway," which provides for the electrical and/or mechanical operation of said sign, the "raceway" must be painted to match the color of the wall to which the sign is mounted and must be limited to a height of no more than one-half (½) of the height of the tallest letter. (J) Canopy Signs. No canopy sign shall project above the top of the canopy upon which it is mounted. No canopy sign shall project from the face of a canopy. Under-canopy signs which are perpendicular to the face of the building shall be deemed to be projecting wall signs. Under-canopy signs which are parallel to the face of the building shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet above grade and shall be deemed to be flush wall signs. (K) Awning Signs. (1) No awning sign shall project above the top of the awning on which it is mounted. No awning sign shall project from the face of an awning. Awnings on which awning signs are mounted may extend over a public right-of-way no more than seven (7) feet from the face of a supporting building. Awnings on which awning signs are mounted shall be at least eight (8) feet above any public right-of-way, except that any valance attached to an awning may be no less than seven (7) feet above a public right-of-way. (2) Awning signs shall not be back-lit, except that letters and graphics may be back-lit if the background is completely opaque. The amount of signage on an awning shall be limited to the lesser of thirty-five (35) square feet per individual tenant space or twenty-five (25) percent of the total area of the awning. Awning signs shall not be allowed above the first story of a building. (L) Repealed as of August 25, 2017 (M) Electrical Signs and Electronic Message Center Signs. (1) Flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects shall be prohibited on all signs. (2) Illuminated signs shall avoid the concentration of illumination. The intensity of the light source shall not produce glare, the effect of which constitutes a traffic hazard or is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (3) Every electric sign shall have affixed thereon an approved Underwriters' Laboratories label, and all wiring connected to such sign shall comply with all provisions of the National Electrical Code, as adopted by the City. (4) Signs that contain an electronic message center shall be subject to the following limitations. (a) The electronic message center must be programmed so that the displayed message does not change more frequently than once per minute and so that the message change from one (1) static display to another occurs instantaneously without the use of scrolling, flashing, fading or other similar effects. The message or image displayed must be complete in itself without continuation in content to the next message. Messages published by federal, state, or local government to communicate information to the public regarding an immediate threat to public health safety may be displayed notwithstanding the limitations set forth in this subsection (4)(a). (b) The electronic message center must be provided with automatic dimming software or solar sensors to control brightness for nighttime viewing and variations in ambient light. Lighting from the message center shall not exceed three-tenths (0.3) foot-candles over the ambient light as measured using a foot-candle meter at the following distances from the face of the message center: thirty-two (32) feet for a sign face greater than zero (0) square feet and not more than ten (10) square feet per side; thirty-nine (39) feet for a sign face greater than ten (10) square feet and not more than fifteen (15) square feet per side; forty-five (45) feet for a sign face greater than fifteen (15) square feet and not more than twenty (20) square feet per side; fifty (50) feet for a sign face greater than twenty (20) square feet and not more than twenty-five (25) square feet per side; fifty-five (55) feet for a sign face greater than twenty- five (25) square feet and not more than thirty (30) square feet per side; fifty-nine (59) feet for a sign face greater than thirty (30) square feet and not more than thirty-five (35) square feet per side; sixty-three (63) feet for a sign face greater than thirty-five (35) square feet and not more than forty (40) square feet per side; and sixty-three (63) feet for a sign face greater than forty (40) square feet and not more than forty-five (45) square feet per side. Lighting measurements shall be taken with the meter aimed directly at the message center face, with the message center turned off, and again with the message center turned on to a full white image for a message center capable of displaying a white color, or a full amber or red image for a message center capable of displaying only an amber or red color. The difference between the off and the white, amber or red message measurements shall not exceed three- tenths (0.3) foot-candles. All such signs shall contain a default mechanism that will cause the message center to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign malfunctions. Prior to the issuance of a permit for a sign containing an electronic message center, the permit applicant shall provide written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory pre-set not to exceed the levels specified above. Prior to acceptance of the installation by the City, the permit holder shall schedule and inspection with the City Zoning Department to verify compliance. The permit holder and the business owner, business manager or property manager shall be in attendance during the inspection. (c) A displayed message must be presented in a single color, value and hue and the background must also be a single color, value and hue. (d) The maximum allowed size of an electronic message center shall be fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the sign face. (e) Electronic message centers shall be integrated harmoniously into the design of the larger sign face and structure, shall not be the predominant element of the sign, shall not be allowed on a freestanding pole sign, and if located at the top of the sign, must include a substantial cap feature above the electronic message center which consists of the same material, form, color or texture as is found on the sign face or structure. (f) With respect to sign permits issued after December 30, 2011, the pixel spacing of an electronic message center shall not exceed sixteen (16) mm, except that the maximum pixel spacing for a message center that is manufactured as a monochrome-only sign shall not exceed twenty (20) mm. (g) In the Downtown (D) District, wall signs with electronic message centers are not permitted on properties located within the boundaries of the Portable Sign Placement Area Map. (h) With respect to sign permits issued after December 30, 2011, no more than one (1) electronic message center sign shall be allowed to face each street abutting or within any property and/or site specific development plan. The minimum horizontal distance between electronic message center signs located on the same side of a street shall be one hundred (100) feet measured in a straight line. (i) An electronic message center located inside a building but visible from a public sidewalk or public street is subject to all of the regulations contained in this subsection. (j) Signs that contain an electronic message center which do not comply with the provisions of this Section shall be removed or made to conform by the dates specified in subparagraphs 1., 2. and 3. below and provided that such signs otherwise comply with subparagraph 3.8.7.1(A)(3)(b). 1. Electronic message centers that contain dimming software or solar sensors capable of meeting the brightness levels described in subparagraph 3.8.7.1(M)(4)(b) shall be required to comply with such levels by January 31, 2012, and all electronic message centers located inside a building but not visible from a public sidewalk or public street shall be required to comply with paragraph 3.8.7.1(M)(1) and subparagraphs 3.8.7.1(M)(4)(a) and (c) by January 31, 2012. 2. Except as otherwise required in subparagraph (j)1. above, all signs that do not comply with the requirements of subparagraphs 3.8.7.1(M)(4)(a), (b) and/or (c) shall be made to comply with those requirements by December 31, 2015. 3. Structural changes or sign removal that may be required in order to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs 3.8.7.1(M)(4)(d), (e) and/or (g) shall be completed by December 31, 2019. (N) Repealed as of August 25, 2017 (O) Structural Requirements; Exceptions. (1) All signs shall be maintained in good structural condition at all times. All signs, including sign structures and sign faces, shall be kept neatly painted, including all metal parts and supports that are not galvanized or of rust-resistant metals, and in a general state of good repair. For the purposes of this Section, good repair shall mean that there are no loose, broken or severely weathered portions of the sign structure or sign face. The Director may inspect any sign governed by this Division and shall have authority to order the painting, repair, alteration or removal of a sign which constitutes a hazard to safety, health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation or obsolescence. (2) Permanent signs shall be engineered to withstand a wind load of thirty (30) pounds per square foot. (P) Off-Premise Signs. No off-premise sign shall be constructed in any zone district after February 25, 1994. No illumination shall be added to any off-premise sign already in existence. (Q) Vehicle-Mounted Signs. (1) All vehicle-mounted signs shall be permanently affixed, painted, magnetically applied or otherwise mounted upon a vehicle and shall not project more than eighteen (18) inches above the surface to which they are attached; and any sign which is mounted upon the roof, hood or trunk of a vehicle and which projects above such surface upon which it is mounted shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area per face. (2) No sign shall be placed or erected in the bed of a truck or on the deck of a trailer or a truck. (3) The primary purpose of any vehicle upon which a vehicle-mounted sign is affixed must be to serve a useful function in the transportation or conveyance of persons or commodities from one (1) place to another, including transportation to and from work, and such intermittent delays and stops as are customary in the routine conduct of the business or activity for which the transportation or conveyance occurs. (4) No vehicle upon which a vehicle-mounted sign is affixed may be parked on any lot for the primary purpose of directing or attracting the attention of the public to a building, institution, product, organization, event or location offered or existing elsewhere than upon the same lot where such vehicle is parked. (5) Banners displayed on vehicles shall be subject to the regulations contained in Section 3.8.7.2. (6) Vehicle-mounted signs used in connection with a special event are exempted from the requirements of this Section during the term of the special event only. Upon the conclusion of the special event, such signs must either be dismantled, moved to a location where the sign is not visible from public rights-of-way or made to comply with the provisions of this Section. For the purposes of this subsection, the term special event shall mean a parade, circus, fair, carnival, festival or other similar event that is intended to or likely to attract substantial numbers of persons and is different in character from the customary or usual activities generally associated with the property upon which the special event is to occur. (7) This Section shall not apply to signs that are being transported for installation. (R) Removal of Abandoned Sign(s). Abandoned sign(s) shall be removed by the person or entity owning or having possession of the property. (S) Window Signs. (1) Nonilluminated window signs of no more than six (6) square feet are exempt from permit requirements when the total area of all window signs fills less than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the architecturally distinct window in which they are situated, or when the total area of all window signs does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total allowable sign area for the premises. (2) Illuminated window signs, regardless of size, require a sign permit, and the area of such signs shall be calculated as part of, and be limited by, the total allowable sign area for the premises. (3) The area of window signs not exempt from permit requirements shall be calculated as a part of, and be limited by, the total allowable sign area for the premises. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the maximum total area of all window signs in an architecturally distinct window shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet, nor shall window signs cover more than fifty (50) percent of the area of the window in which they are located. (5) No window sign shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. 3.8.7.2 - Temporary Signs (A) Applicability. The regulations contained in this Section 3.8.7.2 apply to temporary signs while permanent signs are regulated under Land Use Code Section 3.8.7.1 unless specifically provided herein. (B) Measurements. (1) Sign Area. (a) Generally. In general, sign area is the area within a continuous polygon with up to eight (8) straight sides that completely encloses the limits of text and graphics of a sign, together with any frame or other material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate the sign's contents from the background against which they are placed. (b) Exclusions. The sign area does not include the structure upon which the sign is placed (unless the structure is an integral part of the display or used to differentiate it), but does include any open space contained within the outer limits of the display face, or between any component, panel, strip, or figure of any kind composing the display face, whether this open space is enclosed by a frame or border or not. (c) Multiple Sign Faces. Freestanding temporary signs may have multiple faces. The area of such signs is measured using the vertical cross-section that represents the sign's maximum projection upon a vertical plane (e.g., for a sign with two (2) opposite faces on the same plane, only one (1) of the sign faces is measured). (2) Sign Height. Sign height is measured for detached temporary signs as the distance between ground level at the base of the sign and the top of the sign or sign structure, whichever is higher. (3) Property Frontage. Property frontage is measured as the length of each property boundary that abuts a public street right-of-way. (C) Prohibited Signs and Sign Elements. (1) Generally. The prohibitions in this Section apply to temporary signs in all zone districts of the City. (2) Prohibited Sign Structures. The following sign structures are not allowed: (a) portable signs, except as permitted in the Code of the City of Fort Collins Chapter 24, Article IV; (b) wind-driven signs except feather flags, banners, and pennants in compliance with this Section 3.8.7.2; (c) inflatable signs; (d) abandoned signs; (3) Prohibited Design Elements. The following elements shall not be incorporated as an element of any sign or sign structure: (a) animated or moving parts, including any moving, swinging, rotating, or spinning parts or flashing, blinking, scintillating, fluctuating, or otherwise animated light; except as expressly allowed in this Section 3.8.7.2; (b) cardboard, card stock, or paper, except when laminated or used as a window sign located on the interior side of the window; (c) motor vehicles, unless: 1. the vehicles are operational, and either: a. automobile dealer inventory; or b. regularly used as motor vehicles, with current registration and tags; 2. the display of signage on the motor vehicle would not interfere with the immediate operation of the motor vehicle ( e.g. , signs that are held in place by an open hood or trunk are not allowed; signs that cover windows are not allowed; and signs that would fall off of the vehicle if the vehicle were in motion are not allowed); and 3. the motor vehicle is legally parked in a vehicle use area depicted on an approved site plan. (d) semi trailers, shipping containers, or portable storage units, unless: 1. the trailers, containers, or portable storage units are: a. structurally sound and capable of being transported; b. used for their primary purpose (e.g., storage, pick-up, or delivery); and c. if subject to registration, have current registration and tags; and 2. the display of signage is incidental to the primary purpose; and 3. the semi-trailer, shipping container, or portable storage unit is parked or placed in a designated loading area or on a construction site in an area that is designated on an approved construction staging plan. (e) stacked products ( e.g. , tires, soft drink cases, bagged soil or mulch) that are placed in unapproved outdoor storage locations; (f) materials with a high degree of specular reflectivity, such as polished metal, installed in a manner that creates substantial glare from headlights, street lights, or sunlight. This prohibition does not include retroreflective materials that comply with the standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; (g) rooftop signs and all other signs which project above the fascia wall. (4) Prohibited Obstructions. In no event shall a temporary sign obstruct the use of: (a) building ingress or egress, including doors, egress windows, and fire escapes; (b) operable windows (with regard to movement only, not transparency); (c) equipment, structures, or architectural elements that are related to public safety, building operations, or utility service (e.g., standpipes, downspouts, fire hydrants, electrical outlets, lighting, vents, valves, and meters). (5) Prohibited Mounts. No temporary sign shall be posted, installed, mounted on, fastened, or affixed to any of the following: (a) any tree or shrub; (b) any utility pole or light pole, unless: 1. the sign is a banner or flag that is not more than ten (10) square feet in area; 2. the owner of the utility pole or light pole consents to its use for the display of the banner or flag; 3. the banner or flag is mounted on brackets or a pole that extend not more than thirty (30) inches from the utility pole or light pole; 4. the banner or flag is either situated above an area that is not used by pedestrians or vehicles, or the bottom of the banner or flag is at least eight (8) feet above grade; and 5. any applicable City encroachment and banner permits are obtained. (c) utility cabinets or pedestals (except signs that are applied by or with the consent of the owner of the utility cabinet or pedestal). (6) Prohibited Locations. In addition to applicable setback requirements and other restrictions of this Section 3.8.7.2, no sign shall be located in any of the following locations: (a) in or over public rights-of-way (which, in addition to streets, may include other sidewalks, parkways, trails, multi-use pathways, retaining walls, utility poles, traffic calming devices, medians, and center islands that are within public rights-of-way), except: 1. signs painted on or affixed to transit shelters and bus benches as authorized by the provider of the shelter or bench, but not extending beyond the physical structure of the shelter or bench; 2. signs that are the subject of a revocable license agreement with the City, installed and maintained in accordance with the terms of that agreement; 3. portable signs permitted pursuant to the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapter 24, Article IV; or 4. signs posted by the City or jurisdiction that owns or maintains the right-of-way. (b) within any sight distance triangle that is described in Section 3.8.7.1. (D) Temporary Sign Districts. (1) Generally. In recognition that the City is a place of diverse physical character, and that different areas of the City have different functional characteristics, signs shall be regulated based on sign district in which they are located. (2) Temporary Sign Districts Created. The following sign districts are created: Downtown, Commercial/Industrial, Multifamily, and Single-Family. Sign districts shall correspond to zoning districts as provided in Table D, Temporary Sign Districts. Table D TEMPORARY SIGN DISTRICTS Sign District Corresponding Zoning Districts Downtown D; R-D-R Commercial/Industrial T; C-C; C-C-N; C-C-R; C-G; C-S; C-L; H-C; E; I Multifamily/Mixed-Use L-M-N; M-M-N; N-C-M; N-C-B; H-M-N; N-C Single-Family R-U-L; U-E; R-F; R-L; N-C-L; P-O-L; R-C (E) Standards for Attached Temporary Signs. (1) Generally. The standards of this Section apply to temporary signs that are attached to buildings. Temporary signs that are not attached to buildings are subject to the standards of Section 3.8.7.2(F). The standards of this Section are applied in conjunction with all other applicable standards. Duration of display is limited by Section 3.8.7.2(G). (2) Attached Temporary Banners and Pennants. Attached temporary banners and pennants may only be displayed provided a permit is obtained pursuant to Section 3.8.7.2(I). (3) Temporary Sign Covers. Temporary sign covers are permitted in all sign districts, provided that they are used during a period not to exceed forty (40) days in which a new permanent sign or sign component is being fabricated and such sign or sign component is permitted and installed in accordance with Section 3.8.7.1. (4) Temporary Window Signs. (a) Temporary window signs are allowed in all locations where permanent window signs are allowed, provided that the transparency standards of Section 3.8.7.1 are met as to the combination of temporary and permanent window signs. (b) Temporary window signs shall be affixed to the window such that the fastener (e.g., tape) is not highly visible, or shall be mounted vertically inside of the building for viewing through the window. (F) Standards for Detached Temporary Signs. (1) Generally. The standards of this Section apply to temporary signs that are not attached to buildings. Temporary signs that are attached to buildings are subject to the standards of Section 3.8.7.2(E). The standards of this Section (F) are applied in conjunction with all other applicable standards of this Section 3.8.7.2. Duration of display is limited by Section 3.8.7.2(G). (2) Detached Temporary Signs. Detached temporary signs are allowed according to the standards in Table F, Detached Temporary Signs. Detached temporary sign types that are not listed in Table F (including but not limited to inflatable signs) are not allowed. Detached banners and pennants may only be displayed provided a permit is obtained pursuant to Section 3.8.7.2(I). Portable signs may only be displayed provided a permit is obtained pursuant to the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapter 24, Article IV. Table F DETACHED TEMPORARY SIGNS (sf. = square feet / ft. = linear feet / N/A = not applicable) Type of Sign Standards Sign District Downtown Commercial- Industrial Multifamily/Mixed Use Single-Family Yard Signs Max. # Single-Family and Duplex Residential Buildings: Not Limited Single-Family and Duplex Residential Buildings: Not Limited Single-Family and Duplex Residential Buildings: Not Limited Residential Buildings: Not limited Multi-Family Residential Buildings: 1 per 20 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof All other uses: 2 per vehicular access point Multi-Family Residential Buildings: 1 per 20 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof Nonresidential and Residential Mixed Use Buildings: 1 per 80 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof Nonresidential and Residential Mixed Use Standards permeable landscaped area. permeable landscaped area that is at least 8 sf. in area and 2 ft. in any horizontal dimension, not more than 10 ft. from vehicular access point permeable landscaped area that is at least 8 sf. in area and 2 ft. in any horizontal dimension in permeable landscaped area that is at least 8 sf. in area and 2 ft. in any horizontal dimension Site Signs Max. # Residential Buildings: Not Limited 1 per 600 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof 1 per 600 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof, provided that the area of the property is at least 2 acres; properties that are less than 2 acres shall not display site signs 1 per 600 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof, provided that the area of the property is at least 2 acres; properties that are less than 2 acres shall not display site signs Nonresidential and Residential Mixed Use Buildings: 1 per property Standards signs shall be installed in permeable landscaped areas or hardscaped areas other than vehicular use areas and sidewalks that are at least 5 ft. in every horizontal dimension and at least 40 sf. in area signs shall be installed in permeable landscaped areas or hardscaped areas other than vehicular use areas and sidewalks that are at least 5 ft. in every horizontal dimension and at least 40 sf. in area signs shall be installed in permeable landscaped areas or hardscaped areas other than vehicular use areas and sidewalks that are at least 5 ft. in every horizontal dimension and at least 40 sf. in area site signs shall be installed in permeable landscaped areas or hardscaped areas other than vehicular use areas and sidewalks that are at least 5 ft. in every horizontal dimension and at least 40 sf. in area Swing Signs Max. # Not allowed Not allowed 1 per property frontage 1 per property frontage Max. Sign Area be clustered Max. sign area 40 sf. 40 sf. 40 sf. N/A Max. sign height 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. N/A Other Standards Not allowed if freestanding banner is present Must be installed in a permeable landscaped area with a radius that extends not less than 3 ft. from the flag pole Not allowed if freestanding banner is present Must be installed in a permeable landscaped area with a radius that extends not less than 3 ft. from the flag pole Must be installed in a permeable landscaped area with a radius that extends not less than 3 ft. from the flag pole N/A (G) Duration of Display of Temporary Signs. (1) Generally. The purpose of temporary signs is to display messages for a temporary duration. Temporary signs shall not be used as a subterfuge to circumvent the regulations that apply to permanent signs or to add permanent signage to a property in addition to that which is allowed by Section 3.8.7.1. (2) Classification of Temporary Sign Materials. Temporary signs are constructed from a variety of materials with varying degrees of durability. Common materials are classified in Table G1, Classification of Temporary Sign Materials. Table G1 Classification of Temporary Sign Materials Material Material Class 1 2 3 4 5 Paper, card stock, foam core board, or cardboard ✓ Laminated paper or cardstock, polyethylene bags ✓ Cloth, canvas, nylon, polyester, burlap, flexible vinyl, or other flexible material of comparable durability ✓ Inflexible vinyl, hard plastic, composite, or corrugated plastic ("coroplast") ✓ Wood or metal ✓ (3) Duration of Display. (a) In general, a temporary sign shall be removed as of the earlier of the date that: 1. it becomes an abandoned sign; or 2. it falls into disrepair (see Section 3.8.7.2(H)); or 3. the number of days set out in Table G2, Duration of Temporary Sign Display by Material Class, expires. Table G2 Duration of Temporary Sign Display by Material Class Sign Type Max. Duration for Individual Sign by Material Class Max. Posting 1 2 3 4 5 Days/Year Yard Sign Not Allowed 45 days Not Allowed 60 days 180 days 180 days Site Sign Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed 60 days 180 days 180 days 1 Swing Sign Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed 60 days 180 days 180 days 1 Window Sign 30 days per sign 30 days per sign 30 days per sign 30 days per sign 30 days per sign 30 days per sign Feather Flags Not Allowed Not Allowed 20 days Not Allowed Not Allowed 20 days TABLE NOTES: 1 alternatively, the sign type may be displayed for three hundred sixty (360) days every two (2) calendar years. (b) Temporary signs that are required due to governmental regulation (e.g., public notices) shall be removed as required by the applicable regulation. (4) Administrative Interpretations. Materials for signage that are not listed in this Section 3.8.7.2(G) may be introduced into the market. When a material is proposed that is not listed in this Section 3.8.7.2(G), the Director shall determine the class of materials with which the new material is most closely comparable, based on the new material's appearance, durability, and colorfastness. No temporary sign shall be displayed for a longer period than a site sign constructed of class 5 material, regardless of the durability material (although such a sign may be permissible under Land Use Code Section 3.8.7.1). (H) Temporary Sign Maintenance. Temporary signs and temporary sign structures of all types shall be maintained as follows: (1) Paint and Finishes. Paint and other finishes shall be maintained in good condition. Peeling finishes shall be repaired. Signs with running colors shall be repainted, repaired, or removed if the running colors were not a part of the original design. (2) Mineral Deposits and Stains. Mineral deposits and stains shall be promptly removed. (3) Damage. Temporary signs that are obviously damaged shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. (4) Upright, Level Position. Signs that are designed to be upright and level shall be installed and maintained in an upright and level position. Feather flag poles shall be installed in a vertical position. Signs that are not upright and level shall be removed or restored to an upright, level position. (I) Banners and Pennants. (1) Attached unframed banners, detached banners, and attached and detached pennants are allowed in any zone district pursuant to the restrictions in below Table I provided a permit is obtained from the Director. The Director shall issue a permit for the display of banners and pennants only in locations where such banners and pennants will not cause unreasonable annoyance or inconvenience to adjoining property owners or other persons in the area and on such additional conditions as deemed necessary to protect adjoining premises and the public. All banners and pennants shall be removed on or before the expiration date of the permit. If any person, business or organization erects any banners or pennants without receiving a permit, as herein provided, the person, business or organization shall be ineligible to receive a permit for a banner or pennant for the remainder of the calendar year. (2) Each business or non-profit entity or other organization, and each individual not affiliated with an entity or organization, shall be eligible to display banners and pennants pursuant to a valid permit for a maximum of forty (40) days per calendar year. (3) The Director shall review a banner or pennant permit application within two (2) business days to determine completeness. If it is complete, the Director shall approve or deny the application within three (3) business days after such determination. If it is incomplete, the Director shall cause the application to be returned to the applicant within one (1) business day of the determination, along with written reasons for the determination of incompleteness. (4) Notwithstanding the size and time limitations contained in Table I, noncommercial banners or pennants may be larger in size and displayed for such additional periods of time as may be established by the City Manager during community events that, in the judgment of the City Manager, advance a goal or policy of the City Council and contribute to the health, safety or welfare of the City. Table I ATTACHED UNFRAMED BANNERS AND PENNANTS (sf. = square feet / ft. = linear feet / N/A = not applicable) Standard Sign District Downtown Commercial- Industrial Multifamily/Mixed Use Single-Family Max. # on each building elevation 1 1 per 300 ft. of building elevation or fraction thereof, but not more than 3 banners per building 1 Residential Buildings: Not Allowed Nonresidential Buildings: 1 Max. Sign Area 40 sf. 40 sf. 40 sf. Residential Buildings: N/A Nonresidential Buildings: 40 sf. Allowed Lighting None External None None Max. Sign banner is allowed on a building elevation, banners may be clustered DETACHED BANNERS AND PENNANTS Max. # Either framed or unframed: 1 per property frontage; or 1 per 100 ft. of property frontage if secured to temporary construction fencing related to permitted construction (may be clustered) Either framed or unframed: 1 per property frontage; or 1 per 100 ft. of property frontage if secured to temporary construction fencing related to permitted construction (may be clustered) Either framed or unframed: 1 per property frontage; or 1 per 100 ft. of property frontage if secured to temporary construction fencing related to permitted construction (may be clustered) Not allowed Max. Sign Area (per banner) 40 sf. 40 sf. 40 sf. 40 sf. Allowed Lighting None None None None Max. Sign Height (applies to freestanding banner frames) 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. (5) For banners and pennants in all sign districts, the following shall apply: (a) mounting hardware shall be concealed from view; (b) banners shall be stretched tightly to avoid movement in windy conditions; (c) all banners that are installed in banner frames shall be sized to fit the banner frame so that there are no visible gaps between the edges of the banner and the banner frame; (d) banners are not allowed if any of the following are present on the property: feather flag, yard 068, 2010 §§8, 9, 7/6/10; Ord. No. 036, 2001 §1, 3/22/11; Ord. No. 178, 2011, §§1—3, 12/20/11; Ord. No. 031, 2013 , 3/5/13; Ord. No. 088, 2017 , §§2, 3, 8/15/17) Appendix A-7 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.8.26 - Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units (A) Applicability . These standards apply only to applications that include residential uses and, to the extent legally applicable, high occupancy building units. Standards regarding Buffer Yard D shall not apply to any lot for which a site specific development plan with vested rights was approved prior to September 14, 2018 so long as such site specific development plan was, or is, valid at the time of issuance of any building permit for the construction or modification of any dwelling unit or high occupancy building unit on such lot. (B) Purpose . The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to separate residential land uses and high occupancy building units from existing industrial uses in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, air pollutants, hazardous materials or site contamination, or danger from fires or explosions. (C) Buffer standards . Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel and may be required along all property lines for buffering purposes and shall meet the standards as provided in this Section. (1) Only those structures used for buffering and/or screening purposes shall be located within a buffer yard. The buffer yard shall not include any paved area, except for pedestrian sidewalks or paths or vehicular access drives which may intersect the buffer yard at a point which is perpendicular to the buffer yard and which shall be the minimum width necessary to provide vehicular or pedestrian access. Fencing and/or walls used for buffer yard purposes shall be solid, with at least seventy-five (75) percent opacity. (2) There are four (4) types of buffer yards which are established according to land use intensity as described in Chart 1 below. Buffer yard distances are established in Chart 2 below and specify deciduous or coniferous plants required per one hundred (100) linear feet along the affected property line, on an average basis. (3) The buffer yard requirements shall not apply to temporary or seasonal uses or to properties that are separated by a major collector street, arterial street, or highway. (4) Additional Standards Applicable to Buffer Yard D . The following requirements shall also apply to development located in Buffer Yard D: (a) Measured . For purposes of Buffer Yard D standards, the buffer yard shall be measured as either the distance from the outer edge of an oil and gas location to the nearest wall or corner of any dwelling or high occupancy building unit location or, if any Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adopted setback measurement method applicable to a dwelling or high occupancy building unit results in a greater distance between the existing oil and gas operation site location and the dwelling or high occupancy building unit at issue, then the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission setback measurement method shall be used. Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas, notwithstanding paragraph (1) above. (b) Minimum Buffer Distances. The following minimum buffer distances shall apply: 1. Residential Development. The minimum buffer between a dwelling and any oil and gas location shall be five hundred (500) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. Public playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces shall not be placed within a buffer. Private common areas within a buffer shall not contain playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces. 2. High Occupancy Building Units. The minimum buffer between a high occupancy building unit and any oil and gas location shall be one thousand (1,000) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. Public or private playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces shall not be allowed within a buffer. (c) Alternative compliance buffer reduction from plugged and abandoned wells. Upon applicant request, the decision maker may approve a reduced buffer distance from a plugged and abandoned well for which reclamation has been completed, all of the aforementioned in accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations, in lieu of the minimum buffer distances set forth in the immediately preceding Subsection (b), provided that the approved reduced buffer is no less than 150 feet from the permanently abandoned well and meets the requirements specified below. 1. Procedure. To request alternative compliance, an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements established by the Director. At a minimum, the plan must: a. Clearly identify and discuss the proposed buffer reduction and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better eliminate or minimize the nuisances and reduce the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section. b. Include information regarding environmental testing and monitoring for the site. Site investigation, sampling, and monitoring shall be conducted to demonstrate that the well has been properly abandoned and that soil, air and water quality have not been adversely impacted by oil and gas operations or facilities or other sources of contamination. Such sampling and monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified environmental engineering or consulting firm with experience in oil and gas investigations. Director approval that the sampling and monitoring plan contains the information required pursuant to this subsection b) is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: i. Site survey, historical research, and/or physical locating techniques to determine exact location and extent of oil and gas operations and facilities. ii. Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections. iii. Soil sampling, including soil gas testing. iv. Groundwater sampling. v. Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations. vi. A minimum of five (5) years of annual soil gas and groundwater monitoring at the well location. c. Upon completion of the site investigation and sampling, not including the ongoing monitoring, the consultant must provide a written report verifying that the soil and groundwater samples meet applicable EPA and State residential regulations and that a reduced buffer would not pose a greater health or safety risk for future residents or users of the site. Otherwise, the decision maker may specify an appropriate buffer distance or require that the following actions be completed by a qualified professional before development may occur, including but not limited to: i. Remediation of environmental contamination to background levels. ii. Well repair or re-plugging of a previously abandoned well. 2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan eliminates or minimizes the nuisances and reduces the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section. An approved alternative compliance buffer reduction plan shall be exempt from the screening requirements of Chart 2 - Buffer Yard Types and below Subsection (e) regarding fencing. (d) Disclosure . If any residential development or dwelling, or high occupancy building unit is proposed to be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of an oil and gas location, the following requirements shall apply: 1. At such time as the property to be developed is platted or replatted, the plat shall show the one-thousand-foot radius on the property from such oil and gas location and shall contain a note informing subsequent property owners that certain lots shown on the plat are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas location. 2. For residential developments requiring a declaration pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, a statement shall be included in such declaration specifying the lots within such residential development upon which dwellings may be constructed that are within one thousand (1,000) feet of an oil and gas location. The approved plat for such residential development shall be attached to the recorded declaration. Where no such declaration is required, the property owner shall record a statement on the property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property is located within one thousand feet of an oil and gas location. (e) Fencing . If any residential development is proposed to be located within five hundred (500) feet of an oil and gas location, and if an existing fence does not surround the oil and gas location, the developer must erect a fence that restricts public access to the oil and gas location along the property boundary between the oil and gas location and the development. Chart 1 Land Use Intensity Categories Land Use Intensity Category Buffer Yard Airports/airstrips Very High C Composting facilities High B Dry cleaning plants Very High C Feedlots Very High C Heavy industrial uses Very High C Light industrial uses High B Junkyards High B Outdoor storage facilities High B Recreation vehicle, boat, truck storage Medium A Recycling facilities High B Agricultural research laboratories High B Resource extraction Very High C Oil and gas operations, including plugged and abandoned wells Very High D Transportation terminals (truck, container storage) High B Warehouse & distribution facilities High B Workshops and custom small industry Medium A Chart 2 Buffer Yard Types Type - Base Standard (plants per 100 linear feet along affected property line) * Option Width Plant Multiplier ** Option: Add 6' Wall Option: Add 3' Berm or 6' Fence Buffer Yard A: 15 feet 1.00 20 feet .90 3 Shade Trees 25 feet .80 2 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 30 feet .70 .65 .80 3 Evergreen Trees 35 feet .60 15 Shrubs (33% Type 1, 67% Type 2) 40 feet .50 Buffer Yard B: 15 feet 1.25 20 feet 1.00 25 feet .90 4 Shade Trees 30 feet .80 .75 .85 4 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 35 feet .70 3 Evergreen Trees 40 feet .60 25 Shrubs (Type 2) 45 feet .50 Buffer Yard C: 20 feet 1.25 25 feet 1.00 30 feet .90 5 Shade Trees 35 feet .80 .75 .85 6 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 40 feet .70 4 Evergreen Trees 45 feet .60 30 Shrubs (Type 2) 50 feet .50 Buffer Yard D: 500 feet 1.25 525 feet 1.00 550 feet .90 6 Shade Trees 575 feet .80 .75 .85 7 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 600 feet .70 5 Evergreen Trees 625 feet .60 35 Shrubs (Type 2) 650 feet .50 * "Base standard" for each type of buffer yard is that width which has a plant multiplier. ** "Plant multipliers" are used to increase or decrease the amount of required plants based on providing a buffer yard of reduced or greater width or by the addition of a wall, berm or fence. *** Shrub types: Type 1: 4' - 8' High Type 2: Over 8' High (Ord. No. 173, 2003 §20, 12/16/03; Ord. No. 108, 2013 §§1—4, 8/20/13; Ord. No. 114, 2018 , §2, 9/4/18) Appendix A-8 to PUD Master Plan Summary 3.8.31 - Urban Agriculture (A) Applicability. These standards apply to all urban agriculture land uses, except those urban agriculture land uses that are approved as a part of a site-specific development plan. (B) Purpose. The intent of these urban agriculture supplementary regulations is to allow for a range of urban agricultural activities at a level and intensity that is compatible with the City's neighborhoods. (C) Standards. (1) License required. Urban agriculture land uses shall be permitted only after the owner or applicant for the proposed use has obtained an urban agriculture license from the City. The fee for such a license shall be the fee established in the Development Review Fee Schedule. If active operations have not been carried on for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months, the license shall be deemed to have been abandoned regardless of intent to resume active operations. The Director may revoke any urban agriculture license issued by the City if the holder of such license is in violation of any of the provisions contained in paragraph (2) below, provided that the holder of the license shall be entitled to the administrative review of any such revocation under the provisions contained in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code. (2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (a) Mechanized Equipment. All mechanized equipment used in the urban agriculture land use must be in compliance with Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code regarding noise levels. (b) Parking. Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to accommodate parking demands created by the use. (c) Chemicals and Fertilizers. Synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be applied only in accordance with state and federal regulations. All chemicals shall be stored in an enclosed, locked structure when the site is unattended. No synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be applied within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. (d) Trash/Compost. Trash and compost receptacles shall be screened from adjacent properties by utilizing landscaping, fencing or storage within structures and all trash shall be removed from the site weekly. Compost piles and containers shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from any property line when urban agriculture abuts a residential land use. (e) Maintenance. All urban agriculture land uses shall be maintained in an orderly manner, including necessary watering, pruning, pest control and removal of dead or diseased plant materials, and shall be maintained in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20 of the City Code. (f) Water Conservation and Conveyance. To the extent reasonably feasible, the use of sprinkler irrigation between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. shall be minimized. Drip irrigation or watering by hand may be done at any time. The site must be designed and maintained so that any water runoff is conveyed off-site into a City right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affecting downstream property. (g) Identification/Contact Information. A clearly visible sign shall be posted near the public right- of-way adjacent to all urban agriculture land uses, which sign shall contain the name and contact information of the manager or coordinator of the agricultural land use. If a synthetic pesticide or herbicide is used in connection with such use, the sign shall also include the name of the chemical and the frequency of application. The contact information for the manager or coordinator shall be kept on file with the City. All urban agriculture signs must comport with Section 3.8.7 of this Code. (h) If produce from an urban agriculture land use is proposed to be distributed throughout the City, the applicant must provide a list of proposed Food Membership Distribution Sites in the application. (i) Floodplains. If urban agriculture is proposed within a floodplain, then a Floodplain Use Permit is required in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. (j) Hoop Houses. If an urban agriculture land use contains a hoop house, then the hoop house shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from any property line and shall also be located in such a manner that the hoop house does not generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses, such as shading or glare. (k) Additional Impact Mitigation. Measures such as landscaping, fencing or setbacks to mitigate potential visual, noise or odor impacts on adjoining property may be required by the Director. There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line of the parcel where the urban agriculture land use is conducted. Where an urban agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a minimum setback of five (5) feet between the operation and the property line. (3) Notice. At the time of an initial application for an urban agriculture land use within a residential zone (N-C-L, N-C-M, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-M-N, M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B, R-C and P-O-L) or if the urban agriculture land use exceeds one-half (0.5) acre in size, the Director shall determine whether the proposed urban agriculture land use presents a significant impact on the affected neighborhood, and, if so, the Director shall schedule a neighborhood meeting and provide mailed and posted notice for such meeting. Such notice and neighborhood meeting shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of this Code. (Ord. No. 096, 2013 §1, 7/16/13; Ord. No. 034, 2014 §2, 3/18/14) Appendix A-9 to PUD Master Plan Summary DIVISION 4.29 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY (A) Purpose. (1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. (2) Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for real property within an approved PUD Overlay. (3) Positions large areas of property for phased development. (4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards. (5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards. (B) Objectives. (1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. (2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits significantly greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: (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. (3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. (4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. (5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. (C) Applicability. (1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50 acres in size is eligible for a PUD Overlay provided all owners authorize their respective property to be included. (2) An approved PUD Overlay will be shown upon the Zoning Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Overlay may proceed directly to application for Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s). (D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure. (1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to Section 2.15 of the common review procedures. (2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria: (a) The PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within the subject property or properties; (c) The PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; (d) The PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD Overlay, result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and (e) The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent such development standards have been modified pursuant to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (E) Permitted Uses. (1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted within an approved PUD Overlay. (2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if it would not be contrary to the public good. (a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; and (b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. (c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay. (d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay. (F) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited. (G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards. (1) Certain densities and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code and described in below Subsection (G)(2) may be modified as part of a PUD Master Plan. The modification procedure described in this Section (G) substitutes for the modification procedure set forth in Division 2.8. (2) The application must enumerate the densities and development standards proposed to be modified. (a) The application shall describe the minimum and maximum densities for permitted residential uses. (b) The application shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable application of the modified standards to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Modifications under this Section may not be granted for Engineering Design Standards referenced in Section 3.3.5 and variances to such standards are addressed in below Subsection (L). (3) In order to approve requested density or development standard modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria: (a) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the applicable purposes, and advance the applicable objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The modified density or development standard significantly advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; (c) The modified density or development standard is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; and (d) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. (H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I) and (J). (I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment . (1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following: 1. The written request of all of the real property owners within a PUD Overlay; or 2. The City, provided no vested property right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect upon termination. (b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a public hearing to address the issue. (c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall control. (d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6. (2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Amendments may be initiated by any of the following: 1. The written request of all real property owners within the PUD Overlay; or 2. The written request of the original applicant, property owner, and/or developer for the approved PUD Master Plan, or any successor or assign thereof authorized in writing by such party or parties to have the ability pursuant to this Subsection to request an amendment, provided the following conditions are met: a. The name or names of the original applicant, property owner, and/or developer authorized to request an amendment must be set forth in writing in the PUD Master Plan. b. The authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or assign, owns or otherwise has legal control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and c. The right of the authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or assign, to amend the PUD Master Plan without the consent of other owners of real property within the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant or deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or 3. The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify, or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right. (b) Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or otherwise under the control of the authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or assign, any approved amendment requested by the authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or assign, shall not apply to any other real property within the PUD Overlay which: 1. Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD Master Plan; 2. Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final Plan; or 3. Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time the authorized applicant, property owner, developer, or successor or assign amendment request is submitted to the City. (J) Appeals. (1) A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). (2) Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD Overlay may be appealed pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). However, the validity of the uses, densities, and development standards approved in a PUD Master Plan shall not be the subject of any such Project Development Plan appeal. (K) Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11(C), the only aspects of an approved PUD Master Plan eligible for vested property rights are the enumerated uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Such uses, densities, and development standards may be those for which modifications have been granted or uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The applicant shall specify in the PUD Master Plan if it is requesting vested property rights for uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards in excess of the three (3) year period specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) and the justification therefor. (L) Variances. Variances from the Engineering Design Standards listed in Section 3.3.5, including variances from the Larimer County Area Urban Street Standards, may be requested in connection with a PUD Master Plan. A request for such variances shall be processed in accordance with and subject to the standards applicable to the variance. Variances so requested and approved prior to the approval of a PUD Master Plan may be incorporated into and approved as a part of the PUD Master Plan, and if so incorporated and approved, shall be applicable to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. The decision maker on the PUD Master Plan shall not have the authority to alter or condition any approved variance as part of the PUD Master Plan review. Variances may also be processed in connection with a Project Development Plan or Final Plan submitted subsequent to an approved PUD Master Plan. (Ord. No. 091, 2018 , §11, 7/17/18; Ord. No. 037, 2019 , §3, 3/19/19) Footnotes: --- () --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 091, 2018 , §11, adopted July 17, 2018, repealed Div. 4.29 in its entirety and reenacted a new Div. 4.29 as set out herein. Former Div. 4.29 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 024, 2013 §§5, 6, adopted February 26, 2013; Ord. No. 115, 2013 §§1, 2, adopted Spetember 3, 2013; Ord. No. 116, 2014 §§1, 2, adopted September 16, 2014; Ord. No. 109, 2015, §2, September 15, 2015 ; and Ord. No. 027, 2016, §3, adopted March 15, 16 . Appendix B to Montava PUD Master Plan Summary Engineering Variances Appendix B-1: Variance from Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Chapter 8, Section 8.23, Angle of Intersection, and Proposed Alternate Designs. Appendix B-2: Variance from Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Chapter 7, Street Design and Technical Criteria for City of Fort Collins street section, Figures 7-1F through 7-13F, and Proposed Alternate Designs for right- of-way width, roadway width and medians. With regard to this Appendix B, attached to each variance is supporting information including maps, diagrams, etc., which illustrate various methods of applying and using the respective variances and approved Alternate Designs in the design of future project development plans and final plans. Nothing herein requires that any future project development plans or final plans be designed in accordance with such supporting information nor does it prevent the use of designs not included in such information. Rather, the purpose of this supporting information is to provide background and context information to facilitate interpretation and application of the approve variances. Vested property rights are not requested for the supporting information. Appendix B-1 January 22, 2019 Marc Virata Engineering Department Manager 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Montava PUD – Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Variance Request Dear Mr. Virata, Variance Request - Three Leg “Y” Street Intersections Issue Identification: Per LCUASS Chapter 8 – Intersections, section 8.2.3 Angle of Intersection, the standard states: New crossing roadways should intersect at 90 degrees whenever possible. In no case shall they intersect at less than 80 degrees or more than 100 degrees. While a majority of all new intersections are 4 leg intersections where compliance with the Angle of Intersection requirements makes good sense, the modified street grid within the Montava PUD Master Plan includes several three leg “Y” street intersections (hereafter called three leg intersections), a design in which it is impossible for all three legs to comply. At the three leg intersections, at least two of the streets intersect at greater than 100 degrees. A variance to the standards outlined in section 8.2.3 is requested to allow for 3 leg intersections with street intersection angles of greater than 100 degrees. Proposed Alternate Design: The proposed three leg intersections will provide an approximate angle between intersecting streets of 120 degrees. The attached exhibit also shows two enlarged three leg intersection details of the typical condition for a local street intersecting with another local street and a collector street intersecting with a local street. Comparison to Standards: The proposed three leg intersections will provide an approximate angle between intersecting streets of 120 degrees which is greater than the 100 degrees the standard allows. There is no foreseen adverse impact to capital and maintenance costs relating to this variance request. P a g e 2 | 4 Justification: Montava’s design implements key aspects of the subarea plan and the City’s mixed-use goals. In order to accomplish these, the development will take the form of seamless neighborhoods and centers, supported by calm, walkable streets unfrosted by active and human-centric buildings. This requires a greater diversity of streets and a reduction of barriers and buffers between uses and neighborhoods. Compatibility between uses and intensity of development is handled by gradually increasing and decreasing development intensity by controlling the form and scale of buildings as well as the diversity of activities that take place within them. Street design is intended to stitch these uses together, not separate them. The variances sought provide a wider range of local street conditions and coordinate the design of collectors and arterials with adjacent site and buildings. These are necessary to achieve a connected and integrated series of neighborhoods that support commercial centers, encouraging residents to walk and bike as a primary means of transportation. Generally, the dimensional changes proposed provide more sidewalk and parkway space than standard sections. A few, limited cases, augment or reduce bicycle accommodations in order to promote a roadway character that reduces vehicle speeds and provides a pleasant pedestrian environment. These do not reduce overall bicycle connectivity in any way, however, as the full network of streets and trails provide numerous and frequent bicycle accommodations in every direction, on street and in trails. Additional local street types are added to support key open space, stormwater, and trail features throughout the project. Additionally, new residential locals are provided to account for staff’s concerns with a number of recent developments in the City where the current residential local yield street standard has been built along with alley-loaded housing. In these case’s there are insufficient breaks in parked cars which causes the yield configuration to fail. The proposed residential locals provide the narrowness of roadway desired to control speeds and character while ensuring vehicular movement is unencumbered. Generally, the requested variances are reasonable and related directly to the desired development character communicated in the subarea plan and supported by common mixed-use development practices across the country. An exhibit showing the general locations of the proposed three leg Intersections in the Montava PUD Master Plan is attached to this letter in support of this variance request. The three leg intersections with 120 degree intersection angle will allow for better sight angles for vehicles navigating the intersection. It is acknowledged by the design team and the developer that many design elements contribute to a safe and functional intersection not only the angle of intersecting roadways. Some of these design elements include: lane alignments, vertical profiles, turn lane configurations, design vehicles, curb return radii, curb return grades, traffic islands, striping, signage, pedestrian crossings, bike lanes and crossings, on-street parking, landscape and hardscape designs and intersection control. We request, therefore, approval of this variance from the requirements of LCUASS section 8.2.3, Angle of Intersections, to allow three leg intersections with intersecting legs of greater than 120 degrees, conditioned P a g e 3 | 4 upon roadway plans for such three leg intersections to be submitted with the final development plan (FDP) which will address all other design requirements for a safe and functional intersection. The proposed three leg intersections will be designed to function safely and efficiently. This variance is not foreseen to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare since the sight distances at such intersections will be better than those provided at intersections that comply with the standard. Finally, the design life of the improvements will not be reduced as a result of the angle of intersection variance. Sincerely, Peter Buckley, PE CO PE #40671 Attachments: Montava PUD Three Leg Intersections Montava PUD Three Leg Intersections - General Locations Montava PUD Three Leg Intersections 01/22/19 P a g e 4 | 4 Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: /USERS/MATT/ELC/SHARED/PROJECTS-2015_2019/1725-MONTAVA/1725-02-FILES/1725-MASTERPLAN/01-RESOURCE/TITLE_BLOCK/PUD_SUBMITTAL/24X36_TITLE_BLOCK_PUD_CONSULTANT.DWG Plot Date:9/13/2018 10:34 AM Plotted By: Matthew Lambert Date Created:9/13/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: X.X. X.X.XXX 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN 01/21/19 DPZ CODESIGN Y-INTERSECTIONS Potential Y-Intersections 1 Collector Roadway 2 Local Roadway Appendix B-2 Revised February 15, 2019 January 22, 2019 Marc Virata Engineering Department Manager 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Montava PUD – Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Variance Request Dear Mr. Virata, Variance Request: Street Cross-Sections Issue Identification: The Montava PUD Master Plan includes deviations from the street cross-sections as outlined in Chapter 7 - Street Design and Technical Criteria. Specifically, section 7.3.1-A makes reference to the City of Fort Collins street sections figures 7-1F through 7-13F. A variance is requested to allow for deviations from the City of Fort Collins street cross-sections to accommodate specific site conditions and the modified block patterns envisioned for the Montava project. Proposed Alternate Design: The proposed street cross sections vary from the LCUASS City of Fort Collins street cross sections by a change in one or more of the following street components: minimum right-of-way (ROW) width, roadway width, parkway width, medians or fence setbacks. The specific alternate designs are as follows: 1. Commercial Local with Bike Lanes– Request for modified street section (Street 5A): a. Refer to Attachment 1 for reference. b. Comparison to Standards and Justification: i. Increase roadway width by 2’ from 50’ to 52’ to allow for wider parking lanes. Parking lanes increase in width by 1’ from 7’ to 8’. 2. Commercial Local without Bike Lanes– Request for modified street section (Street 5B): a. Refer to Attachment 2 for reference. b. Comparison to Standards and Justification: i. Increase roadway width by 2’ from 34’ to 36’ to allow for wider parking lanes and safer parking. Parking lanes increase in width by 1’ from 7’ to 8’. ii. Reduce minimum ROW width by 6’ from 72’ to 66’. Appendix B-2 P a g e 2 | 4 3. Narrow Residential Local – Request for modified street section (Street 6B): a. Refer to Attachment 3 for reference. b. Comparison to Standards and Justification: i. Reduce roadway width by 2’ from 30’ to 28’ by eliminating parking on one side and parking shall be on one side only; ii. Allow a narrow residential local in less urban areas and provide wider parkway and sidewalks. 4. Connector Local with Attached Green – Request for modified street section (Street 7B) a. Refer to Attachment 4 for reference. b. Comparison to Standards and Justification: i. Increase roadway width by 12’ from 36’ to 48’; ii. Remove sidewalk from ROW on one side and provide sidewalk easement on private property. 5. A. Local Paired One-way, T4 & T3 – Request new street section (Street 8) a. Refer to Attachment 5 for reference. b. Comparison to Standards and Justification: i. Provide ROW width of 50’ for each side of one-way streets; ii. Provide roadway width of 20’ for each side of one-way streets, iii. Provide private center median. 5. B. Local Paired One-way, T5 – Request new street section (Street 8) a. Refer to Attachment 5 for reference. b. Comparison to Standards and Justification: i. Provide ROW width of 53’ for each side of one-way streets; ii. Provide roadway width of 20’ for each side of one-way streets, iii. Provide private center median. 6. Variance request for fencing setbacks from the street right-of-way a. We request reduction of minimum fencing setbacks along all Commercial Local, Residential Local, Connector Local, and Paired One-Way Local Streets street rights-of- way and as indicated in Chapter 16.2.1. L. and Figure 16-1 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards in Transects T4 and T5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan in the following conditions: i. Fences must be set back a minimum of 4 inches from public sidewalk in all instances. ii. Fences/walls 3 feet in height and below are not subject to additional setbacks. iii. Fences/walls over 3 feet in height must be set back from the inside edge of sidewalks the minimum sidewalk width specified in LCUASS for the street type plus 2 feet. For example, a local street requires a 4.5 foot sidewalk plus 2 feet for fencing setback which equals 6.5 feet from the inside edge of the sidewalk. Lots on local streets with 6 foot wide sidewalks must have fences set back a minimum P a g e 3 | 4 of 6 inches from the outside edge of the sidewalk, which equates to 6.5 feet from the inside edge of the sidewalk. iv. Where the desired appearance is fencing with zero setback from sidewalks, a sidewalk extension may be provided on the private lot. A control joint must be provided to separate the public and private sidewalks. Example photos: Exhibits of the City of Fort Collins street section alongside the proposed street cross-section are attached to this letter in support of this variance request. Justification Montava’s design implements key aspects of the subarea plan and the City’s mixed-use goals. In order to accomplish these, the development will take the form of seamless neighborhoods and centers, supported by calm, walkable streets unfrosted by active and human-centric buildings. This requires a greater diversity of P a g e 4 | 4 streets and a reduction of barriers and buffers between uses and neighborhoods. Compatibility between uses and intensity of development is handled by gradually increasing and decreasing development intensity by controlling the form and scale of buildings as well as the diversity of activities that take place within them. Street design is intended to stitch these uses together, not separate them. The variances sought provide a wider range of local street conditions and coordinate the design of collectors and arterials with adjacent site and buildings. These are necessary to achieve a connected and integrated series of neighborhoods that support commercial centers, encouraging residents to walk and bike as a primary means of transportation. Generally, the dimensional changes proposed provide more sidewalk and parkway space than standard sections. A few, limited cases, augment or reduce bicycle accommodations in order to promote a roadway character that reduces vehicle speeds and provides a pleasant pedestrian environment. These do not reduce overall bicycle connectivity in any way, however, as the full network of streets and trails provide numerous and frequent bicycle accommodations in every direction, on street and in trails. Additional local street types are added to support key open space, stormwater, and trail features throughout the project. Additionally, new residential locals are provided to account for staff’s concerns with a number of recent developments in the City where the current residential local yield street standard has been built along with alley-loaded housing. In these case’s there are insufficient breaks in parked cars which causes the yield configuration to fail. The proposed residential locals provide the narrowness of roadway desired to control speeds and character while ensuring vehicular movement is unencumbered. Generally, the requested variances are reasonable and related directly to the desired development character communicated in the subarea plan and supported by common mixed-use development practices across the country. There is no foreseen adverse impact to capital and maintenance costs relating to this variance request. This variance is not foreseen to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare nor reduce the design life of the improvement. Sincerely, Peter Buckley, PE CO PE #40671 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Commercial Local with Bike Lanes Attachment 2 - Commercial Local without Bike Lanes Attachment 3 - Residential Local Attachment 4 - Connector Local Attachment 5 - Local Paired One-way 02/15/19 Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 10 STREET TYPES 5a | CoMMERCIaL LoCaL 5A | COMMERCIAL LOCAL Right-of-Way 82 ft Roadway Width 52 ft Transect Zones T5 Parking Lanes 2 Sidewalk 9 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Urban Tree Well Travel Lanes 2 Parkway Width 8 ft Lane Width 10 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Gutter Width 2 ft Bike Facility Type Protected Bike Lanes Bike Lane Width 5 ft Bike Buffer Width 3 ft TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accom- modate fire access. Two lanes, 7’ wide or 5’ wide with 3’ parking buffer when on-street parking present. . 10’ , plus 18’ (min.) utility easement. 7’ September, 2016 Attachment 1 - Commercial Local with Bike Lanes Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 11 STREET TYPES 5B | CoMMERCIaL LoCaL WItHoUt BIKE LanES 5B | COMMERCIAL LOCAL WITHOUT BIKE LANES Right-of-Way 66 ft Roadway Width 36 ft Transect Zones T5 Parking Lanes 2 Sidewalk 9 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Urban Tree Well Travel Lanes 2 Parkway Width 6 ft Lane Width 10 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Gutter Width 2 ft Bike Facility Type Shared lane Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accom- modate fire access. Two lanes, 7’ wide or 5’ wide with 3’ parking buffer when on-street parking present. . 10’ , plus 18’ (min.) utility easement. 7’ September, 2016 Attachment 2 - Commercial Local without Bike Lanes Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 13 STREET TYPES 6B | RESIDEntIaL LoCaL WItH aLLEYS 6B | RESIDENTIAL LOCAL WITH ALLEYS Right-of-Way 51 ft Roadway Width 27 ft Transect Zones T4, T3 Parking Lanes 1 Sidewalk 5 ft Parking Width 7 ft Parkway Type Continuous Travel Lanes 2 Parkway Width 7 ft Lane Width 10 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 1 ft Gutter Width 1 ft Bike Facility Type Shared lane Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accom- modate fire access. May be used for residential local streets providing access to single family detached dwellings with driveways. , plus 18’ (min.) utility easement. September, 2016 Attachment 3 - Residential Local Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 13 STREET TYPES 6B | RESIDEntIaL LoCaL WItH aLLEYS 6B | RESIDENTIAL LOCAL WITH ALLEYS Right-of-Way 51 ft Roadway Width 27 ft Transect Zones T4, T3 Parking Lanes 1 Sidewalk 5 ft Parking Width 8 ft Parkway Type Continuous Travel Lanes 2 Parkway Width 6.5 ft Lane Width 10 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 1 ft Gutter Width 1 ft Bike Facility Type Shared lane Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT 28 ft Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 16 STREET TYPES 7B | ConnECtoR LoCaL WItH attaCHED GREEn - t4, t3 7B | CONNECTOR LOCAL WITH ATT. GREEN (T4, T3) Right-of-Way 66 ft Roadway Width 48 ft Transect Zones T4, T3 Parking Lanes 2 Sidewalk 6 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Varies Travel Lanes 2 Parkway Width 6 ft Lane Width 10 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Gutter Width 1.5 ft Bike Facility Type Striped lane Bike Lane Width 6 ft Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accom- modate fire access. providing local access, and in areas without driveways. September, 2016 Attachment 4 - Connector Local Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 19 STREET TYPES 8 | PaIRED onE-WaY LoCaL, t5 8 | PAIRED ONE-WAY LOCAL (T5) Right-of-Way 45 ft Roadway Width 20 ft Transect Zones T5 Parking Lanes 1 Sidewalk 8 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Long tree well Travel Lanes 1 Parkway Width 6 ft Lane Width 12 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Specifications are for each side of the Gutter Width 1.5 ft private median. Bike Facility Type Shared lane Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accommodate fire access. Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 18 STREET TYPES 8 | PaIRED onE-WaY LoCaL, t4, t3 8 | PAIRED ONE-WAY LOCAL (T4, T3) Right-of-Way 45 ft Roadway Width 20 ft Transect Zones T4, T3 Parking Lanes 1 Sidewalk 5 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Continuous Travel Lanes 1 Parkway Width 6 ft & 9 ft Lane Width 12 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Specifications are for each side Gutter Width 1.5 ft of the private median. Bike Facility Type Shared lane Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accom- modate fire access. Attachment 5 - Local Paired One-way 50' 50' 10' 10' 10' 10' 50' 10' & 10' 53' 53' 10' 10' 10' 10' 53' 10' & 10' 5A 5B Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 18 STREET TYPES 8 | PaIRED onE-WaY LoCaL, t4, t3 8A | PAIRED ONE-WAY LOCAL (T4, T3) Right-of-Way 50 ft Roadway Width 20 ft Transect Zones T4, T3 Parking Lanes 1 Sidewalk 5 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Continuous Travel Lanes 1 Parkway Width 10 ft Lane Width 12 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Specifications are for each side Gutter Width 1.5 ft of the private median. Bike Facility Type Shared lane Appendix C to Montava PUD Master Plan Summary Description of Uses, Densities, Development Standards and Engineering Variances to be Granted Vested Property Rights Category Document Modified Uses Montava PUD Uses, Densities and Development Standards – Chapter 2 Permitted Land Use Code Uses Land Use Code Division 4.5 – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, Division 4.27 – Employment District and Division 4.28 – Industrial District Modified Densities Montava PUD Uses, Densities and Development Standards - Chapter 3 Permitted Land Use Code Densities Land Use Code Division 4.5 – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, Division 4.27 – Employment District and Division 4.28 – Industrial District Modified Development Standards Montava PUD Uses, Densities and Development Standards – Chapters 4 through 13 Permitted Land Use Code Development Standards Montava PUD Master Plan Summary - Appendix A Variances from Engineering Design Standards and Proposed Alternate Designs Montava PUD Master Plan Summary - Appendix B Montava PUD Master Plan PUD Design Narrative Fort Collins, Colorado HF2M | DPZ | BHA | Martin/Martin | Ruth Rollins Consult | Nelson/Nygaard | Liley Law Offices 11-8-2019 PUD Design Narrative 1 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 1 - Overview Project Title Montava PUD Master Plan (“Montava”) Project Team Developer – HF2M, Inc., Max Moss Master Planning – DPZ CoDesign, Matt Lambert Landscape Architect – BHA Design, Inc., Angela Milewski Civil Engineer – Martin/Martin, Peter Buckley Traffic Consultant – Ruth Rollins Consult, Ruth Rollins Traffic Engineer – Nelson/Nygaard, Pete Costa Legal Counsel – Liley Law Offices, LLC, Lucia Liley Past Meeting Dates Montava has been planned in a comprehensive way with early engagement of City staff, utility providers, adjacent landowners, and subject experts. The process began in 2017 with a workshop with City departments, utility providers, the Poudre R-1 School District and adjacent significant landowners to establish each groups’ long-term goals for this area of the City. This was followed by an initial neighborhood meeting with nearly 100 attendees, culminating in a week-long design charette including multiple topic meetings, three public presentations, seven interim plans and a final master plan. Since that time, we have continued to coordinate with agencies and stakeholders to develop more detailed information on relevant issues including: - Scoping and preparing traffic studies to support a Master Street Plan amendment (including a second neighborhood meeting focused on this topic) - Locations for future schools for Poudre R-1 School District - Coordination with stormwater utilities regarding conveyance of off-site drainage and their long- range plans for this area - Assessment of land suitable for the 40-acre farm - Coordination with Park Planning and Natural Areas staff on how the plan can best support their long-term goals for the area - Developing strategies for affordable and attainable housing with city staff and many stakeholders - Energy efficiency opportunities in concert with the City Utilities and outside groups PUD Design Narrative 2 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n While many informal meetings have been held with staff, agencies, neighborhood groups, and subject matter experts, the list of formal public meeting dates includes: September 25, 2017 – Pre-Charette Worksession with City, Utility Providers, PSD, others October 26, 2017 – Neighborhood Meeting November 15–20, 2017 – Master Planning Charette including open meetings and three public open house/presentations December 13, 2017 – City Council ODP Pre-application Hearing (prior to PUD Ordinance adoption) June 5, 2018 – Neighborhood Meeting September 25, 2018 - City Council PUD Pre-application Hearing October 11, 2018 – Neighborhood Meeting December 19, 2018 – Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2019 – Neighborhood Meeting General Project Description Montava is the result of an unprecedented collaborative effort over the past 18 months. The Applicant has been working with the Anheuser-Busch Foundation (“A-B”) to redevelop a collection of land parcels west of the current brewery and an approximately 108-acre parcel further west that is owned by the Poudre R-1 School District (“PSD”). The total land area of the PUD Master Plan is 999 acres. The design team includes national and international experts in Traditional Neighborhood Design, agri-urban developments, transportation planning and affordable housing design and construction. These experts have teamed with local design and engineering consultants, market experts, and technology leaders to create a comprehensive planning approach. PUD Design Narrative 3 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Montava PUD Annotated Illustrative Master Plan PUD Design Narrative 4 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Existing Zoning The land to be included in Montava totals approximately 999 acres, and is currently zoned (I) Industrial, (E) Employment, and (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Applicant is taking this opportunity to plan a true New-Urbanist community with an integrated mix of uses including housing, employment, schools, parks, natural areas and agriculture. It is estimated that there will be approximately 4,200 dwelling units, approximately 450,000 to 750,000 square feet of nonresidential uses including commercial, industrial and employment uses with sufficient parking to support all such nonresidential uses, with buildings ranging in height from one to five stories. Please see the boundaries of the existing zone districts and the general layout of Montava on the Existing Zoning Plan below, and an explanation of the proposed uses in Chapter 2 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Montava PUD Master Plan – Existing Zoning Plan PUD Design Narrative 5 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Existing Owners The majority of property is currently owned by A-B. A portion of the PUD Master Plan area is also currently owned by PSD: Owner: Anheuser-Busch Foundation (depicted in yellow below) Owner: Poudre R-1 School District (depicted in red below) Montava PUD Master Plan area – Existing Ownership Proposed Owners Applicant has an option to purchase from A-B. Poudre R-1 School District intends to continue to own a portion of the planned Montava area based on designated school sites, subject to closing of the purchase of such sites. PUD Design Narrative 6 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 2 – Montava PUD Master Plan Description and Intent Montava Illustrative PUD Master Plan 2.1 Overall Project Montava is a significant traditional neighborhood development infused with agrarian elements, expressing the site’s past and surrounding context. Montava is comprised of a series of connected neighborhoods, each unique in layout, character, intensity, and surroundings. All neighborhoods are compact and walkable, with some of a higher intensity and others lower in intensity. The site’s topography and open spaces permeate Montava, pulling natural areas and recreational spaces into the heart of the community. Focal Points There are two primary focal points in the design of Montava: the Town Center and the Farm. Both are connected by a central axis, oriented with Long’s Peak and organizing the design. To the southwest, the Town Center anchors Montava at Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road, supporting a future Community Park to be developed by the City and future nearby development. PUD Design Narrative 7 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n To the northeast, the Farm and more agrarian-centric development blends into a natural area and stormwater corridor. Design Montava’s design is derived by intersecting the site’s natural stormwater and topographic features with an overall orientation of streets towards Long’s Peak. Most streets are oriented to capture the view, which is most striking from the hill north on Giddings Road at the farm as well as at the Town Center from the main plaza. Four major stormwater corridors criss-cross the site, defining the edges of neighborhoods and a focal point at the Town Center square along Country Club Road. Each corridor is connected to a series of additional green corridors, providing walking and biking trails throughout the community, connecting to existing regional trails, and providing access to the City’s future Community Park. The easternmost corridor is substantial in size, driven by off-site stormwater along the Cooper Slough. Working with Natural Areas staff, this corridor is designed as an amenity and pulled into the community’s identity through greenways. Transitions Development transitions along a transect of intensity from high to low across the site. Towards the Town Center and Mountain Vista Drive, development is generally of a higher intensity, including more mixed-use and multi-family. Outwards from the Town Center, development steps down in intensity towards existing neighborhoods, parks, the farm and natural areas. A small node of higher intensity is located at the top of the hill on Giddings Road, adjacent to the Farm. This node supports the northern neighborhood areas for convenience, while the Town Center supports a much wider area. Transects Montava is divided into five (5) transects which vary by the ratio and level of intensity of their natural, built and social components. Building design and placement varies along the transect. Towards the Town Center, buildings are taller, closer together, and closer to the street. Away from the Town Center, buildings become lower in scale, further from the street and from each other. Rather than an abrupt change, the intensity feathers in stages from the most intense, Transect T5, to medium intensity in Transect T4, to lower intensity in Transects T3.2 and T3.1, and to the Farm, Transect T2. Each of these transects is composed of a mix of different building types and character. In the least intense transects, buildings are detached, single family, but vary in their sizes. The moderately intense areas, Transect T4, include a wide range of buildings including small single family houses, townhouses, duplexes, and small multi-family buildings. Finally Transect T5 is composed primarily of mixed-use buildings, employment, and multi-family housing. Near A-B and I-25, a portion of land is set aside for industrial and employment uses. School Sites Montava is fortunate to incorporate three potential school sites, along with interest from a Montessori school. The potential elementary school site is embedded within the neighborhoods, set away from major roadways yet easily accessible, and connected to local and regional trails. The future middle school and high school sites are located together at Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road, where they will benefit from easy car and bus access while also connecting to the PUD Design Narrative 8 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n trail network. Development of the future schools is subject to acquisition of the sites by the Poudre R-1 School District. Open Space, Parks, and Natural Areas / Nature in the City Open space in Montava is diverse and distributed, yet connected in a network. The land for the Community Park, when purchased and developed by the City, will be an asset to the whole neighborhood and those surrounding Montava. Within the development, the Community Park will anchor the western end and will be easily accessible by trails and pedestrian-oriented streets. Along the eastern end is a large natural area and stormwater feature, lined with trails and connected to Montava’s greenways. The site is crossed by five internal greenways and ringed by a green trail system. Three greenways manage stormwater and provide trails and linear landscaping. The additional two greenways connect the natural areas and trail system into the center of Montava. The Town Center includes a square and plaza focused on active programming, along with smaller pocket parks and pedestrian ways. Neighborhoods include squares, greens, compact greens, community gardens, and pocket parks, located close to homes. The system provides a variety of spaces suited for different activities and lifestyles. In coordination with City staff, we have outlined how Montava can help to incorporate and achieve the City’s Nature in the City (NIC) goals: NIC Vision: A connected open space network accessible to the entire community that provides a variety of experiences and functional habitat for people, plants and wildlife.  The Montava Master Plan is surrounded on three sides by planned recreational, water conveyance and conservation open space.  The planned Montava open space creates connection to nature for those residing in the development while also provides wildlife movement corridors through the site, especially from north to south. NIC Goals: 1) Easy Access to Nature: Ensure every resident is within a 10-minute walk to nature from their home or workplace. 2) High Quality Natural Spaces: Conserve, create and enhance natural spaces to provide diverse social and ecological opportunities. 3) Land Stewardship: Shift the landscape aesthetic to more diverse forms that support healthy environments for people and wildlife.  The planned open space surrounding the Montava development, pocket parks interspersed throughout the development and Nature in the City specific elements provide, on average, easy access to nature within a 10-minute walk.  The addition of less traditional native landscape elements throughout the Montava project, ecological restoration enhancements planned for the No. 8 ditch and incorporation of a working organic farm will provide diverse social and ecological opportunities for residents and visitors. PUD Design Narrative 9 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n  At least 2 NIC specific design elements will be incorporated into each Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal for Montava, like pocket nature parks, community gardens and nature play areas, supporting diverse landscape aesthetic and healthy environments for people and small wildlife like birds and butterflies. NIC Policies: The layout and design proposed in the Montava Master Plan (PUD) supports Fort Collins Nature in the City vision and goals in addition to these specific policies: NIC Connectivity Policies C1 – Increase connectivity for plant and wildlife species C2 – Increase connectivity for residents NIC Land Use and Development Policies LU6 – Support and protect the multiple values of the City’s ditch system LU10 – Promote and preserve urban agriculture that supports a triple-bottom-line approach Circulation System Montava’s circulation system is designed as an interconnected grid of pedestrian-oriented streets, supported by surrounding arterials. The grid is designed to easily connect vehicles to arterials and collectors, allowing local streets to remain low volume and pedestrian-oriented. Where development is more intense, wider sidewalks are provided to match increased pedestrian volumes. The bicycle network provides access throughout the community with dedicated lanes along arterials, collectors, and key local streets, an independent network of off-street trails, and a highly connected network of low volume local streets. The circulation system will comply with LCUASS subject to variances from such standards approved in connection with the Montava PUD Master Plan. Current Land Use Code vs. PUD Master Plan Montava’s design relies upon coordination between development standards and the PUD Master Plan to achieve community goals. Generally, the standards and design of Montava are aligned with the vision and goals of the Land Use Code (LUC). Many similar topics are addressed in Montava’s development standards and the LUC, intending to produce walkable, mixed-use places with buildings and open spaces that work together harmoniously and in support of a shared public and social fabric. However, the LUC deals with new development, existing development that is not expressive of LUC goals, and the incremental process that encourages existing development to align more closely with contemporary goals. It is a hybrid code, including progressive form-based code elements with conventional elements addressing legacy development patterns. Montava’s development standards create a pure form-based code. They more effectively direct form-centric development by their ability to be targeted rather than anticipating a wide variety of potential applications. Montava’s plan and development standards together craft design of the project which, in turn, creates a large, diverse, walkable, mixed-use community and an interconnected series of neighborhoods, centers, and open spaces. PUD Design Narrative 10 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n 2.2 Compliance with PUD Overlay Regulations A. LUC 4.29(A) The Montava PUD Master Plan is consistent with the purposes of the PUD Overlay Regulations: (1) Subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans within Montava will be governed by the Montava PUD Master Plan. (2) The Montava PUD Master Plan substitutes for and operates as the overall development plan for all real property within the approved PUD overlay. (3) Approval of the Montava PUD Master Plan will position a large undeveloped and underserved area of approximately 900 acres in Northeast Fort Collins for phased development. (4) The Montava PUD Master Plan embodies innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans and policies. See the Section 2.1, Sections 2.2.B(2) and (3) and Chapter 10 of this Design Narrative for detailed explanations. (5) The Montava PUD Master Plan allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards than would be achievable under the Land Use Code. See the Section 2.1 and Sections 2.2.B(2) and (3) of this Design Narrative for detailed explanations. B. LUC 4.29(B) The Montava PUD Master Plan advances the objectives of the PUD Overlay Regulations: (1) A conceptual level of collaborative design and planning efforts among City staff, agencies, neighborhood groups, consultants and subject matter experts led to the Montava PUD Master Plan. (2) and (3) Development of the Montava PUD Master Plan in a thoughtfully planned and long- term approach that ensures a high quality of urban design and provides significant public benefits not available or possible through traditional development procedures through one or more of the following: (a) Diversification in the Use of Land Most of the property has been owned by A-B since their brewery was constructed near I-25 and Mountain Vista Road. While the current Industrial and Employment zoning reflects this ownership and the potential for large expansions of the brewery and similar industries, A-B has no intention to use this land for large industrial expansions. By comprehensively master planning the A-B properties along with adjacent PSD properties through the PUD process, the development team is able to modify uses, densities and PUD Design Narrative 11 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n development standards to create a master planned community to best meet the goals of City Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Montava supports a diversification of both public and private uses in a complete planned community. The plan envisions: - Parks, schools, trails and natural areas - A fire station, recreation center and library - Mixed use, commercial, and residential uses - Industrial and employment uses, and - A 40-acre Farm, farmer’s market, and urban agriculture (b) Innovation in Development 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. Montava has been designed by the industry leader, DPZ, and New Urbanism resonates throughout. It will be further refined by our Town Urbanist, Lew Oliver. Lew’s experience in architecture and design of New Urbanist communities is unparalleled. Development of Montava will implement New Urbanism by one or more of the following: - Developing the master plan area as a series of neighborhoods with centers as applicable, in a walkable context; - Integrating a wide variety of housing types and intensities within neighborhoods; - Creating walkable streets and trails that can connect to meaningful destinations; - Distributing traffic through a network of connected streets; - Providing affordable housing opportunities. Creating a mixed-use Town Center integrated with surrounding neighborhood fabric; (c) Agri-Urban Development This is a concept promoted in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. There will be an approximately 40-acre Farm in Montava. The land will either be donated or sold at a substantially discounted amount to a Cooperative which entity will in turn enter into a long-term lease with the farmers. A wide variety of high-quality, 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. (d) Zero Energy Ready Homes Residential development in Montava will be built to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home “ZERH” standard. (e) Non-potable Water System There is only one quarter section of land within Montava that does not have adequate coffin wells to provide irrigation water for that quarter section. In all other areas, the PUD Design Narrative 12 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n 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 Montava. (f) Affordable/Workforce Housing At least ten percent (10%) of the total housing units approved in the Montava PUD Master Plan will be affordable or workforce housing, whether owner-occupied or leased, ranging from sixty percent (60%) to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the area median income (AMI) for the Fort Collins/Loveland Metropolitan Statistical Area for a family of four which will be provided through a combination of mechanisms by the Applicant and the City. (g) 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 available, this housing variety creates an incredible living environment that is unlike most of what has been built in the past 40+ years in our country. (h) Employment Employment opportunities exist where highly educated and innovative people live, and where community services and amenities are offered to those employees. The Applicant 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 Montava for employment uses. (i) Innovation Innovation is taking many forms in Montava. The Applicant is working with Colorado State University in multiple areas including agriculture, waste water, energy and affordable housing. The Applicant 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 Applicant intends to make Fort Collins Broadband a foundational technology for every home owner from the beginning of the project. (j) More Efficient Use of Land and Energy Through large scale comprehensive master planning, land uses, densities, transportation systems, regional and on-site storm water detention/conveyance, and open space areas can be established to allow a more efficient use of land and energy. The approximately 999-acre Montava project is comprehensively master-planned, with an emphasis on multi-modal transportation. Montava will include coordinated, interconnecting trail, street, sidewalk, transit as practical, and storm drainage systems which will both (i) help to 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. In addition to the Zero Energy Ready Homes commitment described above, the Developer is also: PUD Design Narrative 13 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n • 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 to purchase water for the development with a master meter, thus eliminating the need for excessive water dedications which are needed to account for individual variations in use, and achieving a substantial savings in overall water use. (k) Public Amenities Commensurate with the Scope of the Montava Development Montava establishes significant public amenities envisioned for this area in a comprehensive community vision. The master plan includes a 40-acre working Farm, a Community Park, schools, natural areas, trails, and civic spaces to create a complete neighborhood in the Mountain Vista area. Community Park: Integration is at the heart of what Montava represents. The Applicant is working with the City’s Park Planning staff to utilize approximately 80 acres within Montava for a future Community Park to be purchased and developed by the City (with available adjacent land should the City desire additional acreage) as an activity and enjoyment hub northeast Fort Collins. The intent is to plan the Montava community in concert with the Community Park; with the Town Center, bike paths, road circulation and neighborhoods to connect with and embrace the Community Park as an integral part of the neighborhood design – different than many of our Community Parks have been developed in the past. The intention is for the City to acquire and activate the Community Park in the early stages of the development of Montava, not in the distant future as the current Parks and Recreation Policy Plan indicates. Montava is being master planned in concert with the differing land uses now envisioned for the area, with the extended trail systems and with large areas of natural spaces throughout the community; we believe the City’s Community Park will become an integral part of Montava and the entire northeast Fort Collins area. Natural Areas: The Applicant 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 Applicant will also be incorporating Nature in the City in appropriate locations throughout Montava. Regional Trail: We have been working with Parks Planning staff to accommodate the alignment of a portion of the future Northeast Paved Recreational Trail though Montava along the alignment of the No. 8 Outlet Ditch, as indicated in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan. Community Services: The Town Center is intended to include uses like community retail and commercial opportunities. The Applicant 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. PUD Design Narrative 14 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Fire Station: The Applicant is working with Poudre Fire Authority to allow and support a location for a planned fire station within Montava. (l) and (m) Furtherance of the City’s Adopted Plans and Policies The comprehensive planning of Montava and each of the elements above are based on the principles and policies and the fundamental vision of City Plan, Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, among others. Please see the list of comprehensive plan policies advanced by Montava in Chapter 10. (4) Working with the City on an amendment to the City’s Master Street Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan has provided opportunities for cooperative planning and development among real property owners within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (5) The Montava PUD Master Plan protects land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to the PUD from negative impacts by locating development of higher intensity in the centrally located Town Center and stepping down the intensity of development near the existing land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. In addition, the proposed layout of the PUD incorporates parks, natural areas and open space to provide a buffer between the PUD and adjacent uses. C. LUC 4.29(D)(2) The Montava PUD Master Plan satisfies the PUD criteria for approval of a PUD Master Plan: (1) The Montava PUD Master Plan achieves the purposes and objectives of Sections 4.29(A) and (B). See the discussion of the PUD Master Plan purposes and objectives above in Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B of this Chapter 2. (2) The Montava PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within the subject properties. See the discussion of high-quality design above in Subsection 2.1 of this Chapter 2 and in the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. (3) The Montava PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with the principles of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. See the list of policies furthered by the Montava PUD Master Plan in Chapter 10. (4) The Montava PUD Master Plan will result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services. See Subsections 2.2.B(j) and (k) of this Chapter 2 above and the discussion of compatibility in Chapter 6. (5) The Montava PUD Master Plan is consistent with applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent such development standards have been modified pursuant to the PUD Master Plan Standards. 2.3 Vested Property Rights The Developer is seeking vested property rights in connection with the Montava PUD Master Plan in accordance with LUC 4.29.K and, therefore, has submitted a request for vested property rights to the City Council concurrently with this PUD Master Plan. PUD Design Narrative 15 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 3 – Architectural Design Intent Building design within Montava is based on a number of standards in Chapters 4 through 13 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards and select standards of the LUC. Current LUC standards concerning character are primarily aimed at minimizing the impact of suburban development patterns and buildings by ensuring variety within a single structure, particularly in commercial and multi- family areas. Development within Montava differs from the LUC; while it is oriented towards LUC goals at its core, it is based upon character, not style, as a community-wide element of design. Due to the scale of Montava, specific stylistic details and materials may change by neighborhood. At the overall PUD level, architectural character standards address broad but common details to be further supplemented. The architectural character chapter deals with basic material prohibitions, the combination of materials, the shape of openings, orientation of building shape for solar access, the location of mechanical systems and refuse storage, and outbuilding design. This set of foundational standards are extended in Chapter 5 of the PUD Master Plan Standards by frontage standards, housing variety, minimum glazing, fence and wall standards, shopfronts, and site design requirements that ensure building orientation is generally towards street, not parking areas. Together these ensure an overall harmony among buildings within Montava yet allow for more specific architectural detail to be determined by phase. PUD Design Narrative 16 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 4 - Transportation Improvements Montava provides a mixed-use neighborhood design with a balanced multimodal network focused on building community connections through sustainable transportation investments. Montava supports a traditional grid pattern for shorter, convenient distances for walking and biking, connections to destinations, and better distribution of multimodal traffic, and greater access to transit access and routing. The proposed street design would allow for adequate pedestrian/bicycle zones, and capacity for general traffic, transit and parking/loading. In addition the entire area would comprise a mix of protected bike lanes, shared travel lanes, multi-use pathways within open spaces areas, and enhanced intersections for safer bicycle and pedestrian crossings and promote slow-turning vehicles. The Montava Master Transportation Impact Study (TIS) provided a comprehensive evaluation of Montava and examined the extent to which the project would affect the surrounding circulation network. Per the City’s significance criteria in identifying any potential adverse effects to existing or future transportation facilities associated with Montava, the TIS documented a number of proposed on- and off-site traffic intersection improvements to reduce any potential impacts to such facilities. These are presented in the summary table below. The Proposed Street Network for Montava and the surrounding area is depicted on the following page. Location of arterial and collector streets are consistent with the anticipated amended Master Street Plan. Intersection Mitigation Measure Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road  Install traffic signal Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road  Install traffic signal  Add left-turn pockets and protected phases at northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road  Install traffic signal  Add left-turn pockets to all intersection approaches  Add right-turn pockets at westbound and southbound approaches Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive Install traffic signal Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp Install traffic signal Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp  Install traffic signal  Add left-turn pocket at northbound approach  Add protected, left-turn phases at northbound and eastbound approaches Timberline Road / Vine Drive Widen northbound approach to include exclusive left-turn lane (protected phase), one through lane, and one shared through-right turn lane and optimize signal Conifer Street / Turnberry Road (planned) Install traffic signal Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive (planned) Install traffic signal Timberline Road / Suniga Drive (planned) Install traffic signal Giddings Road / Conifer Street (planned) Install traffic signal PUD Design Narrative 17 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Proposed Street Network – Montava and Surrounding Area PUD Design Narrative 18 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 5 – Natural Features Protection An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) has been prepared for Montava to assess and identify any natural habitats or features that have significant ecological value. Montava generally consists of croplands, so it has limited natural vegetation or habitat areas. Several small wetland areas associated with crop irrigation areas exist within Montava. The most significant features include the No. 8 Canal, a steep-banked irrigation conveyance channel along the west side, and an existing tree with an active Red- Tail Hawk nest identified. In addition to the ECS, a jurisdictional determination has been received from the US Army Corps of Engineers identifying the two wetland areas that are determined to be jurisdictional. These include the wetlands associated with the banks of the No. 8 Canal, and a short irrigation ditch that connects directly into the No. 8 Canal. In general, the majority of the site will be changed and regraded to accommodate development of the planned uses. The nesting tree will be protected in place and be incorporated into the large natural area/open space feature along the east side of Montava. The area planned for the Farm will remain intact and be improved for future cultivation. The No. 8 Canal will remain in place and continue to serve its purpose for delivery of water. However, it is planned to be improved and realigned with less-steep banks, improved ditch access, nearby trails and a buffer of native vegetation to become a safer and more valuable natural feature for Montava and the nearby communities. Plans for a portion of the Northeast Paved Regional Trail as shown in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan is anticipated and illustrated along the alignment of the No. 8 Canal. Proposed Improvements to the No. 8 Canal PUD Design Narrative 19 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n An Existing Conditions and Natural Features Plan has been prepared for the PUD Master Plan indicating the planned Limits of Development and buffer zones from the features indicated in the ECS. It also includes notes of compliance with LUC Section 3.4.1 and a table of both jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional features with the understanding that any areas disturbed by construction will be mitigated in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers permit process and the LUC at the time of PDP for each phase. PUD Design Narrative 20 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 6 – Neighborhood Compatibility Montava has been evolving and since the fall of 2017 with significant public outreach and stakeholder engagement. As enumerated above, this measured approach to establishing the goals of the community, stakeholders and adjacent neighborhoods has allowed a thoughtful design that not only furthers the community and area goals but is supportive and compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. Some of these characteristics are restated here: Development and Density Transitions Development transitions along a transect of intensity from high to low across the site. Towards the Town Center (near the intersection of Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive), and along the Mountain Vista Drive corridor, development is generally of a higher intensity, including more mixed-use and multi-family. Outwards from the Town Center, development steps down in intensity towards existing neighborhoods, parks, the Farm and natural areas, to be compatible with existing neighborhoods to the west. Towards the Town Center, buildings are taller, close together, and closer to the street. Away from the Town Center buildings become lower in scale, further from the street and from each other. Rather than an abrupt change, the intensity feathers in stages from the most intense, Transect T5, to medium intensity in Transect T4, to lower intensity in Transects T3.2 and T3.1, and to the Farm Transect T2. Each of these transects is composed of a mix of different building types and character. In the least intense transects, buildings are detached, single family, but vary in their sizes. The moderately intense areas, Transect T4, include a wide range of buildings including small single-family houses, townhouses, duplexes, and small multi-family buildings. And finally Transect T5, which is composed primarily of mixed-use buildings, employment, and multi-family housing. Land Use Transitions The higher intensity uses, including more mixed-use and multi-family occur near the Town Center with lower intensity uses and residential to the west to transition to the Storybook neighborhood. The future Community Park site is located northwest of the Town Center to be centrally located within both Montava and surrounding neighborhoods to the west. Intensity of use also feathers to the north and east. A potential elementary school site is provided for within the neighborhoods near Maple Hill. A small node of higher intensity is located at the top of the hill on Giddings Road, adjacent to the farm. This node supports the northern neighborhood areas for convenience, while the Town Center supports a much wider area of the Mountain Vista neighborhoods. The regional and on-site stormwater detention and conveyance have been designed primarily along the east border of the property, providing a larger more functional natural area and a buffer of distance and open space from the railroad and the brewery to the east. The higher intensity uses such as the potential future PSD high school/middle school site are located further east near Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road to allow for nearby access to these arterial roads. Industrial and Employment uses are planned near A-B and the I-25 Interchange at Mountain Vista Drive. PUD Design Narrative 21 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 7 – Historic Preservation Summary A Phase I Environmental Assessment and Ecological Characterization Study has been prepared for Montava. While there are a few existing structures and residences on the site relating to the agricultural operations that are in place, no historic structures exist on the property. The majority of the site will be changed and regraded to accommodate development of the planned uses, and we do not anticipate reuse of any of the existing structures in the future development plans. Any demolition or alteration of existing structures will be conducted in accordance with the City’s codes. Planned improvements to the No. 8 Canal may require review by the State Historic Preservation Office. This determination and any required permitting for the planned improvements to the canal will take place at the time of the PDP application for the initial phase that impacts the ditch. PUD Design Narrative 22 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 8 – Development Phasing Schedule A conceptual Phasing Plan is included with the PUD Master Plan submittal. The intent is to begin the initial phases of development near the intersection of Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive with construction moving generally north along Timberline Road. The Farm area will also be included in early phases of development. The exact size, timing, order, and commencement and completion dates of all phases of development are dependent upon market conditions. In general, however, the first phase (PDP) is expected to be housing, with associated infrastructure improvements anticipated to commence approximately two years after Master Plan approval. The product absorption is targeted at approximately 150 units per year. The Farm and its support structures will also be developed in the early phases so that farming operations can begin as soon as possible. Each phase will require a PDP and Final Plan review with design of appropriate infrastructure suitable for each phase. Infrastructure phasing is currently being discussed and developed with City staff in preparation for the initial phases of development. Given the current lack of infrastructure in this area, it is expected that a significant amount of the public improvements will need to be installed in the early phases of development. In particular, stormwater and drainage improvements will need to be installed as necessary to ensure there is no downstream impact above the existing condition as new development occurs. PUD Design Narrative 23 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Conceptual Development Phasing Plan PUD Design Narrative 24 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 9 – Metro District and HOA Establishment and Responsibilities The guiding principles of the Applicant in developing Montava are: • Create a unique complete community • Develop an incomparable sense of place • Add long term value • Establish the central character of agri-urbanism and open space • Build community through design Vibrant enduring communities depend upon all their stakeholders working together to uphold community standards and achieve the vision and goals for the community. The stakeholders will include the Applicant, associations or districts, the home owners, the builders, and others having a role in the functioning of the community and in helping fulfill that vision. Montava will likely be overseen and maintained by metropolitan districts, a master HOA, an architectural control committee, and other boards as deemed necessary. The Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (the “Districts”) are quasi-municipal corporations and political subdivisions of the State of Colorado, formed pursuant to Sections 32-1-101, et. seq., C.R.S. (the “Special District Act”). The Districts are organized for the purpose of financing the cost of public improvements and providing services related to such public improvements. The Districts are authorized by the Special District Act to provide many types of public improvements, subject to limitations in the Service Plan approved by the City, including: streets, safety protection, parks and recreation, water, sanitation, transportation, mosquito control, television relay and translation, and fire protection improvements. The Districts anticipate providing services for all of those things that it has statutory authority for and that are not the responsibility of the City or other entities: examples are landscaping, small parks, and open space, contracting for uniform trash service throughout the Districts, operation and management of potable and non-potable water systems within the Districts’ boundaries and participating in social programs through its park and recreation authority, and the management and enforcement of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). While most community management and amenities will be supported by the Districts, some things may require a master HOA because the Districts’ charter will not allow their support. These items include primarily community activation through activities that could include but not be limited to holiday or seasonal events, farmers markets, farm operations integration with the community, 4th of July celebrations, concerts, art shows and theatre performances, food services and many other things. These activities will be the heartbeat of Montava. Montava is intended to be a very active and diverse community with meaningful programming to create a special community connection. The majority of this programming described in the preceding paragraph will be necessarily managed by a master HOA. PUD Design Narrative 25 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 10 –Policy and Public Benefit Analysis City Plan Compliance Montava addresses and complies with a multiplicity of City Plan objectives. They are identified by category area. City Plan’s Economic Health objectives (EH 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4): 1. Supporting the enhancement of the community’s economic base and job creation by enabling well over $1,000,000,000 of construction and development, unique place making that attracts employees and employers to the region, the development of commercial town center, and eventual development of approximately 500,000 sf of office and industrial space Jobs live in houses. 2. Supporting the overall Fort Collins retail tax base by bringing thousands of residents back into the full time daily life of Fort Collins instead of living in someone else’s tax base and spending money there and not in Fort Collins. 3. Supporting the regional innovation ecosystem that fuels business development and job creation by leveraging local assets including human capital, research institutions, industrial base, physical infrastructure and quality of life. This is done by developing the most innovative community in the nation including Zero Energy Ready Homes, innovating in energy and water conservation, partnering with CSU on opportunities from energy to farming, integrating with the Fort Collins Utility on innovative initiatives that impact the entire customer base, and much more. 4. Enabling collaboration with the business community, various business organizations, educational institutions including CSU and PSD, and economic development organizations to encourage and support a healthy economy, provide employment opportunities, increase private investment, and improve the quality of life for all Fort Collins residents. This will be done by the development of the Farm, the public facilities such as the Recreation Center and Library, improving public infrastructure, and more. 5. Developing a community that is a national leader in energy and water conservation, urban agriculture, affordable housing integration and home diversity. Montava will enable both the support of and the creation of unique local businesses. It will also support the brewing industry with an increased customer base and increasing retail space for prospective brewery locations, and provide a foundation for incubating new and existing businesses in a creative and thriving community environment. City Plan Environmental Health objectives (EH 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 4.3, 5.4, 5.8, 7.9, 7.10, 9.1, 11.1, 13.1, 15.5, 18.1,2,3,4, 19.1, 20.4 and more). 1. Protecting and enhancing natural resources in many ways including: a) the improvement of #8 ditch; b) restoration and or protection of identified wetland areas; and c) the development of over 160 acres of natural areas land in partnership with the City’s Natural Areas program. 2. Maintaining a system of publicly owned open lands by partnering with the Fort Collins Natural Areas to create over 160 acres of natural lands. This land will be incorporated into a plan to provide both educational and enjoyment opportunities for the entire community. 3. Committing to explore opportunities for land conservation in partnership with Stormwater, Parks and Recreation, Transportation and Natural Areas throughout the community. The areas PUD Design Narrative 26 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n of primary interest are the #8 ditch improvement on the west along with the City’s Community Park and the storm water and natural areas partnerships on the east. 4. Committing to work with the City to explore and execute opportunities for Stormwater, Parks and Recreation, and Natural Areas to partner on improving water quality and contributing to ecological functioning of urban watersheds. This can be accomplished throughout the community. 5. Committing to support the use of renewable energy throughout the community in the layout and construction of new development. Montava will be the largest Zero Energy Ready Home development in the nation. 6. Committed to participate in research, development and demonstration efforts of all relevant types to remain at the forefront of emerging technologies and innovative solutions regarding the energy performance of new construction. This will be done both by partnerships with the City, but also by partnering with the most progressive and innovative builders in the country like Thrive Homes and Mandalay. 7. Being a leader in the region in incorporating electrical storage into the design of the community for both residential and commercial use. 8. Being a leader in the region in utilizing smart grid technologies to facilitate higher levels of integration of renewable energy, energy storage and demand response systems to support community scale net energy use reduction. This can be done with technology from companies like Siemens, by working through innovative home builders such as Thrive and Mandalay, and partnering with the City of Fort Collins. 9. Promoting alternative and efficient transportation fuels and vehicles that improve air quality. This will be done by various means including the homes being built to enable vehicle charging, as well as innovative systems that allow integration of electric cars into the grid system. 10. Offering, through its master HOA or Districts’ operations and management, education, programs and other assistance to citizens and local businesses interested in reducing their environmental impacts. 11. Providing education and promoting the City’s goals for reducing all types of municipal solid waste at the source to divert discarded material from the landfill. Through its Districts, Montava will provide trash service from one single hauler for the entire community. This will enable one consistent message of education and encouragement for reaching the city’s goals of reduced waste. 12. Recognizing and managing flood plains with the intent to provide balance between economic, environmental, and human considerations. Montava will seek to minimize risk to life and property by design of and impact on the floodplain. Montava will recognize that maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of natural areas and the beneficial functions of flood plains is a concurrent goal with reducing flood damage. Montava will develop structures and facilities necessary consistent with the intent of the standards and criteria of the City of Fort Collins and National Flood Insurance Program. 13. Designing stormwater systems to minimize introduction of human caused pollutants and designing tributary systems for water quality control with appropriate use of buffer areas, grass swales, detention ponds, etc. 14. Partnering with the City and Natural Areas to employ public/private partnerships to optimize the balance between Stormwater management and compact development. PUD Design Narrative 27 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n City Plan Neighborhood Livability Principles and Policies (LIV 1.3, 5.4, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.1, 8.5, 9.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 11.1, 11.2, 13.3, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 21.1, 21.2, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 23.1, 23.2, 24.1, 24.2, 42.2, 44.1,2,3,4,5, and more): 1. Continuing to collaborate with Larimer County and adjacent communities to plan the edges of the Fort Collins GMA. 2. Pursuing options for development that helps contribute to the additional public amenities needed in areas where redevelopment occurs. This is necessary to transform NE Fort Collins into distinct places with identifiable character and more marketable frontage that promotes development. 3. Continuing to encourage design that complements, extends or enhances positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern and identifiable style. Compatibility does not mean uniformity. 4. Encouraging the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in the area that lacks these facilities. 5. Leading the way in encouraging and developing a variety of housing types and densities. 6. Contributing substantially to maintaining an adequate supply of housing. 7. Pursuing strategies to enable Accessory Dwelling Units. 8. Within the scope of its open space, park, and farm limitations, maximizing residential development land positively influencing housing affordability, as outlined above. 9. Being a leader in supporting the development and provision of affordable housing in the community. Montava has made significant commitments for the provision of at least 10% of the overall housing constructed to be in the 60-120% range of AMI. 10. Employing a planning strategy that integrates affordable housing throughout the community. This is a critical component of the overall design and DNA of Montava. 11. Building on the Zero Energy Ready Home Standard and WaterSense throughout the entire community. By using a non potable irrigation system Montava will also conserve on potable water for irrigation use. 12. Being a leader in designing safe, functional, and visually appealing streets. Our street sections, being New Urbanist and design focused in nature, will add to the overall aesthetic of the community as a whole. 13. Utilizing street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along the streets. 14. We intend to implement “dark sky” standards throughout the community as practical, and tailor lighting fixture design and illumination to match the context of the street. 15. Placing civic facilities and grounds in prominent and central locations as highly visible focal points. 16. Incorporating public spaces and activities such as plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, sidewalks, pathways and “street furniture” in a wide variety of development types. 17. Establishing gateway design into the community including features such as building architecture, landscaping, signage, lighting incorporating these elements within the immediate entrance to the community. 18. Incorporating unique landscape features into the design and architecture of the development. 19. Promoting functional landscape by implementing practical solutions to ensure landscape design is functional in providing such elements as visual appeal, shade, foundation edge to buildings, buffers, safety, and enhancements to the built environment. 20. Working with CSU horticulture to design the landscaping based on maintainability over the life cycle of the project using proper soil amendment and ground preparation practices, as well as PUD Design Narrative 28 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n the appropriate use of hardscape elements, trees, mulches, turf grass and other plant materials. Montava intends to implement and manage a non potable irrigation system. 21. Establishing an interconnected network of neighborhood streets and sidewalks, including automobile, bicycle and pedestrian routes within the community. 22. Designing a walkable community with walkable blocks. 23. Designing a street system created to be traffic calming. 24. To the extent public transit is available, designing it accessible to the community. 25. Developing Montava’s design to encompass all of the items listed in in LIV 22, emphasizing creativity, diversity, and individuality, with a responsive context while developing a comfortable and interesting community. DPZ is the world leader in this type of community design. Housing models will have distinct variety, with creative multi family design, buildings oriented toward the street, garage doors de-emphasized with mostly alley entrances, creating visually appealing street scapes with enhanced street designs, with the community being oriented toward the Long’s Peak Mountain View. 26. Designing to incorporate many parks and park experiences throughout the community. This design not only brings park and open space experiences to the community, but orients the homes to these places bringing visibility and connectivity to them as well. Montava has also been extensively designed to protect, enhance, and connect the community with natural areas and wetland areas. 27. Working with PSD and others to make sure we are wisely integrating school facilities as integral parts of this complete community. We are coordinating the siting of these schools with PSD and fostering a sense of community with neighborhood schools. 28. Encouraging agricultural uses by developing a 40 acre farm to serve the entire community with Native Hill Farms. 29. Incorporating all the concepts listed in LIV 44 including open lands, parks and water corridors to form an interconnected system that provides habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems. At the same time this entire system is designed to serve the needs for drainage and water conveyance, and provides opportunities for recreation, education and other activities. City Plan Safety and Wellness objectives (SW 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4): 1. Working with the Poudre Fire Authority from the beginning to locate the next fire station in the appropriate area. Applicant also intends to work with the police department to serve the needs of providing a safe and effective fire and police connection with our community. 2. Building a sense of community throughout which will lead to community pride and involvement. This type of community also fosters care for your neighbors, which enhances safety for all. 3. Continue to consider public safety in all aspects of design. 4. Designing to support active transportation including a wide ranging and connected bicycle network that is intended to provide connection from all of NE Fort Collins to the downtown area and beyond. Montava is also a community designed for pedestrians, and intended to de- emphasize automobile traffic. 5. Designing to promote active living and physical activity with the development of parks, trail networks, rec center, natural areas, and more. 6. As an agri-urban designed community, promoting and encouraging community gardens and markets. This will be a very overt part of Montava from active farmers market activities to intentional community connection with the Farm. This will also enhance the regional food PUD Design Narrative 29 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n system by enabling the farm to expand from its current size to 40 acres. This will enable much more of our community to be served with locally grown vegetables. Community gardens are also intended to be encouraged and enabled. City Plan Culture Parks and Recreation objectives (CPR 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.2, and more): 1. Arts and Culture are very important to the community atmosphere Montava intends to develop. To the extent feasible Montava intends to participate in the development of historic and cultural facilities in its Town Center to enhance Montava as a cultural destination. This could include performing, historical, and visual arts opportunities. 2. Certainly Montava will incorporate public art throughout the community to create and enhance the unique identities of our agri urban development style with the rest of Fort Collins. 3. The Montava development team is already working with local stakeholders of the arts community to identify ways to promote and increase visibility of the arts in Montava. This could take the form of a space at the farm that encourages and promotes artists, integrating art training and shows into other facility’s in the town center including the library and education facilities. 4. Montava intends to be a vehicle to help build the identity of Fort Collins as a world class cultural center and destination. Montava is a destination community, and this connection is organic. 5. Montava development will participate in exploring funding options both private and public to encourage and nurture a strong arts and culture industry. 6. Montava, in partnership with local stakeholders, can very well become a resource to local artist and culture community organizations. And intends to do so. 7. Montava development will encourage partnerships between educational, cultural and business institutions to improve opportunities for learning and expand the creative industries employment base in Fort Collins. The art culture is critical to community, and will be critical to the Montava community. 8. Montava is designed to develop and maintain a well balanced system of parks, trails, and recreation facilities to provide a variety of recreational opportunities. This can be seen in the master plan. 9. This will be a well integrated and interconnected system both within Montava and from NE Fort Collins to the overall region. This includes trails, ditches, schools, open lands, and neighborhood centers. It is the essence of the entire Montava design. 10. Montava has been working with, and will continue to work with, multiple city departments including Parks Planning, Natural Areas, Transportation, Stormwater, etc. to identify appropriate locations for multi purpose parks and open lands to maximize available resources. 11. Montava supports the vision and guiding principles of the 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan by integrating a site for the future City Community Park directly into the design of the master plan for the community. We have been working with the City’s Park Planning staff to utilize approximately 80 acres within Montava for a future Community Park to be purchased and developed by the City (with available adjacent land should the City desire additional acreage) as an activity and enjoyment hub northeast Fort Collins. The intent is to plan the Montava community in concert with the Community Park; with the Town Center, bike paths, road circulation and neighborhoods to connect with and embrace the Community Park as an integral part of the neighborhood design – different than many of our Community Parks have been developed in the past. The intention is for the City to acquire and activate this park in the early stages of the development of Montava, not in the distant future as the current Parks and PUD Design Narrative 30 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Recreation Policy Plan indicates. Montava is being master planned in concert with the differing land uses now envisioned for the area, with the extended trail systems and with large areas of natural spaces throughout the community; we believe the City’s Community Park will become an integral part of Montava and the entire northeast Fort Collins area. 12. Montava supports the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan by providing a plan for implementing a portion of the future Northeast Paved Recreational Trail though Montava along the alignment of the No. 8 Outlet Ditch as indicated in the plan. City Plan High Performing Community (HI 2.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.2, and more): 1. The Montava development team has been and will continue to chordate with the community’s world class educational institutions including PSD, CSU, and others to uphold the excellent educational system that contributes to the city’s high quality of life. This is being done by development of partnerships, and the design and integration of these institutions needs into the community. 2. Montava is designed to create a community that works together to solve problems collectively and creatively. These include everything from waste water, trash service, energy conservation, and affordable housing. 3. Montava is a partnership forming development. By developing and growing partnerships with the many stakeholders in this wonderful community, Montava can be and become a catalyst for lasting community partnerships. 4. While being managed overall by Districts, Montava will be a very publicly transparent operation and community. City Plan Transportation objectives (T 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.4, 8.2, 9.2, 11, 12, and more): 1. Montava is designed to support the City’s framework of transportation that balances access, mobility, safety and emergency response while working to reduce the rate of growth of vehicle miles of travel. This is being done by developing a walkable community that has local services, is trial connected, and pedestrian oriented. 2. Montava will work with the City of Fort Collins as the overall Transit strategy is implemented throughout the city. 3. The transportation network enabled by Montava will support expanded economic opportunity and development generally. 4. Montava is designed to promote pedestrian activity and connectivity throughout the community. 5. Montava is designed to promote bicycle activity by providing an integrated trail system that is both connected within Montava, and to the region generally. 6. Montava’s design is purposeful about integrating neighborhood streets while protecting neighborhoods from excessive cut through traffic. 7. Montava’s design incorporates street systems that create safe and attractive environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. 8. Montava’s development team is very committed to leading the efforts to create regional connectivity in trails. 9. Montava is designed to support active living with the integration of parks, trails, natural areas, and much more. PUD Design Narrative 31 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n 10. Montava provides a very high level of design and support for the interface of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit where available as a fundamental consideration in the community design. Access to each of these will be designed to be safe, secure, attractive, and convenient for residents. 11. One of the most important and integral components of the overall Montava design is its commitment to and care for the bicycling community. One of our biggest points of effort and energy has been in creating a development that provides a safe, easy, convenient, and integrated and connected bicycling mobility option for all ages and abilities. This can easily be seen in the overall design of the community as one of our highest priorities. 12. The pedestrian network in Montava is a priority, and will provide a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. DPZ is the world leader in walkable, pedestrian oriented community development. This is why they were hired, because this is a critical element to Montava’s overall design. Mountain Vista SubArea Plan Compliance Supported Principles and Policies: PRINCIPLE MV-LU-1 - The Mountain Vista subarea will have a balance of residential, employment, commercial, civic, and open lands uses. Policies MV-LU-1.2, MV-LU-1.3, MV-LU-1.4 A Town Center has been planned as the heart of the Montava neighborhood and is located near the intersection of Mountain Vista Road and Timberline Road. The Town Center is a smaller center focusing on neighborhood-oriented retail and a mix of public and private uses, centrally located in the MVSP and within walking distance of adjacent neighborhoods. Additional commercial uses could co-locate near this intersection on adjacent undeveloped properties. Main Street in the Town Center is aligned towards the mountain view of Longs Peak. Policies MV-LU-1.5, MV-LU-1.6 The Montava community development transitions along a transect of intensity from high to low across the site with a mix of uses. Towards the Town Center and Mountain Vista Drive, development is generally of a higher intensity, including more mixed-use and multi-family. Outwards from the Town Center, development steps down in intensity towards existing neighborhoods, parks, the farm and natural areas. A small node of higher intensity is located at the top of the hill on Giddings Road, adjacent to the Farm. This node supports the northern neighborhood areas for convenience, while the Town Center supports a much wider area. PRINCIPLE MV-ECON-1 - Mountain Vista’s business center will accommodate the long-term Employment and Industrial land use growth demands of Fort Collins, providing a variety of business and industry types and sizes, compatible with surrounding land uses. Policies MV-ECON-1.1, MV-ECON-1.2 The vision for the Montava development plan began with discussions of long-range planning for A-B and other potential industrial users. In the regional context, rail-served industrial uses are PUD Design Narrative 32 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n not as viable here as in other Northern Colorado communities. The market for employment uses is delivered differently now than the ‘corporate campus’ setting of the past. Employment uses are integrated into the fabric of the planned community and its amenities. Industrial and larger employment uses are planned south of Mountain Vista Road and the Anheuser-Busch brewery, near the Interstate 25 Interchange. A-B is in support of the Montava PUD Master Plan and planned uses. Given its size as a combined set of undeveloped land parcels, the Montava PUD Master Plan has the ability to support the current land use needs in the northeast part of our city. Concurrent with the updates to City Plan, Fort Collins commissioned the ‘Trends and Forces Report’ which supports the need for more land capacity for the increased housing demand by 2040. This report also confirms that the supply of non-residential land is exceedingly sufficient for the City’s future needs. PRINCIPLE MV-T-1 - Consistent with the Land Use Code, the transportation system within this subarea will have: 1) Arterial corridors providing safe and efficient multi-modal access to and through the subarea, including major features such as railroad under/overpasses (where necessary), and significant landscape mitigation features; 2) Multi-modal connections to and across the arterial corridors, including pedestrian and bicycle connections, providing convenient access to and from the local networks that serve individual developments and buildings; and 3) Integrated local networks with direct, convenient interconnections between developments and surrounding areas. Policies MV-T-1.1, MV-T-1.2, MV-T-1.3, MV-T-1.4, MV-T-1.5 Both regional and local traffic studies have been completed to establish a safe and efficient transportation network to serve the Mountain Vista area for multi-modal access. They include the long-range goals for this area, including the extension of Suniga Drive, and result in changes to the Master Street Plan to improve connectivity in the northeast portion of the City. The studies, findings and reports are included with the PUD Master Plan submittal. PRINCIPLE MV-T-2 - Mountain Vista’s Employment and Community Commercial Districts will both be based on transit-oriented design. Policies MV-T-2.1, MV-T-2.2 The Montava PUD Master Plan is designed to support these principles of transit-oriented design with higher density mixed-use residential in conjunction with retail, office, civic, and other uses to accommodate and support future plans for transit in this area. PRINCIPLE MV-T-3 - The Community Commercial District will be designed with an emphasis on pedestrians. PUD Design Narrative 33 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Policies MV-T-3.1, MV-T-3.2 The Montava PUD Master Plan is designed as a true New Urbanist mixed-use, agri-urban community. We have included design standards to support the street network, block and building placement to support this town-like pattern for a successful pedestrian-oriented community. PRINCIPLE MV-T-4 - The City will consider a variety of street design and enforcement methods to ensure realigned Vine Drive does not become a truck route, either intended or unintended. Policies MV-T-4.1, MV-T-4.2 Although these concerns may be outside the control of one development, the planned street network supported by our Master Street Plan amendment replaces the large, angled direct arterial access to Suniga Road with a grid-patterned complete street network which we believe supports the policies of this Section. PRINCIPLE MV-CAD-1 - Important views toward the nearby mountains should be preserved and emphasized by the arrangement and design of development. Policies MV-CAD-1.1, MV-CAD-1.2, MV-CAD-1.3 Montava’s design is derived by intersecting the site’s natural stormwater and topographic features with an overall orientation of streets towards Long’s Peak. Most streets are oriented to capture the view, which is most striking from the hill north on Giddings Road at the farm as well as at the Town Center from the main plaza. Four major stormwater corridors criss-cross the site, defining the edges of neighborhoods and a focal point at the Town Center square along Country Club Road. Each corridor is connected to a series of additional green corridors, providing walking and biking trails throughout the community, connecting to existing regional trails, and providing access to the City’s future Community Park. The easternmost corridor is substantial in size, driven by off-site stormwater along the Cooper Slough. Working with Natural Areas staff, this corridor is designed as an amenity and pulled into the community’s identity through greenways. PRINCIPLE MV-CAD-2 - Mountain Vista’s community gateway from I-25 should be designed to provide a sense of place and positive experience. Policies MV-CAD-2.1, MV-CAD-2.2 Montava’s design standards and street cross-sections create an enhanced gateway for the Mountain Vista corridor within the context of a walkable community. Land uses transition from Industrial and Employment near I-25 to schools, mixed-use, employment, residential and commercial to the west. PRINCIPLE MV-NOL-1 – This subarea will provide a balanced system of recreation facilities, parks, trails, natural areas, and open lands. PUD Design Narrative 34 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Policies MV-NOL-1.1, MV-NOL-1.2, MV-NOL-1.3, MV-NOL-1.4, MV-NOL-1.5, MV-NOL-1.6: By assembling and master-planning over 900 acres within the Mountain Vista Subarea, the Montava PUD Master Plan can account for, envision, and implement nearly every NOL Principle of the MVSP. Locations for the City’s future Community Park, neighborhood parks, multi-use trails, natural areas, open lands network, No. 8 ditch and storm drainage facilities have each been integrated into the Master Plan in collaboration with City staff, Poudre School District, and owner of the No. 8 ditch. Parks, trails, and open space areas are integrated into the plan balancing both public and privately owned and maintained open spaces as integral parts of the community and providing connections to planned regional trail, recreation and drainage systems. The Community Park property, is subject to purchase and development by the City (with available adjacent land should the City desire additional acreage) as an activity and enjoyment hub for the entire Mountain Vista area. Alongside a network of recreational facilities, smaller parks, trails, natural areas and open lands, the Community Park will be designed and developed in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. The intent is to plan the Montava community in concert with the Community Park; so the Town Center, the future elementary school, bike paths, road circulation and neighborhoods can connect with and embrace the City’s future Community Park as an integral part of the neighborhood design. Climate Action Plan The City is a national leader in the carbon reduction movement. The city tracks emissions annually using 2005 as the baseline year. The community aims to reduce carbon 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80% by 2030 with the goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. This is a complicated equation that incorporates these primary factors. 1. Electric usage and production (51% of carbon inventory) 2. Ground Travel (24% of carbon inventory) 3. Natural Gas (21% of carbon inventory) 4. Solid Waste (4% of carbon inventory) 5. Water Related (<1% of carbon inventory) Electricity Emissions from electricity use are caused by fossil fuel combustion. Most of our electricity is generated by coal and hydropower, with small amount from natural gas, and increasing amounts of renewable wind and solar resources. Montava will engage with this goal and challenges in several ways: 1. Montava has committed to be the largest Zero Energy Ready Home Development in the nation. Applicant is in the process of building the development partnerships, home builders, and PUD Design Narrative 35 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n systems to make this a reality. Essentially this DOE standard enables the construction of a more insulated, more air tight home that uses less energy. 2. Because it uses less energy, it can become self sufficient with renewable energy using less panels. When battery power is added, and a systematic approach is used to integrate these batteries with the regional utility, then very exciting things can happen. 3. Montava is working with the City very systematically, to create the most energy efficient system that benefits both the home owners and the community with reduced energy usage overall. Applicant is working on an optimized energy distribution and management at the home and community level as well. Ground Travel Emissions from transportation, or ground travel, come from the combustion of fuel, primarily gasoline and diesel, within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) Montava will engage with this goal and challenges in serval ways: 1. The Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) standards include equipping the homes with the ability to connect charging stations for electric vehicles. This will encourage home owners to buy electric vehicles. 2. In addition the Montava development team is working with the City on a systematic structure to further encourage the use of EV’s by integrating them into a connected grid system that can potentially use their batteries in a cooperative fashion that benefits the home owner and community. 3. New Urbanist communities are also built to enable much shorter distances of travel for basic services and enjoyment. Often this encourages home owners to purchase smaller vehicles like golf carts or other EV’s that are smaller than full size cars. Because most, if not all, of your community needs are in a very short distance from your home, these types of alternative vehicles can replace many gas burning vehicle miles. 4. By increasing the home inventory in Fort Collins, we will also dramatically decrease the number of vehicle miles that people are traveling to work in Fort Collins and live outside the city. My own personal drive from Windsor every day will remove over 2,400 pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere simply by moving to Montava from Windsor. Thousands of people work in Fort Collins, but live elsewhere, and drive our roads into the city every day. This is a large contributor to the overall carbon emissions. 5. New Urbanist communities also encourage non vehicle related transportation. Biking and walking are two substantial components and benefits of new urbanist communities. 6. Montava will also manage its waste disposal with one single contractor over the entire community through the Districts. This will reduce truck miles and traffic significantly in the area, and may encourage other developments to do the same. Natural Gas Emissions are produced from the combustion of natural gas, primarily for heat. Montava will engage with this goal and challenges in serval ways: PUD Design Narrative 36 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n 1. The ZERH standard of construction reduces the need for heating and cooling. The easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to never have used them in the first place. 2. Montava is working with the City, and its home builder partners, to explore the full electrification of the HVAC Systems in our homes. That would include both air sourced or ground sourced heat exchangers (geothermal units) that use the air or ground for a much more efficient way of heating and cooling our homes. These units add cost to the homes, so it much be looked at in systematic ways to provide an overall benefit to the community and the home buyers. 3. The Montava development team is also exploring ways of electrifying other in home uses that typically utilize natural gas. Induction cook tops can replace gas stoves, electric ovens, electric clothes dryers, and other items can reduce or eliminate natural gas uses. While it is unlikely that Montava will be built as a “gas free” community, there are viable ways this challenge can be addressed and we are exploring them all. Solid Waste Solid waste emissions in the inventory are an estimate of the decomposition of biodegradable waste (e.g. food waste and yard trimmings) in the landfill. Montava will engage with this goal and challenges in serval ways: 1. Because Montava will be managing the waste disposal through the Districts on a community wide level, this provides a point of focus and energy to help educate the community on ways to reduce organic waste. This opportunity to provide public service education is one of the benefits of having a community wide focus and system that can help both the environment and its residents. 2. Montava will also be an agri-urban community developed around farming and connection with the land as part of its DNA. This could provide opportunities to promote composting of organic waste that could be used in the soil restoration and enrichment. 3. Montava intends to be an innovator in this area, in ways that are practical and fit within the context and character of the community overall. Water Related Emissions are produced from the combustion of natural gas, primarily heat. This relates to the treatment, delivery of potable water to the community. Montava will engage with this goal and challenges in serval ways: 1. Montava intends to have every home built to WaterSense standards, which will significantly decrease the amount of water needed and used by all residents of the community. 2. Montava will develop a primarily non potable system for irrigation in the community using well water from on site, reducing potable water treatment and delivery impacts. PUD Design Narrative 37 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Chapter 11 – Neighborhood Meeting Summaries Public engagement has been a fundamental part of the Montava master planning process. The Developer hosted two neighborhood meetings during the early planning process, as well as a week-long master planning charrette in November 2017. Comments received have been incorporated into the master planning process where feasible. The following are summaries of the comments from the developer-led neighborhood meetings: Pre-Charrette Neighborhood Informational Meeting - October 25, 2017 What will be the size and cost of residential units? Will there be a grey water system? Isn’t this area zoned mainly industrial and commercial? Concerned about infrastructure and cell tower – service is very poor in area. Appreciate the mixed use and would like to see some of the industrial conserved. Will Mountain Vista to and Timberline be widened? Already a problem. $200K to $300K residential for millennials, does that make sense for us Previously someone had developed 300 acres south of the project. Anheuser Busch fought his project. Concerned about truck traffic cutting through his project. Do you have a website? Where are you going to get water? What is your stand on damming the Poudre. Are you working with Poudre School District? Will Unity factory be permanent? Will this change the City’s forecasts of roads? Will it change Timberline? Will the developer pay for roadway improvements? Since you are under contract, how long will you own the land? How long will this project take to complete? How does this meld with the City’s current update to City Plan and the Transportation Plan? A common problem is the projected volumes of traffic, the City has standards that they don’t enforce. Are you coordinating with the proposed development to the north of Richards Lake Road along Turnberry? Concerned about emergency vehicles and fire. How many acres will the farm be and who will run it? Where will it go? With the $200K to $300K price point how will you avoid all the homes being taken by investors and turned into rental properties? One women wants to see the model that is used for evaluating the project include: landfill needs, crime, flora and fauna, night skies, and noise. Sue mentioned working with Gene Meyers to help address affordable housing. Glad that the renewable energy will not include a wind or solar farm. Like the concept with Unity. Concerned about traffic along Timberline and the Railroad tracks. What kind of population will there be in 15 years? PUD Design Narrative 38 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Neighborhood meeting regarding the area transportation system - June 5, 2018 What is the schedule? How does the RR play into infrastructure improvements? Country Club traffic has increased significantly when Maple Hill was built. How will Montava mediate anticipated traffic increases Is farmer or developer to the South ok with your planned street network? Timberline to the South needs to be widened its bad today Will Mountain Vista to and Timberline be widened? Already a problem. I-25 semi-trucks go to Country Club to get to 287 - will there be additional signage prohibiting trucks? They use the route to avoid weigh stations Lemay overpass needs to happen Land west of Turnberry is County Will you meet with County? Most of the properties here are in the county - Get City and County to work together. Lemay/Timberline overpass is so needed! If not project will fail! P.S. If not Country Club Rd will have a min. 10 - 15% traffic increase. Can/will Country Club Rd be fixed? Widen Timberline? Can you Provide street connections east of maple Hill? To reduce traffic on Turnberry? Can the RR participate in the roads and overpass? Is Waterglen expanding Turnberry? Concerned about heavy construction traffic on Turnberry for Waterglen I-25 can't handle 6,000 homes being added here Vine connection needs to go to College to accommodate truck by-pass traffic. Cell phone tower issues, it’s a problem here How will this connect to WaterGlen community? Why do you like this Country Club change? If Turnberry extends, whoi will be responsible for the bridge over canal? Will Ditch Co. be involved? City Staff met with our HOA, didn't show Turnberry extension, why are you showing this? Will houses / roads happen in parallel? Are you bringing these drawings to the city? County? In addition, the City of Fort Collins hosted two neighborhood meetings on October 11, 2018 and December 19, 2018. The questions/comments and answers received by city staff for the October 11 meeting are attached as an Appendix. PUD Design Narrative 39 | P a g e M o n t a v a P U D M a s t e r P l a n Appendix: 1. City of Fort Collins October 11, 2018 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 2. Montava Key Themes – A Visual Overview 3. September 17, 2019 Neighborhood Meeting Summary – Country Club Road Attachment Attach ment A Montava Neighborhood Meeting Summary – October 11, 2018 Overview City Staff: Project Planner: Clay Frickey Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer Shawna Van Zee, Associate Planner Applicant Team: Max Moss, Applicant Angela Milewski, BHA Design Ruth Rollins, Traffic Consultant Neighborhood Meeting Date: October 11, 2018 Proposed Project This is a request to develop 850 acres in the northwest area of Fort Collins roughly bound by Vine Dr on the south, Turnberry Rd on the west, the Budweiser brewery on the east and Richards Lake Rd on the north (parcel # 8833000001, 8833000006, 8832000001, 8833000002, 8832000002, 8704000001, 8704000002). The land is currently undeveloped. The plan to develop the property includes a mix of housing, schools, parks, commercial center, employment, natural areas and agriculture. Conceptual planning is using an estimate of about 4,000-5,000 dwelling units. Project planning to date has included neighborhood meetings, a week-long charrette and a transportation report. The proposed project includes portions of the following zone districts: Low-Density Mixed-Use (LMN), Employment (E), and Industrial (I). The proposed project with go through the new PUD process which will require Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review. The proposed project is roughly bound by Richards Lake Rd on the north, Vine Dr on the south, Turnberry Rd on the west, and the Budweiser brewery on the east. Applicant Presentation The Montava Master Plan is the result of a collaborative effort over the past several months. The developer, HF2M has been working with Anhueser-Busch to redevelop the nearly 850-acre parcel west of the current brewery. The plan is to develop a comprehensively planned community with an integrated mix of uses including housing, employment, schools, parks, natural areas and agriculture. Montava has been planned in a comprehensive way with early engagement of City staff, utility providers, adjacent landowners, and subject experts. The process began in 2017 with an initial neighborhood meeting with nearly 100 attendees, and a week-long design charette including multiple Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Montava Page 2 topic meetings, three public presentations, seven interim plans and a final master plan. Since that time, the applicant has continued to coordinate with agencies and stakeholders to develop more detailed information on relevant issues including: • Scoping and preparing traffic studies to support a Master Street Plan amendment (including a second neighborhood meeting focused on this topic) • Locations for future schools for Poudre School District • Coordination with stormwater utilities regarding conveyance of off-site drainage and their long- range plans for this area • Assessment of land for the 40-acre organic farm • Coordination with Park Planning and Natural Areas staff on how the plan can best support their long-term goals for the area • Developing strategies for affordable and attainable housing Prior to the adoption of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, the applicant previously submitted a Preliminary Design Review application in advance of a planned Overall Development Plan and rezoning. The applicant is now pursuing the PUD Master Plan application process. Questions/Comments and Answers Planned Unit Development:  Where are the current roads? The map makes it difficult to understand which roads are existing and which are new. Applicant: Turnberry Road and North Giddings Road both begin at Mountain Vista Drive and extend north. North Summit View Drive begins at Mountain Vista Drive and extends south.  What is the “X” in the middle of the site plan? Applicant: Open space areas that serve as storm drainage. There are roads along these ditches through the development.  What are the two red areas on the map next to the “X”? Applicant: The red areas are idea placeholders like activity centers. The goal is to create a community connection from the town center to the farms.  Will this project connect to the existing neighborhood to the south? Applicant: Yes – the trail system will be connected to that neighborhood.  What is the plan to make the roads flow smoothly? City (Traffic Engineer): This project is still in an early stage and it will be built out in phases. The City is working with the applicant to identify improvements needed, including new roads, expanded roads, and intersection improvements. Even before Montava comes on online, the intersection of Vine and Timberline and the intersection of Turnberry and Country Club are slated to get traffic signals as a part of previously approved projects. Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Montava Page 3 The plan for Lemay at Vine Drive is to realign it to the east, and go up and over the railroad tracks which eliminates train delays. Lemay will be four lanes. About 60% of the funding for that overpass has been identified, and every new development that is proposed in this area has to contribute their share towards that project. Because it’s such a big project, the City will build it.  There is terrible cell coverage here. What’s the plan? City (Planning): Verizon will be putting a Turnberry cell tower in this area hopefully by the end of the year. No telecommunication facility is required as part of the plan. The underlying zoning also allows cell towers.  Will broadband here be extended through to county folks? City (Planning): The city is unsure at this time.  I’m concerned about water on this site moving to other neighborhoods. What’s the plan? Applicant: The city is very stringent about making sure our sight is designed to handle all stormwater. Having a plan for this issue is a central focus of the entire plan from the beginning.  What’s the overall objective of the Vine connections and the future of Suniga? City (Traffic): The City Transportation Master Plan has a four-lane arterial road shown a little ways north of Vine Drive intended to replace Vine Drive, which is too close to the railroad and makes intersections challenging. This road, called Suniga, is being built as development occurs around it. With the completion of the already approved developments, and two more in the process, Suniga will connect from College to Lemay. Eventually, it is slated to connect all the way to Timberline and perhaps beyond.  How realistic is it that you are going to be able to do this project? Applicant: At first, we gave it a 10% chance. However, we feel that there are logical paths to each of the solutions necessary to make this project possible, though the issues are difficult. City (Traffic): From the city’s perspective, from a transportation perspective – this area will develop one way or another over time. A benefit of this project is that we can plan a whole system that makes it easier to develop in phases over time.  Will Timberline be 4 lanes? How far south will it be four lanes? City (Traffic): Timberline currently is a four-lane road south of Prospect Road and 2 lanes north of Prospect Road. The Master Street Plan shows Timberline to eventually be 6 lanes south of Prospect, and 4 lanes north of Prospect. Current developments south of Vine Drive are building Timberline to a 4-lane width. The update to the Transportation Master Plan is reviewing all the numbers of lanes to see if changes are needed. Applicant: The interim is what’s difficult, and the city works to make it as easy as possible to navigate. Transportation systems stay longer than buildings. We also don’t want to overbuild our system. It’s an important balance to find between the two. Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Montava Page 4  Adriel Hills is concerned with some of the road connections. Applicant: We understand your concern. We want to find a solution that works not just for our development but for the surrounding community.  I’m concerned about having residential neighborhoods this close to industrial buildings. Is this something the city does elsewhere? City (Planning): We have two examples of new residential development connected to industrial areas. One is at the intersection of Jerome St. and Conifer St. in north Fort Collins near JAX. The other example is where William Neal Pkwy. Connects to Midpoint Dr. This provides a connection to the Bucking Horse neighborhood. With that being said, we would need to see what kind of traffic patterns the applicant expects in this industrial area before evaluating any sort of vehicular connections to the neighborhood. We don’t think having heavy truck traffic going through adjacent neighborhoods is a good outcome.  How will the development of Montava closest to I-25 impact the existing residential neighborhoods to the south? City (Planning): The applicant hasn’t submitted a formal application to us yet for review so we aren’t sure. Once we have plans to review, we will analyze this situation.  Waterglenn needs at least two points of egress out of the neighborhood. What’s the plan? City (Traffic): Poudre Fire Authority is the one that dictate how emergency accesses work. We’ll need to work with them to ensure adequate access. In terms of connectivity, the City supports connectivity as a concept, but we are sensitive to concerns and areas where residential and industrial traffic may mix.  I’m new to the area – what’s the background story of Adriel Hills? Applicant: There is concern that extending Turnberry will, essentially, put a road in many people’s backyard. There’s been a lot of discussion on whether to extend the road or not. Our plans show Turnberry extending south even though the Master Street Plan does not show this connection.  What’s your plan to keep trucks from passing through these neighborhoods as a shortcut? City (Traffic): Most roadways are public facilities and are generally open to all types of traffic. Especially roadways designated as arterials are not typically restricted in terms of truck traffic. In areas where we have truck traffic on collector or local roads, or the potential for significant cut-through traffic we need to work on mitigation or perhaps consider bike/ped connections instead of vehicular connections.  How many people do you plan to bring into this area with this development? Applicant: Fort Collins is projected to grow to 250,000 and much of that growth will happen in this part of town because so much of the city is already built out. This plan currently provides 4,000 residential units which will accommodate approximately 8,000-10,000 residents. Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Montava Page 5  Are there other big projects like this around Fort Collins? City (Planning): There are other large projects around Fort Collins, but none this large.  Does this “town center” idea exist anywhere else in Fort Collins? City (Planning): Rigden Farm and Jessup Farm are two smaller examples. We don’t have another town center of this scale in the community. Comments There is overall concern about the reality of the amount of development happening and the roadways. For the next neighborhood meeting it would be helpful to have a side-by-side of the existing streets with the existing street layout and the plan of the new streets. It can include future development to help viewers understand what additional areas in the city will be experiencing growth. Why do we need town centers? To Live Well Together In a world where you can order almost anything from your phone, it’s not hard to realize how easy it is to become disconnected. The town center remains a place of vibrant connection for all. Places to learn, meet friends and family for a meal, buy a fresh gallon of milk, purchase farm fresh eggs, or play games with your grandparents, should never become things of the past. Town Centers Still Matter Building an “agri-urban” community When we began this project, we didn’t know what an agri urban community was. Now we know it means having great farming partners, good soil and water, a community that cares about its food sources, an executable vision, and a lot of hard work. www.nativehillfarm.com Native Hill Farm @ Montava The Agri-Urban Life Creating community is intended to connect us with our environment. Montava will adopt Dark Sky standards throughout the community. This includes lighting that is shielded, down- directional, and strategically placed to minimize horizontal and vertical light pollution. The design aesthetic of the light fixtures would match the architectural context of each neighborhood and commercial area. They will be agriculturally oriented. www.darksky.org Dark Sky Compliant Lighting Connection, Recreation, Health Recreation in Montava has many facets. It includes a public Recreation Center with all the equipment and programming needed for the community to stay healthy. It also includes outdoor facilities like the Fort Collins Community Park, Pickle- ball, bike paths through natural areas and connected to entire city bike network, a complete walkable community, and real farm where you can get your hands in the dirt, and much more Recreation Fort Collins Heartbeat Micro/Small Single Family 30-40’ Lot Housing diversity is hard to achieve, but worth the effort. Typical suburban community development is boring. There are very real reasons why this happens. Those types of communities are easier to build, easier to finance, and faster to develop. But you don’t get what you see in this photo on the left. Standing in the living room of a custom $2MM home looking across the street at a 1,200 sf very affordable home. Beauty in diversity. Montava is designed to integrate a wide verity of housing types and intensities within neighborhoods. Housing Diversity Beautiful Community Starts Here What are the purpose of parks? New Urbanist or Traditional Neighborhood Development communities tend to create smaller, more active parks within walking distance. This is the idea of walkable community. Neighborhood parks should create this same experience. They will be tucked into and scattered throughout the fabric of Montava, ideally placed along greenways and bike paths. Close, active, and more integrated into our daily lives. Parks.....throughout Energy & Water Fort Collins is the birth place of clean energy, the home to some of the worlds most prestigious innovators in energy conservation and management. It is also the middle of the western water revolution. Montava intends to be the nations largest Zero Energy Ready Home Development, and embrace the EPA WaterSense standards as well. There are also many innovative opportunities to partner with Fort Collins Utility and PRPA which can provide benefits to all. Conservation Of Energy & Water Montava PUD Master Plan – Country Club Road Neighborhood Meeting Summary – September 17, 2019 Applicant Team: Max Moss, Applicant Angela Milewski, BHA Design Ruth Rollins, Traffic Consultant City and County attendees: Martina Wilkinson, City of Fort Collins Assistant Traffic Engineer Mark Peterson, County Engineer Questions/Comments  Turnberry extension is important for Country Club. What is the timing? Applicant: We have a preliminary phasing plan for the Montava PUD master plan, but the timing for specific road improvements is not yet determined.  Adriel Hills neighborhood has begun working with the City of Fort Collins on preliminary concepts for the extension of Turnberry south of Mountain Vista to Conifer and Suniga.  Timing is important for these connections to the south and west to be made as soon as possible to help with Country Club Road.  What is the City’s timing and cost for Conifer and Suniga? Applicant: These changes are being proposed for the City’s Master Street Plan to set the stage for road alignments and future connections, but the timing and costs for specific road improvements is not yet determined.  What is a ‘Chicane’ and would it work on County Club? Applicant: A chicane is an intentionally designed curve in a road to slow traffic for safety. It’s not clear if there is room on Country Club to implement chicanes but this could be studied if desired.  Storybook is currently being affected by semi-truck traffic and back-ups, too.  The Timberline Road / Mountain Vista intersection is a problem today, lots of congestion and heavy traffic.  What will be done to fix today’s current problems, not just for future developments?  Google maps shows Mountain Vista and Country Club as the preferred route to Laramie WY which is creating significant traffic. Can this be changed?  Who is going to pay for all of this? Can the City step in to assist with the design and plan for funding of the important off-site regional improvements such as the extension of Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Montava Page 2 Turnberry, Suniga Drive, and the Mountain Vista/Timberline Road intersection? What is their role and what is the timing? Applicant: There are Capital Improvements funding mechanisms at the City for planned roads city-wide, plus local developer contributions. There may be opportunities for County assistance. The changes to the Master Street Plan is the first step, then priorities are based on specific needs and development plans. Timing for these specific improvements is not yet determined.  When will this area be annexed into the City? City: Planning Department can better answer this question, but we are not aware of any current plans to annex properties in this area.  What is the timing of the planned elementary school in Montava? Applicant: The Montava PUD Master Plan provides the location for the school, but the timing of construction would be determined by Poudre School District based on anticipated surrounding development. Two potential elementary school sites are being considered in this area to relieve the pressure on Tavelli, one in Montava and one further south near Conifer/Turnberry extension. Timing has not yet been determined.  We like Country Club Road the way it is. There is no room for bike lanes or other improvements.  Montava needs a grocery store to keep people from driving west to King Soopers on Country Club. Applicant: Montava’s PUD Master Plan plans for a Town Center and would allow for and desires a grocery store.  Speeding is a concern today on Country Club Road.  The main issue is to provide alternatives to Country Club as there are none today.  More houses = more cars – this is a problem.  Where will construction traffic be routed for Montava? Applicant: Those details are not yet known but we’ll plan for that as we know more about each phase.  What are the planned 2023 County improvements for Country Club? Applicant: Not certain but we’ll engage with the County. They are here tonight to hear your input.  None of our questions about timing have been answered. Applicant/City: Let’s have a follow up meeting to discuss further, share information, and provide answers where possible for this stage in the master planning process. Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 p. (970) 223-7577 www.BHADesign.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Master Planning L:\PROJECTS\MONTAVA\DWGS\ACAD\PUD\DWG\PUD_EX-COND-PLAN.DWG Plot Date:11/26/2019 12:42 PM Plotted By: Angie Milewski Date Created:9/18/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: BHA DESIGN 11/26/19 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA COVER SHEET PUD MASTER PLAN 1. THIS MONTAVA - THE PUD MASTER PLAN CONSISTS OF: THE PUD MASTER PLAN SUMMARY; THE MONTAVA PUD MASTER PLAN PUD DESIGN NARRATIVE; THE MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN SHEETS 1 THROUGH 7, IDENTIFIED IN THE SHEET INDEX; THE MONTAVA PUD MASTER PLAN USES, DENSITIES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE LAND USE CODE, APPENDIX A TO THE MASTER PLAN SUMMARY; AND VARIANCES FROM ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROPOSED ALTERNATE DESIGNS SUBMITTED WITH SUCH VARIANCES, APPENDIX B TO THE MASTER PLAN SUMMARY. 2. PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. _______________, 2019 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN AND THE MONTAVA PUD MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE APPROVED AS SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE USES, DENSITIES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND VARIANCES FROM ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS ALL AS SET FORTH IN THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN AND THE MONTAVA PUD MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO. ______________, 2019. 3. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS PART OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS FOR THE MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN SUBMITTAL, ARE ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MONTAVA RECORD: CONTEXT DIAGRAM MASTER DRAINAGE REPORT PRELIMINARY WATER DEMAND MEMORANDUM MASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION LETTER REVIEW TYPES COMPARED WITH CURRENT LAND USE CODE STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS AND APPLICANT’S RESPONSES MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST LETTERS OF INTENT VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED TO ASSIST IN THE CITY’S EVALUATION OF MONTAVA – PUD MASTER PLAN AND TO FACILITATE PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITHIN THE MONTAVA – PUD MASTER PLAN. THEY ARE ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY AND ARE REQUESTED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MONTAVA RECORD. NOTHING HEREIN REQUIRES THAT ANY FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NOR DOES IT PREVENT THE USE OF DESIGNS NOT INCLUDED IN SUCH INFORMATION. RATHER, THE PURPOSE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IS TO MEMORIALIZE DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN CITY STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER ON THESE MATTERS AS A BASELINE FOR FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARATION EXISTING TREE WITH ACTIVE RED-TAIL HAWK NEST 50' BUFFER ZONE FROM IRRIGATION DITCH 100' 100' 80' 50' CENTER PIVOT ACCESS ROAD IRRIGATION DITCH 1 IRRIGATION DITCH 2 IRRIGATION DITCH 3 IRRIGATION DITCH 5 IRRIGATION DITCH 4 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 3 GRAVEL ROAD EXT. BUILDING, TYP. 50' OVERHEAD POWER ESMT. 100' SANITARY SEWER ESMT. 100' SANITARY SEWER ESMT. EXT. GRAVEL ROAD LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT TEMPORARY 450' LOD RADIUS DURING ACTIVE NESTING SEASON FEB 15 - JUL 15 MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE (CR 50) STATE OF COLORADO RICHARDS LAKE ROAD (CR 52) NORTH GIDDINGS ROAD BUSCH DR. I-25 SOUTH BOUND I-25 NORTH BOUND I-25 SOUTH BOUND I-25 NORTH BOUND BUSCH DR. ANHEUSER BUSCH LLC L&W CANAL STORYBROOK SUBDIVISION MAPLE HILL SUBDIVISION WATERGLEN SUBDIVISION TURNBERRY ROAD (CR 11) LIND SUBDIVISION FORT COLLINS FARM LLC. ANHEUSER BUSCH LLC. POUDRE R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT K AND M CO. COUNTRY CLUB ROAD RICHARDS LAKE ROAD (CR 52) MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE (CR 50) NORTH GIDDINGS ROAD EXISTING OIL WELL, CAPPED AND ABANDONED Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: /USERS/MATT/ELC/SHARED/PROJECTS-2015_2019/1725-MONTAVA/1725-02-FILES/1725-MASTERPLAN/01-RESOURCE/TITLE_BLOCK/PUD_SUBMITTAL/24X36_TITLE_BLOCK_PUD_CONSULTANT.DWG Plot Date:9/13/2018 10:34 AM Plotted By: Matthew Lambert Date Created:9/13/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: X.X. X.X.XXX 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN 11/08/19 DPZ CODESIGN POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK POTENTIAL FUTURE PSD HIGH SCHOOL POTENTIAL FUTURE PSD MIDDLE SCHOOL POTENTIAL FUTURE PSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA DR N TIMBERLINE RD RICHARDS LAKE RD N GIDDINGS RD INTERSTATE 25 TURNBERRY RD 0’ 200’800’ 400’ 600’ 1,600’ Civic Building Town Center Building Town Center Employment Urban Center Neighborhood General Urban Neighborhood Sub-urban Neighborhood Rural Neighborhood Industrial Land Parks, Schools, Open Space Natural Areas & Stormwater Farm X.X. X.11/X.07/XXX 19 DPZ COD Natural Areas & Stormwater Farm s, Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: /USERS/MATT/ELC/SHARED/PROJECTS-2015_2019/1725-MONTAVA/1725-02-FILES/1725-MASTERPLAN/01-RESOURCE/TITLE_BLOCK/PUD_SUBMITTAL/24X36_TITLE_BLOCK_PUD_CONSULTANT.DWG Plot Date:9/13/2018 10:34 AM Plotted By: Matthew Lambert Date Created:9/13/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: X.X. X.X.XXX 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN 11/07/19 DPZ CODESIGN ANNOTATED ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN MOUNTAIN VISTA DR N TIMBERLINE RD RICHARDS LAKE RD N GIDDINGS RD TURNBERRY RD Civic Program 1 Library 2 Civic Building Reserve 3 Fire Station 4 Elementary School 5 Middle School 6 High School Civic Space Program 7 City of Fort Collins Community Park 8 Plaza - With Active Programming 9 Square - Passive 10 Square - With Active Programming and Stormwater Area 11 Green - Passive 12 Green - With Active Programming 13 Green - With Passive Recreation / Stormwater Area 14 Compact Green - Passive 15 Linear Greenway - Passive 16 Linear Greenway - With Stormwater Conveyance 17 Natural Areas & Stormwater Management Miscellaneous 18 Red-tailed Hawk Nest 19 Gas Well Civic Space Program Activities Formal Gatherings, Performances: 8, 12 Community Gardens: 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 Playgrounds: 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 Unstructured Sports: 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 Structured Sports: 7 Trails: 7, 15, 16, 17 Note: This Annotated Illustrative Master Plan indicates the proposed general locations and approximate sizes of Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: /USERS/MATT/ELC/SHARED/PROJECTS-2015_2019/1725-MONTAVA/1725-02-FILES/1725-MASTERPLAN/01-RESOURCE/TITLE_BLOCK/PUD_SUBMITTAL/24X36_TITLE_BLOCK_PUD_CONSULTANT.DWG Plot Date:9/13/2018 10:34 AM Plotted By: Matthew Lambert Date Created:9/13/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: X.X. X.X.XXX 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN 11/07/19 DPZ CODESIGN POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK PSD PSD PSD PUD DISTRICTS MOUNTAIN VISTA DR N TIMBERLINE RD RICHARDS LAKE RD N GIDDINGS RD INTERSTATE 25 TURNBERRY RD 0’ 200’800’ 400’ 600’ 1,600’ (T5) Urban Center / Mixed-use (T4) General Urban Neighborhood (T3.2) Sub-urban Neighborhood (T3.1) Rural Neighborhood (T2) Rural / Farm (P) Community Park Special District (PSD) Poudre School Special District (S) Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District (I) Industrial and Employment Special District T2 T5 T4 T4 T4 T5 T3.2 T3.1 T3.1 T3.2 T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 T5T5 T5 T5T5 T4 Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: /USERS/MATT/ELC/SHARED/PROJECTS-2015_2019/1725-MONTAVA/1725-02-FILES/1725-MASTERPLAN/01-RESOURCE/TITLE_BLOCK/PUD_SUBMITTAL/24X36_TITLE_BLOCK_PUD_CONSULTANT.DWG Plot Date:9/13/2018 10:34 AM Plotted By: Matthew Lambert Date Created:9/13/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: X.X. X.X.XXX 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN 11/07/19 DPZ CODESIGN POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK PSD PSD PSD PUD DISTRICTS MOUNTAIN VISTA DR N TIMBERLINE RD RICHARDS LAKE RD N GIDDINGS RD INTERSTATE 25 TURNBERRY RD 0’ 200’800’ 400’ 600’ 1,600’ (T5) Urban Center / Mixed-use (T4) General Urban Neighborhood (T3.2) Sub-urban Neighborhood (T3.1) Rural Neighborhood (T2) Rural / Farm (P) Community Park Special District (PSD) Poudre School Special District (S) Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District (I) Industrial and Employment Special District T2 T5 T4 T4 T4 T5 T3.2 T3.1 T3.1 T3.2 T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 T5T5 T5 T5T5 T4 Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: /USERS/MATT/ELC/SHARED/PROJECTS-2015_2019/1725-MONTAVA/1725-02-FILES/1725-MASTERPLAN/01-RESOURCE/TITLE_BLOCK/PUD_SUBMITTAL/24X36_TITLE_BLOCK_PUD_CONSULTANT.DWG Plot Date:9/13/2018 10:34 AM Plotted By: Matthew Lambert Date Created:9/13/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: X.X. X.X.XXX 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN 10/14/19 DPZ CODESIGN CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARK PSD HIGH SCHOOL PSD MIDDLE SCHOOL PSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHASE G PHASE E PHASE D PHASE F PHASE H FARM PHASE K PHASE L PHASE J PHASE C PHASE I PHASE B PHASE A PHASE N PHASE O DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN PHASE M 14 7 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OVERALL UTILITY PHASING PLAN PLAN X.11/X.07/XXX 19 PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities, and Development Standards NOVEMBER 22226666,,2222000011119999 [PAGE IIIINNNNTTTTEEEENNNNTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNAAAALLLLLLLLYYYY BLANK] 1. Community VVVViiiissssiiiioooonnnn ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6666 1.1. Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 7777 2.1. Description of Transect Districts and Special Districts ............................................................................ 7 2.2. Permitted Uses ........................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3. Use Restrictions ....................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4. Land uses by Transect Districts and Special Districts ............................................................................ 12 3. Density ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 3.1. Request for Modified Densities ............................................................................................................... 28 3.2. Description of Modified Densities .......................................................................................................... 28 3.3. Density by Phase ..................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4. Justification for Density Modifications .................................................................................................. 31 4. DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss OOOOvvvveeeerrrrvvvviiiieeeewwww ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. ............. 32 4.1. Request for Modified Development Standards ...................................................................................... 32 4.2. Description of Modified Development Standards .................................................................................. 32 4.3. Compliance with Criteria of LUC 4.29(G)(3) ......................................................................................... 32 5. Lots aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34 5.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 34 5.2. Summary of Standards ............................................................................................................................. 34 5.3. Lot Size ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.4. Lot Occupation And Coverage ................................................................................................................ 39 5.5. Setbacks .................................................................................................................................................... 40 5.6. Height ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 5.7. Building Orientation ............................................................................................................................... 44 5.8. Frontage ................................................................................................................................................... 45 5.9. Shopfronts ................................................................................................................................................ 53 5.10. Fencing and Walls ................................................................................................................................... 54 5.11. Accessory Dwelling Units ....................................................................................................................... 56 5.12. Exterior Lighting ..................................................................................................................................... 56 6. Parking ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 61 6.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 61 6.2. Vehicular Parking Location And Access: T3.1 ....................................................................................... 61 6.3. Vehicular Parking Location and Access: T3.2 and T4 ........................................................................... 63 6.4. Vehicular Parking Location and Access: T5 ........................................................................................... 63 6.5. Required Vehicular Parking ................................................................................................................... 65 6.6. Required Vehicular Parking Adjustments.............................................................................................. 66 6.7. Vehicular Parking Lot Design ................................................................................................................. 68 6.8. Vehicular Parking Lot Landscaping ....................................................................................................... 69 6.9. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: T5 ............................................................................................... 69 6.10. Required Bicycle Parking ........................................................................................................................ 69 6.11. Justification for Modifications of Parking Standards ............................................................................. 70 7. PPPPrrrriiiivvvvaaaatttteeee LLLLooootttt LLLLaaaannnnddddssssccccaaaappppiiiinnnngggg ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. ............................. 71 7.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 71 7.2. Modifications to Land Use Code Standards ............................................................................................ 71 7.3. landscape materials .................................................................................................................................. 71 7.4. Justification for Private Lot Landscaping Standards .............................................................................. 71 8. Signage ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 73 8.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 73 8.2. Transect District Correlation .................................................................................................................. 73 8.3. Modifications to Land Use Code Standards ............................................................................................ 73 8.4. justification for signage standards ........................................................................................................... 73 9. Architectural CCCChhhhaaaarrrraaaacccctttteeeerrrr ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 74 74 9.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 74 9.2. Building Materials ................................................................................................................................... 74 9.3. Openings .................................................................................................................................................. 74 9.4. Foundations ............................................................................................................................................. 74 9.5. Solar Orientation ..................................................................................................................................... 74 9.6. Mechanical Equipment and Refuse Storage ........................................................................................... 74 9.7. Outbuildings ............................................................................................................................................ 75 9.8. Justification for Architectural Character Standards............................................................................... 75 10. Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 76 10.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 76 10.2. Civic Space Types .................................................................................................................................... 76 10.3. Justfication for Civic Space standards ..................................................................................................... 81 11. BBBBuuuuffffffffeeeerrrriiiinnnngggg ffffoooorrrr rrrreeeessssiiiiddddeeeennnnttttiiiiaaaallll aaaannnndddd hhhhiiiigggghhhh ooooccccccccuuuuppppaaaannnnccccyyyy bbbbuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnngggg uuuunnnniiiittttssss ................................ ................................ ..... 83 11.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 83 11.2. Modifications to Land Use Code Standards ............................................................................................ 83 11.3. Justification for Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units ................................. 84 12. MODIFICATIONS TTTTOOOO SSSSUUUUPPPPPPPPLLLLEEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTAAAALLLL RRRREEEEGGGGUUUULLLLAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS................................. ................................ ....... ....... 86 12.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 86 12.2. Justification for modifications ................................................................................................................. 87 13. DDDDeeeeffffiiiinnnniiiittttiiiioooonnnnssss ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 90 13.1. Request for modified definitions ............................................................................................................ 90 13.2. Justfication for Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 92 Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 1:Transect aaaannnndddd SSSSppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll DDDiiissstttrrriiiccctttsss Districts 6666 ooooffff 99993333 1. COMMUNITY VVVVIIIISSSSIIIIOOOONNNN 1.1. SUMMARY Montava is a significant traditional neighborhood development infused with agrarian elements, expressing the site’s past and surrounding context. Given its size, Montava is comprised of a series of connected neighborhoods, each unique in layout, character, intensity, and surroundings. All neighborhoods are compact and walkable, with some of a higher intensity and others lower in intensity. The site’s topography and open spaces permeate Montava, pulling natural areas and recreational spaces into the heart of the community. Montava’s design relies upon coordination between the PUD Master Plan and the Uses, Densities, and Development Standards to achieve community goals. Together, they craft design of the project which, in turn, creates a large, diverse, walkable, mixed-use community and an interconnected series of neighborhoods, centers, and open spaces. These Montava PUD Master Plan, Uses, Densities, and Development Standards embody flexibility in site design and are intended to achieve the Montava community vision and to support and further the principles and policies of City Plan. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 7777 ooooffff 99993333 2. UUUUSSSSEEEE 2.1. DESCRIPTION OOOOFFFF TTTTRRRRAAAANNNNSSSSEEEECCCCTTTT DDDDIIIISSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTTSSSS AAAANNNNDDDD SSSSPPPPEEEECCCCIIIIAAAALLLL DDDDIIIISSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTTSSSS 2.1.1. A transect of nature is a geographical cross- section of a region that reveals the sequence of environments. It examines the many symbiotic elements that contribute to habitats where certain plants and animals thrive. The transect was first used for biogeographical analysis by naturalist Alexander von Humboldt in the late 18th Century. In the late 20th century, Andres Duany, working with New Urbanist colleagues, identified the rural-to-urban transect of the built environment, ranging across densities from unbuilt preserve land to the dense urban core. Human beings thrive in a variety of habitats: some would never choose to live in the urban core and others would wither in a rural place. To provide meaningful choices in living arrangements, the full rural-to-urban transect is divided into six transect districts, designed for use in zoning ordinances. These six habitats vary by the ratio and level of intensity of their natural, built, and social components. The transect districts are coordinated to all scales of planning, from the region, through the community and neighborhood, to the individual lot and building. Montava uses five of the six transect districts, excluding the most intensive district, which applies to the most intensive regional places, like downtown Denver. Districts that are not part of the transect system are considered special districts. Special districts are areas of single use or special circumstances. The Industrial and Employment District, for instance, is a special use area that is not a neighborhood-based component of the City. The platform of the transect allows the integration of the design protocols of traffic engineering, public works, town planning, architecture, landscape architecture and ecology. This is the foundation of form-based planning, design, and coding. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 8888 ooooffff 99993333 The boundaries of the Transect and Special Districts of the Montava PUD Master Plan which are depicted in Figure 1 below and on Sheet 6 of the Montava PUD Master Plan and are incorporated herein by reference. The Transect and Special Districts are described below in Sections 2.1.2 through 2.1.6. Figure 1- Transect District Map Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 9999 ooooffff 99993333 2.1.2. Transect Districts a. Development is regulated according to the intensity of use permitted on each parcel, according to the following five (5) districts: i. Transect District T5 – Urban Center/Mixed Use: A high intensity mixed-use district, consisting of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. ii. Transect District T4 – General Urban Neighborhood: A medium-high intensity residential district, consisting of single family and multi-family housing, attached and detached, and home occupations. iii. Transect District T3.2 – Sub-Urban Neighborhood: A medium-low intensity residential district, consisting of single family detached housing. iv. Transect District T3.1 – Rural Neighborhood: A low intensity residential district, consisting of single family detached housing situated on larger lots. v. Transect District T2 – Rural/Farm: A rural, agricultural district, consisting of small to large farms and support facilities including housing, processing, storage, sales, and distribution. 2.1.3. (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District a. The Industrial and Employment Special District is intended for a combination of industrial, and employment uses. b. Uses in the Industrial and Employment Special District are as set forth in this Chapter. 2.1.4. (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District a. A portion of Montava is dedicated to regional and site-serving stormwater management (S), in coordination with Natural Areas as a natural resource corridor. 2.1.5. Poudre School (PSD) Special District a. The future school sites (PSD) within Montava to be acquired and developed by Poudre School District are not regulated by these development standards. 2.1.6. (P) - Community Park Special District a. The future Community Park site (P) within Montava to be acquired and developed by the City is not regulated by these development standards. 2.2. PERMITTED UUUUSSSSEEEESSSS 2.2.1. LUC Section 4.29 (E)(2) allows uses not permitted in an underlying zone district to be added to a PUD Master Plan provided such additional uses are enumerated with a proposed type of review and such uses satisfy the criteria of LUC Section 4.29(E)(2)(a) through (d). 2.2.2. The following uses and types of review are permitted in Montava and modify the uses permitted in the underlying zone districts: Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), Division 4.27 - Employment District (E) and Division 4.28 - Industrial District (I). Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 10 ooooffff 99993333 2.2.3. Amendments to the uses and types of review in Montava shall be in accordance with LUC Section 4.29(I)(2) and Sections 2.2.10(A) and (B). 2.2.4. The following table is a summary of the permitted uses within the transects of Montava 2.2.5. Uses are permitted by transect district, according to Table 2.1-1. 2.2.6. Multiple uses per lot and per building are permitted. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 2.2222--1.PPPPEEEERRRRMMMMIIIITTTTTTTTEEEEDDDD UUUUSSSSEEEESSSS USE SUBCATEGORY T2 T3.1 T3.2 T4 T5 S Residential Single-family Detached (All) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Single-family Attached (All) ✓ ✓ ✓ Two-family Dwellings (All) ✓ ✓ ✓ Accessory Dwellings ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mixed-use Dwellings (All) ✓ ✓ Extra Occupancy Rental House (All) ✓ ✓ Group Home (All) ✓ ✓ Multi-family up to 14 units per building ✓ ✓ ✓ Multi-family over 14 units per building ✓ ✓ Long-term Care Facilities ✓ ✓ Commercial All Commercial/Retail Uses over 2,000 sf ✓ All Commercial/Retail Uses under 2,000 sf ✓ ✓ Food Membership Distribution Site ✓ ✓ ✓ Food Catering or Small Food Product Production ✓ ✓ ✓ Lodging Short-term Rental (Primary) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Bed & Breakfast up to 6 rooms ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lodging Establishment up to 12 rooms ✓ ✓ ✓ Lodging Establishment over 12 rooms ✓ Manufacturing Workshop and Custom Small Industry ✓ Light Industrial ✓ Solar Energy Systems, small & medium ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Solar Energy Systems, large scale ✓ ✓ Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 11 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 2.2222--1.PPPPEEEERRRRMMMMIIIITTTTTTTTEEEEDDDD UUUUSSSSEEEESSSS USE SUBCATEGORY T2 T3.1 T3.2 T4 T5 S Public, Institutional All Educational Uses ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Public Use ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Minor Public Facilities ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Major Public Facilities ✓ Neighborhood Support / Recreation Facilities ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Places of worship or assembly ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Community Facilities ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Parks and Recreation (All), Outdoor Amphitheaters ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Open Lands ✓ ✓ Agricultural Plant Nurseries and Greenhouses ✓ ✓ Composting Facilities ✓ Farm Animals ✓ Agricultural Activities ✓ Value Added Agriculture ✓ Veterinary facilities, hospital ✓ Animal Boarding ✓ Open air farmers market ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Agriculture ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Misc. Off-site construction staging ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Parking garages, lots, and structures ✓ Outdoor Vendor ✓ ✓ ✓ Accessory Uses ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Accessory Buildings ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 12 ooooffff 99993333 2.3. USE RRRREEEESSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS 2.3.1. AAAAcccccccceeeessssssssoooorrrryyyy DDDDwwwweeeelllllllliiiinnnnggggssss a. Accessory dwellings are subject to the standards of Section 5.9. 2.3.2. AAAAdddduuuulllltttt OOOOrrrriiiieeeennnntttteeeedddd UUUUsssseeeessss a. Adult oriented uses are not permitted. 2.3.3. AAAAuuuuttttoooommmmoooobbbbiiiilllleeee SSSSaaaalllleeeessss a. Automobile sales are permitted within storefront showrooms under 10,000 sf b. Parking lots related to a storefront showroom must be located behind the showroom building relative to front lot lines. 2.3.4. AAAAuuuuttttoooommmmoooobbbbiiiilllleeee SSSSeeeerrrrvvvviiiicccceeee a. Service areas and vehicle storage and stacking must be located behind the main building relative to front and side street lot lines. 2.3.5. Equipment,TTTTrrrruuuucccckkkk aaaannnndddd TTTTrrrraaaaiiiilllleeeerrrr RRRRental eeennntttaaalll EEEEssssttttaaaabbbblllliiiisssshhhhmmmmeeeennnnttttssss a. Equipment, truck and trailer rental establishments are not permitted. 2.3.6. EEEExxxxttttrrrraaaa OOOOccccccccuuuuppppaaaannnnccccyyyy RRRReeeennnnttttaaaallll HHHHoooouuuusssseeeessss a. Occupancy is limited to 2 people per bedroom plus 1 additional person. 2.3.7. DDDDrrrriiiivvvveeee--TTTThhhhrrrruuuussss a. Drive-thrus may not be located between the primary building and front or side street lot lines. b. Banks providing a drive-thru must also provide a minimum of one pedestrian-oriented automatic teller accessible from a front or side street lot line. c. Vehicle stacking must be accommodated on site or in shared parking areas. 2.3.8. Retail aaaannnndddd SSSSuuuuppppppppllllyyyy YYYYaaaarrrrdddd E EEEssssttttaaaabbbblllliiiisssshhhhmmmmeeeennnnttttssss wwwwiiiitttthhhh OOOOuuuuttttddddoooooooorrrr SSSSttttoooorrrraaaaggggeeee a. Retail and supply yard establishments with outdoor storage uses are not permitted. 2.3.9. SSSSaaaalllleeeessss aaaannnndddd LLLLeeeeaaaassssiiiinnnngggg ooooffff MMMMoooobbbbiiiilllleeee Homes, Homes, FFFFaaaarrrrmmmm Implements,HHHHeeeeaaaavvvvyyyy EEEExxxxccccaaaavvvvaaaattttiiiioooonnnn EEEqqquuuiiipppmmmeeennnttt Equipment a. Commercial uses that include sales and leasing of mobile homes, farm implements, or heavy excavation equipment are not permitted 2.3.10. TTTTeeeemmmmppppoooorrrraaaarrrryyyy SSSSttttrrrruuuuccccttttuuuurrrreeeessss a. No structure of a temporary character, bus, motor home, camper, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, or other outbuilding may be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. 2.3.11. VVVVeeeehhhhiiiicccclllleeee aaaannnndddd BBBBooooaaaatttt SSSSaaaalllleeeessss aaaannnndddd Leasing LLLeeeaaasssiiinnnggg EEEEssssttttaaaabbbblllliiiisssshhhhmmmmeeeennnntttt wwwwiiiitttthhhh OOOOuuuuttttddddoooooooorrrr SSSSttttoooorrrraaaaggggeeee a. Vehicle and boat sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage are not permitted. 2.3.12. VVVVeeeehhhhiiiicccclllleeee MMMMaaaajjjjoooorrrr Repair,SSSSeeeerrrrvvvviiiicccciiiinnnngggg aaaannnndddd Maintenance MMMaaaiiinnnttteeennnaaannnccceee EEEEssssttttaaaabbbblllliiiisssshhhhmmmmeeeennnnttttssss a. Vehicle major repair, servicing and maintenance establishments are not permitted. 2.4. LAND UUUUSSSSEEEESSSS BBBBYYYY TTTTRRRRAAAANNNNSSSSEEEECCCCTTTT DDDDIIIISSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTTSSSS AAAANNNNDDDD SSSSPPPPEEEECCCCIIIIAAAALLLL DDDDIIIISSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTTSSSS The following tables list the permitted land uses for each transect district and special district within the PUD Master Plan, as well as the review type for each use. Land uses listed in the PUD Master Plan are those which are anticipated at this point in time and others which may be appropriate as the PUD Master Plan develops over time. In addition, but not listed specifically, we anticipate a new PFA fire station will be located within the PUD Master Plan. Since the final location has not been determined, we have added ‘Public Use’ as an Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 13 ooooffff 99993333 allowed use throughout the PUD Master Plan to support police or fire station uses in Montava. 2.4.1. Transect District T2 Rural/Farm a. There is one (1) Land Use Code zone district (I) underlying Transect District T2. The following uses and types of review are permitted in Transect District T2; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses permitted in the underlying zone district. Transect Trans ect District T2 Rural / Farm Uses Type of Review Single-family Detached Type II Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Type I Food membership distribution site BDR Food catering or small food product preparation BDR Neighborhood Support/rec facilities (general assembly) Type I Bed and breakfast up to 6 rooms Type II Lodging establishment (Inn up to 12 rooms) Type II Solar Energy Systems, small and medium Type I Public Use BDR Minor Public Facilities Type I Places of Worship or assembly Type II Community Facilities Type I Parks and Recreation Type I Open Lands BDR Plant Nurseries and Greenhouses Type I Composting Facilities Type I Farm Animals Type I Agricultural Activities Type I Value Added Agriculture Type I Animal Boarding Type I Open-air farmers market BDR Veterinary facilities, hospital Type I Urban Agriculture BDR Off-site construction staging BDR Outdoor Vendor BDR Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 14 ooooffff 99993333 Accessory Uses BDR Accessory buildings BDR b. The Rural / Farm uses proposed for Transect District T2 are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in LUC Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. In addition, T2 is a key component of land use diversification, providing for an innovative Montava community design with the interaction of residential and mixed-use areas with the land’s agricultural heritage. Integrating the transect’s agrarian character into Montava is an innovative design component supporting the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan’s goals. Apart from large scale farming, T2 is intended to connect the community to local, productive, and organic agriculture. ii. The Rural / Farm uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T2 continues the existing agricultural use of the property. The location of T2 represents the best agricultural soils on the property, which are currently in agricultural use and will continue in agricultural use. Adjacent to this low intensity transect district are large areas for storm water management and wildlife in a Natural Areas corridor. The Rural Farm uses will comply with all applicable LUC standards, except as modified in this PUD Master Plan iii. The Rural / Farm uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to T2. Transect District T2 establishes long-term agricultural use of a portion of Montava. This reflects the existing use of the property and other adjacent properties to the north which are outside of the Montava PUD Master Plan. It is also central to the goals of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The agrarian urbanism theme of Montava is knitted together by the Farm and distributed community gardening and agriculture, which relates these uses to other areas within Montava. iv. The Rural / Farm uses are appropriate for this transect district within the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T2 continues existing agricultural uses of the property and integrates agrarian urbanism themes into Montava as contemplated in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. 2.4.2. Transect District T3.1 Rural Neighborhood a. There are two (2) Land Use Code zone districts (E and I) underlying Transect District T3.1. The following uses and types of review are permitted in Transect District T3.1; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone districts. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 15 ooooffff 99993333 TransectNeighborhood Transect District T3.1 Rural Neighborhood Uses Type of Review Single-family detached Type I Accessory Dwelling Units Type I Short Term Rentals (Primary) BDR Solar Energy Systems, small and medium Type I Public and private schools-all levels Type II Public Use BDR Minor Public Facilities Type I Neighborhood Support / Recreation Facilities Type I Places of Worship or assembly Type II Community Facilities Type I Parks and Recreation Type I Open-air farmers market BDR Urban Agriculture BDR Off-site construction staging BDR Accessory uses BDR Accessory buildings BDR b. The Rural Neighborhood uses proposed for Transect District T3.1 are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. In addition, T3.1 is used sparingly in Montava, as a means of transitioning from higher intensity transect districts to natural area and adjacent, lower intensity residential areas like Maple Hill. T3.1 assists in diversifying development, being a relative larger lot, single-family housing district, while the remainder of the site represents more internal mixing of intensities and uses. Its allocation towards the southeast and northwest edges of Montava demonstrates how mixed-use and mixed-intensity neighborhoods can transition in scale and intensity towards natural areas and low intensity uses like agriculture. T3.1 provides a character of building type and setback that introduces more space for natural landscaping. In addition, lighting standards designed for this district reinforce the dark sky environment of the natural areas; it is a key piece in light and intensity transition from active urban areas to nature. Compared with other districts, houses in T3.1 are more easily supported by residential PV systems and can orient rooms for solar gain. While not a particularly efficient land use alone, T3.1 transitions intensity from very efficient uses elsewhere Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 16 ooooffff 99993333 into natural area that may be negatively impacted by too much human intensity. T3.1 provides significant opportunities for accessory dwelling units, which increases its land use efficiency. Due to the district’s scale and limited use, amenities within this district are primarily trails adjacent to natural areas; the adjacent T3.2 and T4 districts provide additional amenities along with greater development intensity. ii. The uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. Transect T3.1 is low impact in nature and dark sky friendly lighting (LZ1) transitions well to natural areas, provides for more vegetative area, and connects Montava with nature in a gradual way. The larger lots provide for more on-site storm water mitigation through larger areas of pervious surface. An exclusively residential district, T3.1 buffers natural areas from more intensive noise and light of Transect Districts T4 and T5. Storm water management itself is a key design component of Montava, where natural topographic features define the location and functioning of constructed storm water systems. Storm water is managed through vegetated channels and distributed open spaces where it is cleaned and conveyed to regional systems. Some component of the storm water system passes through each of the transect districts. In T3.1, the storm water system is designed in a naturalistic manner and connects directly to systems in the natural areas. iii. The uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to this transect district. Within the developed portions of Montava, the transect concept is used to ensure compatibility between uses across the site by incrementally transitioning intensity of use from lower intensity districts, T2 and T3.1, through the medium intensity district of T3.2, to the higher intensity districts of T4 and T5. The transect directs changes in use intensity, changes in building intensity, changes in intensity of impervious surfaces and landscaping, changes in hardness/softness of materials, and changes in lighting, all components of compatibility. Transect District T3.1 is used sparingly in Montava, as a means of transitioning from higher intensity districts to natural areas and adjacent, lower intensity residential areas like Maple Hill. Its use is similar to Transect District T3.2, which is typically the adjacent district, but at a slightly lower intensity. iv. The uses are appropriate for this district within the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T3.1 is a component of development intensity envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. It is appropriate for use in limited quantities, as applied through the Montava design. Rural Neighborhood uses transition intensity to aid in compatibility with neighboring properties and natural areas. 2.4.3. Transect District T3.2 Sub-Urban Neighborhood a. There are three (3) Land Use Code zone districts (LMN, E and I) underlying Transect District T3.2. The following uses and types of review are permitted in Transect District T3.2; such uses and types of review shall modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone districts. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 17 ooooffff 99993333 Transect District T3.2 Sub-Sub -Urban Neighborhood Uses Type of Review Single-family detached BDR Single-family attached BDR Two-family dwellings BDR Accessory Dwelling Units Type I Multi-family up to 14 units/bldg. Type I Short Term Rentals (Primary) BDR Bed and breakfast up to 6 rooms Type I Solar Energy Systems, small and medium Type I Public and private schools-all levels Type I Public Use BDR Minor Public Facilities Type I Neighborhood Support / Recreation Facilities Type I Places of worship or assembly (religious assembly) Type I Community Facilities Type I Parks and Recreation Type I Open-air farmers market BDR Urban Agriculture BDR Off-site construction staging BDR Accessory uses BDR Accessory buildings BDR b. The Sub-Urban uses proposed for Transect District T3.2 are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. In addition, Transect District T3.2 is a key component of the mixed-use, mixed-intensity neighborhood structure of Montava. While not mixed-use, T3.2 provides for a mix in intensity, transitioning from lower intensity T3.1 areas to mixed-use, mixed- intensity T4 and T5. Transect District T3.2 is an area of diverse residential uses including single family, duplex, small multi-family, and limited non-residential components. Its allocation towards the southeast and northwest edges of Montava demonstrates how mixed-use and mixed-intensity neighborhoods can transition in scale and intensity towards lower intensity residential development and natural Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 18 ooooffff 99993333 areas. Transect District T3.2 provides open space in the form of greens, pocket parks, playgrounds, and linear open spaces with trails. Open space is distributed through residential areas, providing for direct or near direct access to amenities for most district residents. Community gardens are a key component of the district, whether in formal open spaces or informally located in alley areas and pedestrian ways, as contemplated by the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Transect District T3.2 is a more efficient use of land than T3.1, also a key component in the transect concept innovation of development intensity transitioning. Like T3.1, housing in T3.2 can easily provide roof area for residential PV systems and orientation of rooms for solar gain. Also similar to T3.1, T3.2 provides significant opportunities for accessory dwelling units, increasing land use efficiency. ii. The uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T3.2 has moderate impact, and dark sky friendly lighting (LZ1) transitions well down to T3.1 areas and natural areas, and up to T4 and T5 areas. Its application buffers natural areas and systems from higher intensity development in Transect Districts T4 and T5. The medium sized lots provide for some on-site storm water mitigation through areas of pervious surface. Additional management is provided through multi-use civic greens and linear parks. Storm water management itself is a key design component of Montava, where natural topographic features define the location and functioning of constructed storm water systems. Storm water is managed through vegetated channels and distributed open spaces where it is cleaned and conveyed to regional systems. Some component of the storm water system passes through each of the transects and districts. In T3.2, the storm water system design accounts for adjacent development while transitioning to a more naturalistic design in T3.1 and natural areas. iii. The uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to this transect district. Within the developed portions of Montava, the transect concept is used to ensure compatibility between uses across the site by incrementally transitioning intensity of use from lower intensity districts, T2 and T3.1, through the medium intensity district, T3.2, to the higher intensity districts, T4 and T5. This transect directs changes in use intensity, changes in building intensity, changes in intensity of impervious surfaces and landscaping, changes in hardness/softness of materials, and changes in lighting, all components of compatibility. Transect District T3.2 is moderate in intensity, similar to that of adjacent developments in Maple Hill, Lind, and Waterglen. T3.2 provides for a mix of housing types and conditions, while signaling the end of higher-intensity development at Montava’s Town Center and core neighborhoods. Its uses are limited, but in greater quantity than T3.1, transitioning towards the lower intensity northwest and southeastern edges. iv. The uses are appropriate for this transect district within the PUD PUD Master Plan. Transect District T3.2 is a significant component of residential development intensity envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. It is appropriate for use in residential districts and is applied in relatively limited quantities through the Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 19 ooooffff 99993333 Montava design. The uses transition intensity to aid in compatibility with neighboring properties, natural areas, and T3.1. 2.4.4. Transect District T4 General Urban Neighborhood a. There are three (3) Land Use Code zone districts (LMN, E and I) underlying Transect District T4. The following uses and types of review are permitted in Transect District T4; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone districts. TransectNeighborhood Transect District T4 General Urban Neighborhood Uses Type of Review Single-family detached BDR Single-family attached BDR Two-family dwellings BDR Accessory Dwelling Unit Type I Mixed Use Dwellings BDR Extra occupancy rental house BDR Group Home Type I Multi-family (all) BDR Long term care facility (assisted living and independent living) Type I Commercial/Retails uses (under 2,000 sf) Type I Food membership distribution site Type I Food catering or small food product preparation Type I Short Term Rentals (Primary) BDR Bed and breakfast up to 6 rooms Type I Lodging establishment (Inn up to 12 rooms) Type I Solar Energy Systems, small and medium Type I Public and private schools-all levels Type II Public Use BDR Minor Public Facilities Type I Neighborhood Support/rec facilities (general assembly) Type I Places of worship or assembly (religious assembly) Type II Community Facilities Type I Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 20 ooooffff 99993333 Parks and Recreation Type I Open-air farmers market BDR Urban Agriculture BDR Off-site construction staging BDR Outdoor vendor BDR Accessory uses BDR Accessory buildings BDR b. The General Urban Neighborhood uses proposed for Transect District T4 are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. In addition, Transect District T4 is the most diverse of Montava’s districts, implementing mixed-use and mixed- intensity at the neighborhood scale. Transect T4 is the most widely applied transect in Montava’s plan. From a residential development standpoint, T4 ranges from small single-family dwellings through cottage clusters and townhomes, to multi-family and live-work units. From a non-residential development standpoint, T4 allows for a wide range of small-scale businesses to be integrated into the neighborhood fabric. The district allows for diverse and innovative development that can flex in intensity and character, allowing it to transition to medium intensity areas like T3.2 and Storybook, and to high intensity areas like T5. Transect District T4 district provides open space in the form of plazas, squares, greens, pocket parks, playgrounds, and linear open spaces with trails. Open space is distributed throughout the district and diversified in its format and recreational activities. At the smaller end, cottage cluster greens may be used for community gardens, social gathering space such as outdoor neighborhood kitchens, or play areas for children. At the larger end, plaza and squares provide space for higher intensity activities and unstructured sports. Transect District T4 is an area of very efficient land use, which retains a neighborhood character. These in-town neighborhood areas support activities in the Town Center and the Farm due to proximity, allowing residents convenient access to daily needs by walking and cycling. While providing PV systems is more challenging in T4, the smaller size of each unit reduces the amount or PV required, which is easily provided on rooftops and in parking areas. Numerous multi-dwelling or multi-tenant options increase the efficiency of T4, while the building form requirements maintain compatibility. In particular, T4 is where buildings cluster around active, shared open spaces, implementing many of the neighborhood fabric goals of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. ii. The uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T4 is more human-oriented than natural, a Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 21 ooooffff 99993333 transition between the more naturalistic neighborhood districts of T3.2 and the very intense T5. T4 implements the LZ2 dark sky zone, which follows the transect transition in intensity. The small lots provide for limited on-site storm water mitigation, which is fulfilled primarily in open spaces – linear parks, civic greens, and clustered greens – and through storm water corridors.Storm water management itself is a key design component of Montava, where natural topographic features define the location and functioning of constructed storm water systems. Storm water is managed through vegetated channels and distributed open spaces where it is cleaned and conveyed to regional systems. Some component of the storm water system passes through each of the transect districts. iii. The uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to this transect district.Within the developed portions of Montava, the transect concept is used to ensure compatibility between uses across the site by incrementally transitioning intensity of use from lower intensity districts, T2 and T3.1, through the medium intensity district, T3.2, to the higher intensity districts of T4 and T5. The transect directs changes in use intensity, changes in building intensity, changes in intensity of impervious surfaces and landscaping, changes in hardness/softness of materials, and changes in lighting, all components of compatibility.Transect District T4 is moderately high in intensity, transitioning from lower intensity areas like T3.2 and Storybook to T5. T4 provides for a mix of housing types and family configurations, and small, neighborhood- centric businesses. T4 is used broadly throughout Montava, buffered from lower intensity land uses by T3, and providing the neighborhood intensity needed to support Montava’s Town Center. T4 areas support retail and employment areas as well as providing the social and fiscal support needed for Montava’s open space amenities. Within Montava, T4 plays an important role in transitioning intensity to ensure compatibility. It is located adjacent to Storybook, which is equivalent to T3.2 within Montava, and it is located adjacent to Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road, arterial roadways which are best buffered from lower intensity residential uses by higher intensity uses that have hardier materials, buffering noise. iv. The uses are appropriate for this transect district within the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T4 is the primary component of residential and mixed-use neighborhood intensity envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. It is used broadly within Montava, appropriately buffered from existing residential uses. T4 is lower in intensity than the existing E and I zones. T4 is a component of LMN, which includes portions of T3 as well. The General Urban Neighborhood uses are key in supporting the more intensive non-residential areas of Montava. 2.4.5. Transect District T5 Urban Center / Mixed Use a. There are three (3) Land Use Code zone districts (LMN, E and I) underlying Transect District T5. The following uses and types of review are permitted in Transect District T5; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone districts. Transect District T5 Urban Center / Mixed Use Uses Type of Review Single-family detached BDR Single-family attached BDR Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 22 ooooffff 99993333 Two-family dwellings BDR Accessory Dwelling Units Type I Mixed Use Dwellings BDR Extra occupancy rental house BDR Group Home Type I Multi-family (all) BDR Long term care facility (assisted living and independent living) Type II Commercial/Retail uses (all) Type I Food membership distribution site Type I Food catering or small food product preparation Type I Public and private schools-all levels Type II Short Term Rentals (Primary) BDR Bed and breakfast up to 6 rooms Type I Lodging establishment (Inn up to 12 rooms, over 12 rooms, and hotel) Type II Workshop and custom small industry Type I Light Industrial Type II Solar Energy Systems, small and medium Type I Public and private schools-all levels Type II Public Use BDR Minor Public Facilities BDR Major Public Facilities Type I Neighborhood Support/rec facilities (general assembly) Type I Places of worship or assembly (religious assembly) Type II Community Facilities Type I Parks and Recreation Type I Plant Nurseries and Greenhouses Type II Open-air farmers market BDR Urban Agriculture BDR Off-site construction staging BDR Parking garages, lots and structures BDR Outdoor vendor BDR Accessory uses BDR Accessory buildings BDR Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 23 ooooffff 99993333 b. The Urban Center / Mixed Use uses proposed for Transect District T5 are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. Transect District T5 is the intensive core of Montava. T5 is fully mixed-use and high intensity. Transect T5 is concentrated around the intersects of Mountain Vista Drive with Timberline Road and Giddings Road, implementing the Community Commercial and Employment components of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. In addition to commercial and employment, T5 includes a significant multi- family housing component, stand-alone and mixed-use. Direct integration between high intensity residential uses and commercial and employment areas is necessary for the success of those areas. Additionally, Montava’s T5 includes public institutions and affordable housing, located along the Mountain Vista Drive enhanced transportation corridor. T5 provides the greatest use diversity in Montava, in a concentrated format to promote vibrancy. Transect District T5 provides open space in the form of plazas, squares, compact greens, pocket parks, and linear open spaces with trails. Open space is distributed throughout the district and diversified in its format and recreational activities. Within the core of the district, open space areas are programmed with public institutions, recreational amenities, and designed for active social gathering. The use intensity and design formality of T5’s open spaces follows the transect innovation connecting development intensity with social and recreational intensity. The Town Center –T5 – also supports the Community Park which is adjacent. A secondary area of T5 provides support to the Farm and adjacent neighborhoods in the northern end of Montava. Transect District T5 is an area of very efficient and intensive land use. By utilizing shared parking in T5, excessive parking areas and related drive aisles, curb cuts, and infrastructure is reduced, improving storm water management and heat island issues. Buildings in T5 are larger in scale than other districts, providing larger roof areas for PV, including flat roofs. Shared parking areas offer space for larger PV installations which will be privately managed. Overall, T5 is an important component of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and a key cultural asset to Montava and the City. ii. The uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. Transect District T5 is a human-centric area, comprised of more hardscape than softscape. T5 includes more intense lighting, LZ3, noise, and little on-site storm water management. Storm water is managed collectively, fulfilled through shared spaces off-site. The intensity of T5 allows it to take as little space as possible, which provides for the transition to T4, T3.2, T3.1 and T2 prior to natural areas, limiting its impact. Storm water management itself is a key design component of Montava, where natural topographic features define the location and functioning of constructed storm water systems. Storm water is managed through vegetated channels and distributed open spaces where it is cleaned and conveyed to regional systems. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 24 ooooffff 99993333 Some component of the storm water system passes through each of the transect districts. iii. The uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent of this transect district. Within the developed portions of Montava, the transect concept is used to ensure compatibility between uses across the site by incrementally transitioning intensity of use from lower intensity districts, T2 and T3.1, through the medium intensity district of T3.2, to the higher intensity districts of T4 and T5. The transect directs changes in use intensity, changes in building intensity, changes in intensity of impervious surfaces and landscaping, changes in hardness/softness of materials, and changes in lighting, all components of compatibility. Transect District T5 is the highest intensity district, fully mixed-use. It fulfills the goals of mixed-use commercial and employment areas envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. T5 is buffered from lower intensity residential uses by T4, ensuring compatibility. The location of T5 supports the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan’s Community Commercial and Employment core, providing a compatible use with future development south of Mountain Vista. Its location along Mountain Vista Drive is also supportive of the capacity of the roadway, its impact on adjacent uses, and the enhanced transportation corridor designation. iv. The uses are appropriate for this transect district within the PUD Mast Plan. Transect District T5 is the primary mixed-use commercial and employment component of Montava, supporting the form envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. T5 is closely related to the uses and intensities of the existing E zone. It is located along the most intensive arterial roadways in the area, and their intersections. 2.4.6. (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District a. There are two (2) Land Use Code zone districts (E and I) underlying the (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District. The following uses and types of review are permitted in (S); such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone districts. (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District Uses Type of Review Public Use BDR Minor Public Facilities Type I Parks and Recreation Type I Open Lands BDR Urban Agriculture Type I Off-site construction staging BDR Accessory buildings BDR Accessory uses BDR Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 25 ooooffff 99993333 b. The uses proposed for (S) – Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. In addition, the (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District is designed to combine significant areas of off- site stormwater management with natural areas to create a lasting amenity that protects wildlife corridors. While the (S) District is generally located along the Cooper Slough, Montava’s design incorporates key trail connections throughout the community which extend the impact of the natural area. Along the transect, this natural area district provides a respite from development. Within the (S) District, development is severely limited, focused on providing public amenities along with regional storm water management. This district provides an amenity to Montava as well as the City as a whole, expanding natural areas protection and connecting trail systems. ii. The uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. The (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District assists surrounding areas and portions of Montava with storm water compliance. Severely limited in development, the district provides a respite from noise and light for wildlife and large areas for vegetation. iii. The uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to this district. Within the developed portions of Montava, the transect [I do not know what to use here if this is a District because I do not know if “District concept” makes sense.]concept is used to ensure compatibility between uses across the site by incrementally transitioning intensity of use from lower intensity districts, T2 and T3.1, through the medium intensity district of T3.2, to the higher intensity districts, T4 and T5. The transect directs changes in use intensity, changes in building intensity, changes in intensity of impervious surfaces and landscaping, changes in hardness/softness of materials, and changes in lighting, all components of compatibility. The (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District provides the lowest intensity of land use in the form of natural lands. This district provides amenities to adjacent districts. iv. The uses are appropriate for the district within the PUD Master Plan. The (S) - Natural Areas and Stormwater Special District is necessary for managing off-site storm water in the Cooper Slough, and storm water produced through the development. Its location follows pre-existing water flows, which also serves to buffer new development from adjacent industrial uses. 2.4.7. (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District a. There is one (1) Land Use Code zone district (I) underlying the (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District. The following uses and types of review are permitted in the (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone district including the Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 26 ooooffff 99993333 provisions of LUC Sec. 4.27(D)(2) which categorize uses as primary or secondary and limit the area of secondary uses. (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District Uses Type of Review All uses in the I-Industrial zone district of the LUC Per LUC All uses in the E-Employment zone district of the LUC Per LUC Public Use Per LUC Accessory buildings Per LUC Accessory uses Per LUC b. The uses proposed for the (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District are not contrary to the public good and satisfy the criteria of Land Use Code Section 4.29(E)(2): i. The uses advance the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and policies. See Subsections 2.2.A and 2.2.B and Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. In addition, note that the new (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District continues and expands upon the uses envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District allows for a combination of the various employment and industrial uses defined in the LUC and, without the distinction between primary and secondary uses and without a maximum amount of secondary uses as set forth in LUC Sec. 4.27(D)(2), this array of uses provides the best opportunities for success in attracting employment and industrial users and the ability to respond to market conditions and demands. The combination of both employment and industrial uses diversifies the overall uses within Montava. ii. The uses comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment and must continue to comply with each preliminary development plan submitted pursuant to the PUD Master Plan. Development in the (I) - Industrial and Employment District will comply with applicable LUC provisions regarding the natural environment. iii. The uses are compatible with the other uses proposed for Montava and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to this district. The portion of Montava where the (I) - Industrial and Employment District is located is cut off from the remainder of the development by industrial uses, and a railway. The area itself is further isolated by the freeway and canal and adjacent storm water management areas. The Industrial District is an area in isolation, which is ideal for many industrial and employment uses. iv. The uses are appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay: The (I) - Industrial and Employment Special District allows for a wide variety of Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 2:UUUUsssseeee 27 ooooffff 99993333 industrial and employment uses and provides diversification to the overall PUD Overlay. 2.4.8. (P) - Community Park Special District a. There are two (2) Land Use Code zone districts (LMN and E) underlying the (P) - Community Park Special District. The following uses and types of review are permitted in the (P) - Community Park Special District; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone districts. (P) - Community Park Special District Uses Type of Review Community Park Per LUC Public Use Per LUC Accessory buildings Per LUC Accessory uses Per LUC 2.4.9. Poudre School (PSD) Special District a. There is one (1) Land Use Code zone district (E) underlying the Poudre School (PSD) Special District. The following uses and types of review are permitted in the Poudre School (PSD) Special District; such uses and types of review modify the types of review and uses in the underlying zone district. Poudre School (PSD) Special District Uses Type of Review Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education, and for vocational and technical training Per LUC Public Use Per LUC Accessory buildings Per LUC Accessory uses Per LUC Montava DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 3:Density Density 28 ooooffff 99993333 3. DENSITY 3.1. REQUEST FFFFOOOORRRR MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIIEEEEDDDD DDDDEEEENNNNSSSSIIIITTTTIIIIEEEESSSS 3.1.1. Section 4.29(G)(1) allows for the modification of densities set forth in the LUC as part of a PUD Master Plan provided such modified densities satisfy the criteria of LUC Sections 4.29(E)(2)(a) through (d). 3.1.2. The modified densities in Chapter 3 shall apply to all development in the Montava PUD Master Plan. Such densities modify all LUC standards related to density in Article 3 and Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 of the LUC. 3.1.3. Amendments to the approved densities of this Montava PUD Master Plan shall be in accordance with LUC Section 4.29(I)(2) and Sections 2.2.10(A) and (B). 3.2. DESCRIPTION OOOOFFFF MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIIEEEEDDDD DDDDEEEENNNNSSSSIIIITTTTIIIIEEEESSSS 3.2.1. The densities below are calculated for each anticipated development phase of Montava. The densities represent estimates of the minimum and maximum numbers of dwelling units per net developable area per phase, with net developable area estimated to be approximately sixty to seventy percent (60-70%) of the gross acreage of each phase. Net developable area will be calculated per current LUC definition for same at the time of development of the individual phase. Note that the portions of each development phase that are located in the Industrial and Employment District or in the T2 Rural / Farm Transect are excluded from the phase size and the density calculations for that phase, since the developed uses will be primarily nonresidential. Accessory dwelling units are not counted in the calculations of minimum and/or maximum densities. For informational purposes, this type of dwelling unit is estimated to add additional density at the rate specified in Table 3-1.1. 3.2.2. The boundaries of the phases identified in Table 3.1-1 are generally depicted on the Conceptual Development Phasing Plan shown below in Figure 2. The exact size, timing, order, and commencement and completion dates of all phases of development are dependent upon market conditions. The Applicant anticipates that development phase boundaries may be adjusted over the 25 to 30-year build out of Montava, generally pursuant to minor amendments of the Development Phasing Plan for the Montava PUD Master Plan. 3.3. DENSITY BBBBYYYY PPPPHHHHAAAASSSSEEEE 3.3.1. Each development phase in Montava is limited in density as specified in Table 3-1.1. a. Industrial portions of each phase are not included in the phase size or density calculations. Industrial areas do not include density limitations. b. T2 portions of each phase are not included in the phase size or density calculations. T2 is agricultural in nature and falls well below density thresholds. c. Phase size is an estimate following graphic phase boundaries and may vary in phase submittals. 3.3.2. Density is calculated as the total number of dwelling units divided by the net developable area of each phase, including lots and alleys, and excluding streets and open spaces. a. Net developable area is estimated as 60-70% of the gross area of each phase and may vary in phase submittals. Montava DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 3:Density Density 29 ooooffff 99993333 b. Accessory dwelling units are estimated to add additional net density at the rate specified in Table 3-1.1. c. Following existing zone districts in the Land Use Code, maximum density is not specified. Maximum density is limited by use, lot size, and parking requirements. d. Phases E, H and I do not define a minimum density as these areas include a significant non-residential component, supported by adjacent housing in other phases. Figure 2- Conceptual Development Phasing Plan Montava DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 3:Density Density 30 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 3.3333--1.DDDDEEEENNNNSSSSIIIITTTTYYYY BBBBYYYY PPPPHHHHAAAASSSSEEEE PHASE SIZE MINIMUM DENSITY ADD. ADU DENSITY T3.1 T3.2 T4 T5 A 41.87 ac 7 du/ac 6 du/ac ✓ ✓ ✓ B 41.87 ac 7 du/ac 7 du/ac ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C 16.42 ac 10 du/ac 3 du/ac ✓ ✓ D 51.6 ac 10 du/ac 3 du/ac ✓ ✓ ✓ E 35.67 ac n/a 2 du/ac ✓ ✓ F 20.64 ac 18 du/ac 2 du/ac ✓ ✓ G 38.34 ac 10 du/ac 3 du/ac ✓ ✓ H 16.17 ac n/a 0 du/ac ✓ I 28.89 ac n/a 0 du/ac ✓ J 38.88 ac 7 du/ac 5 du/ac ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ K 39.75 ac 10 du/ac 3 du/ac ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ L 50.69 ac 7 du/ac 5 du/ac ✓ ✓ ✓ M 23.66 ac 10 du/ac 3 du/ac ✓ ✓ Farm / N / O n/a n/a TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 3.3333--2222..DDDDEEEENNNNSSSSIIIITTTTIIIIEEEESSSS OF OOOFFF EEEEXXXXIIIISSSSTTTTIIIINNNNGGGG UUUUNNNNDDDDEEEERRRRLLLLYYYYIIIINNNNGGGG ZZZZOOOONNNNEEEE DDDDIIIISSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTTSSSS ZONE DISTRICT MINIMUM DENSITY MAXIMUM DENSITY L-M-N <20 acres = 4 du/ac >20 acres = 3 du/ac 12 du/ac Employment 7 du/ac n/a Industrial n/a n/a Montava DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 3:Density Density 31 ooooffff 99993333 3.4. JUSTIFICATION FOR DENSITY MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIICCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS 3.4.1. There are four LUC criteria for the modification of densities in LUC Sections 4.29(G)(a) through (d). As required by Section 4.29(G)(a), the modified densities in this Chapter 3 are consistent with the purposes and advance the objectives of the PUD Overlay as described in LUC Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); please see the explanation in Chapter 2.2 of the Design Narrative. The modified densities are also consistent with numerous principles and policies of the City adopted plans and policies as required by Section 4.29(G)(d). See the list of such principles and policies set forth in Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. 3.4.2. As required by Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), such modified densities significantly advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava as described in Chapter 2 of the Design Narrative. Montava’s neighborhoods range in density similar to the range described by the Land Use Code categories of Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N), and High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N). The layout of neighborhoods and Commercial Centers is also similar to that anticipated by the LUC’s mixed-use districts, with low density neighborhoods clustered around medium and high-density neighborhoods, centered on community commercial. Current zoning of the site includes districts L-M-N, which has a minimum density of 3 and 4 du/ac and a maximum density of 12 du/ac, zone district E which has a minimum density of 7 du/ac but not maximum density, and I, which does not have maximum nor minimum density standards. Montava’s arrangement of neighborhoods, which is directly supportive of the LUC’s mixed-use districts intent, follows boundaries that differ from the underlying zoning. Overall, the neighborhoods layout supports the minimum density goals of efficient use of land, while the site in general is not significantly encumbered by maximum density restrictions. 3.4.3. The density modifications are designed to align allowable densities with the neighborhood structure of Montava, which differs from the underlying zoning. Respecting existing adjacent development, those neighborhoods in Montava nearest existing development are assigned a density range that is similar to existing L-M-N zoning in those areas. In the remaining neighborhoods of Montava, densities are designed to implement low, medium, and high density mixed-use, clustered in the format anticipated by the LUC’s mixed-use districts intent. The densities reflect a wide range of housing types in each neighborhood, a standard which exists in the LUC’s L-M-N zone, but not in the other mixed-use districts. Implementing varied housing types and uses in each neighborhood leads to greater diversification in support of the intent of mixed-use. 3.4.4. In addition to base density, the additional density is provided by Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ADUs support many City goals, including more efficient use of land and affordable housing. However the density standards in the LUC do not currently account for ADUs, particularly in the L-M-N zone which has maximum density restrictions. Interestingly, it is in the low intensity mixed-use condition that ADUs have the most potential, where there is a higher prevalence of larger lots and potential for detached or semi-detached garages. The PUD Master Plan provides density increases commensurate with each area’s potential for including Accessory Dwelling Units. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 4:Development SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss Overview 32 ooooffff 99993333 4. DEVELOPMENT SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS OVERVIEW 4.1. REQUEST FFFFOOOORRRR MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIIEEEEDDDD DDDDEEEEVVVVEEEELLLLOOOOPPPPMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 4.1.1. The ability to utilize a set of customized development standards to achieve flexibility in the design of a large, complex master plan is a key component of a PUD Overlay and the Montava PUD Master Plan. The modified development standards in the subsequent Chapters are crafted to enable the realization of the Montava development concept and vision which, in turn, will provide benefits to the community that would not otherwise be achievable. 4.1.2. Pursuant to LUC Section 4.29(G)(1), the LUC requirements in Article 3 and in Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), Division 4.27 - Employment District (E) and Division 4.28 - Industrial District (I) of Article 4 of the LUC which are related to the subject matter of Chapters 5 through 13 are modified by the approval of the development standards in Chapters 5 through 13. 4.1.3. Amendments to the approved development standards of this Montava PUD Master Plan shall be in accordance with LUC Section 4.29(I)(2) and Sections 2.2.10(A) and (B). 4.2. DESCRIPTION OOOOFFFF MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIIEEEEDDDD DDDDEEEEVVVVEEEELLLLOOOOPPPPMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 4.2.1. The modified development standards in Chapters 5 through 13 include standards related to the following: Lots and Buildings (lot size and coverage, setbacks, height, building orientation and frontage, shopfronts, fences and walls, and lighting); Parking (vehicular and bicycle location, access and landscaping); Landscaping (materials and plant lists); Signage (type, number and area); Architectural Character; Civic Space (location, size and programming) and related Definitions. 4.2.2. Montava’s design relies upon coordination between development standards and the PUD Master Plan to achieve community goals. Generally, the development standards and design of Montava are aligned with the vision and goals of the LUC; both intend to produce walkable, mixed-use places with buildings and open spaces that work together harmoniously and in support of a shared public and social fabric. The LUC, however, addresses new development and changes to existing development in ways that are not necessarily expressive of LUC goals, with an incremental application of standards that encourages existing development to align more closely with contemporary goals. It is a hybrid code, including progressive form-based code elements with conventional elements addressing legacy development patterns. Montava’s development standards effectively direct form- centric development by their ability to be targeted, as opposed to being applicable to a wide variety of potential applications. Montava’s plan and development standards together craft design of the project which, in turn, creates a large, diverse, walkable, mixed-use community and an interconnected series of neighborhoods, centers, and open spaces. 4.3. COMPLIANCE WWWWIIIITTTTHHHH CCCCRRRRIIIITTTTEEEERRRRIIIIAAAA OOOOFFFF LLLLUUUUCCCC 4.29(G)(3) 3 ) 4.3.1. There are four LUC criteria for modification of development standards in LUC Sections 4.29(G)(a) through (d). As required by Section 4.29(G)(a), the modified development standards in Chapters 5 through 13 are consistent with the purposes and advance the objectives of the PUD Overlay as described in LUC Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); see the explanation in Chapter 2.2 of the Design Narrative. The modified development standards are also consistent with numerous principles and policies of the City adopted plans and policies as required by Section 4.29(G)(d). See the list of such principles and policies in Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 4:Development SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss Overview 33 ooooffff 99993333 Chapter 10 of the Design Narrative. Following each Chapter is an in-depth explanation of how such modified development standards advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava, as required by Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), which development objectives are more generally described in Chapter 2 of the Design Narrative. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 34 ooooffff 99993333 5. LOTS AAAANNNNDDDD BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS 5.1. OVERVIEW 5.1.1. The development standards of this Chapter 5 for Lots and Buildings shall apply to all development in the Montava PUD Master Plan. Such development standards modify all LUC standards in Article 3 and Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 thereof which regulate lot size, lot occupation and coverage, building setbacks and height, building orientation, housing type and model variety, building and lot frontages, yards, shopfront design, fencing and walls, accessory dwelling units, solar orientation and exterior lighting, with the exception of Division 3.8, Supplemental Regulations, which are the subject of Chapter 12. 5.2. SUMMARY OOOOFFFF SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 5.2.1. Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-4 summarize a subset of standards applicable to transect districts, specified within this and other Chapters, for quick reference. a. Should there be a conflict between the standards summarized in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2- 4 and the standards specified elsewhere in text and tables, the standards specified elsewhere in text and tables prevails. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 35 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..2222--1.T5 TTT555 SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS SSSSUUUUMMMMMMMMAAAARRRRYYYY SETBACKS IIIILLLLLLLLUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRAAAATTTTEEEEDDDD LOTS FRONTAGE A Lot Width 20 ft. - 500 ft. Permitted Yard Types Urban, Pedestrian Forecourt, Shallow, Door B Lot Depth 30 ft. min. Glazing - Ground Floor 60% - 90% Lot Area 200,000 sf. max. Glazing - Upper Floors 30% - 60% Occupation / Coverage 90% max. / 100% max. Projections Arcade, Gallery, Canopy, Marquee, Awning SETBACKS: AAAALLLLLLLL SSSSTTTTRRRRUUUUCCCCTTTTUUUURRRREEEESSSS BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGG HEIGHT HHHEEEIIIGGGHHHTTT C Front 2 ft. - 12 ft. Principal Building 4 stories max. D Side Street 2 ft. - 12 ft. Outbuildings & Structures 4 stories max. E Side 0 ft. or 5 ft. min. STORY HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT F Rear & Rear Alley 0 ft. min. & 15 ft. min. From Alley Centerline Ground Floor Residential 10 ft. - 18 ft. Ground Floor Non- residential 16 ft. - 25 ft. Upper Stories 10 ft. - 14 ft. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 36 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..2222--2.T4 TTT444 SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS SSSSUUUUMMMMMMMMAAAARRRRYYYY SETBACKS IIIILLLLLLLLUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRAAAATTTTEEEEDDDD LOTS FRONTAGE A Lot Width 20 ft. - 250 ft. Permitted Yard Types Fenced, Shallow, Forecourt, Door, Cottage Court B Lot Depth 50 ft. min. Glazing - Ground Floor 30% - 50% Lot Area 60,000 sf. max. Glazing - Upper Floors 30% - 50% Occupation / Coverage 80% max. / 90% max. Projections Enclosed Porch, Open Porch, Stoop, Terrace SETBACKS: PPPPRRRRIIIINNNNCCCCIIIIPPPPAAAALLLL BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGG HEIGHT HHHEEEIIIGGGHHHTTT C Front 8 ft. - 16 ft. Principal Building 3 stories max. D Side Street 6 ft. min. Outbuildings & Structures 2 stories max. E Side 0 ft. or 5 ft. min. STORY HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT F Rear & Rear Alley 0 ft. min. & 15 ft. min. From Alley Centerline Ground Floor 10 ft. - 14 ft. SETBACKS: OOOOUUUUTTTTBBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS Upper Stories 8 ft. - 12 ft. Front 2 ft. min. Side Street 2 ft. min. Side 0 ft. or 5 ft. min. Rear & Rear Alley 0 ft. min. & 15 ft. min. From Alley Centerline Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 37 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..2222--3.T3.2 T3.2 SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS SSSSUUUUMMMMMMMMAAAARRRRYYYY SETBACKS IIIILLLLLLLLUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRAAAATTTTEEEEDDDD LOTS FRONTAGE A Lot Width 30 ft. min. Permitted Yard Types Continuous Yard B Lot Depth 70 ft. min. Glazing - Ground Floor n/a Lot Area No max. Glazing - Upper Floors n/a Occupation / Coverage 70% max. / 75% max. Projections Enclosed Porch, Open Porch, Stoop SETBACKS: PPPPRRRRIIIINNNNCCCCIIIIPPPPAAAALLLL BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGG HEIGHT HHHEEEIIIGGGHHHTTT C Front 12 ft. min. Principal Building 2 stories max. D Side Street 6 ft. min. Outbuildings & Structures 2 stories max. E Side 6 ft. min. STORY HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT F Rear 12 ft. min. Ground Floor 9 ft. - 12 ft. G Rear Alley 15 ft. min. From Alley Centerline Upper Stories 8 ft. - 10 ft. SETBACKS: OOOOUUUUTTTTBBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS H Front 2 ft. min. I Side Street 4 ft. min. J Side 6 ft. min. K Rear 6 ft. min. L Rear Alley 15 ft. min. From Alley Centerline Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 38 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5.2222--4.T3.1 T3.1 SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS SSSSUUUUMMMMMMMMAAAARRRRYYYY SETBACKS IIIILLLLLLLLUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRAAAATTTTEEEEDDDD LOTS FRONTAGE A Lot Width 50 ft. min. Permitted Yard Types Continuous Yard B Lot Depth 80 ft. min. Glazing - Ground Floor n/a Lot Area No max. Glazing - Upper Floors n/a Occupation / Coverage 60% max. / 65% max. Projections Enclosed Porch, Open Porch, Stoop SETBACKS: PPPPRRRRIIIINNNNCCCCIIIIPPPPAAAALLLL BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGG HEIGHT HHHEEEIIIGGGHHHTTT C Front 16 ft. min. Principal Building 2 stories max. D Side Street 10 ft. min. Outbuildings & Structures 2 stories max. E Side 10 ft. min. STORY HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT F Rear 12 ft. min. Ground Floor 9 ft. - 12 ft. G Rear Alley 20 ft. min. Upper Stories 8 ft. - 10 ft. SETBACKS: OOOOUUUUTTTTBBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGGSSSS &SSSSTTTTRRRRUUUUCCCCTTTTUUUURRRREEEESSSS H Front 30 ft. min. I Side Street 6 ft. min. J Side 6 ft. min. K Rear 6 ft. min. L Rear Alley 15 ft. min. From Alley Centerline Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 39 ooooffff 99993333 5.3. LOT SSSSIIIIZZZZEEEE 5.3.1. Lot size must meet the minimum standards specified in Table 5.2-1. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..3333--1.MINIMUM MMMIIINNNIIIMMMUUUMMM LLLLOOOOTTTT SSSSIIIIZZZZEEEE DISTRICT WIDTH DEPTH AREA T5 20 ft. min. 500 ft. max. 30 ft. min. 200,000 sf. max. T4 20 ft. min. 250 ft. max. 50 ft. min. 60,000 sf. max. T3.2 30 ft. min. 70 ft. min. No max. T3.1 50 ft. min. 80 ft. min. No max. 5.4. LOT OOOOCCCCCCCCUUUUPPPPAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD CCCCOOOOVVVVEEEERRRRAAAAGGGGEEEE 5.4.1. Buildings and covered structures are limited in the total area they may occupy as a percentage of the gross lot area as specified in Table 5.3-1 as occupation. 5.4.2. Impervious surfaces are limited in the total area they may occupy as a percentage of the gross lot area as specified in Table 4.3-1 as coverage. a. Lot coverage categories for the purpose of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual are allocated as follows: i. T5 is equivalent to Commercial or Residential High Density; ii. T4 is equivalent to Residential High Density; iii. T3.2 is equivalent to Residential Medium Density; and iv. T3.1 is equivalent to Residential Low Density. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..4444--1.LOT LLLOOOTTT OOOOCCCCCCCCUUUUPPPPAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD CCCCOOOOVVVVEEEERRRRAAAAGGGGEEEE DISTRICT OCCUPATION COVERAGE T5 90% max. 100% max. T4 80% max. 90% max. T3.2 70% max. 75% max. T3.1 60% max. 65% max. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 40 ooooffff 99993333 5.5. SETBACKS 5.5.1. Required Setbacks a. All structures must be set back from the lot boundaries as specified in Table 5.4-1, as illustrated in Tables 5.1-1 to 5.1-4 and Table 5.4-2, and as follows: i. Front specifies the setback from the front lot line. (1) Elements that project forward from frontage facades are permitted to project into front setbacks as specified in Section 5.7.6. (2) The front lot line is the lot line associated with the address. (3) In T5 and T4, townhouses may exceed the maximum setback when designed with a door yard frontage yard. ii. Side Street specifies the setback from from any lot line abutting a street other than the front lot line. (1) In T5 and T4, where there are multiple structures on one lot, the side street maximum setback applies to only the nearest structure. (2) Elements that project forward from frontage facades are permitted to project into side street setbacks as specified in Section 5.8.6. iii. Side specifies the setback from side lot lines other than those qualifying for a side street setback. iv. Rear specifies the setback from the rear lot line, except where abutting an alley. v. Rear Alley specifies the setback from the rear lot line in instances that it abuts an alley. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..5555--1. RRRREEEEQQQQUUUUIIIIRRRREEEEDDDD SSSSEEEETTTTBBBBAAAACCCCKKKKSSSS DISTRICT BUILDING FRONT SIDE STREET SIDE REAR REAR ALLEY T5 All Structures 2 ft. min. 12 ft. max. 2 ft. min. 12 ft. max. 0 ft. or 5 ft. min. 0 ft. min. 0 ft. min. T4 Principal Buildings 8 ft. min. 16 ft. max. 2 ft. min. 0 ft. or 5 ft. min. 0 ft. min. 0 ft. min. T4 Outbuildings 2 ft. min. 2 ft. min. 0 ft. or 5 ft. min. 0 ft. min. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 41 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..5555--2.TYPICAL TTTYYYPPPIIICCCAAALLL SSSSEEEETTTTBBBBAAAACCCCKKKK LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS SETBACK TYPICAL LOCATION A Front B Side Street C Side D Rear Alley E Rear 5.5.2. Setbacks from Arterial Roadways a. Single family residential buildings must be setback a minimum of 30ft from arterial roadways, except where exterior walls meet STC 50 or above. b. Multi-family residential buildings must be setback a minimum of 15ft from arterial roadways., except where exterior walls meet STC 50 or above. c. Residential components of mixed-use buildings must be setback a minimum of 15ft from arterial roadways, except where exterior walls meet STC 50 or above. i. This setback may be achieved in whole or part with a building step-back. 5.5.3. Garages a. In alley loaded configurations, where garages are part of the primary dwelling unit structure, the following conditions apply: i. Rear alley setback for outbuildings apply to the garage portion of the structure. ii. Rear alley setback for dwellings apply to all other portions of the structure, including rooms above garages. b. Accessory dwelling units above garages that are separate from the principle dwelling structure are subject to the outbuilding setback requirements. 5.5.4. Setback Considerations for Fire Access a. Where fire access is provided from the alley and eave height exceeds 30ft, additional rear alley setback may be required. b. Where fire access is provided from streets and eave height exceeds 30ft, buildings may be required to be located closer to lot lines than the minimum setback. 5.5.5. Setback Considerations for Utilities a. Utility easements along front, side, and side street lot lines may require additional front, side, and side street setback and cause buildings to exceed maximum setbacks. b. Utility services provided from the alley may require additional rear alley setbacks. c. Utility services may require easements at front, side, side street, or rear lot lines for meters, pedestals, and other equipment requirements. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 42 ooooffff 99993333 5.6. HEIGHT 5.6.1. The height of all structures is limited as specified in Table 5.5-1. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..6666--1.MAXIMUM MMMAAAXXXIIIMMMUUUMMM HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT DISTRICT BUILDING MAXIMUM HEIGHT ILLUSTRATION T5 All Structures 4 stories T4 Dwellings 3 stories T4 Outbuildings & Structures 2 stories T3.2 All Structures 2 stories T3.1 All Structures 2 stories Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 43 ooooffff 99993333 5.6.2. Story Measurement a. Building height is measured in stories above sidewalk grade. b. Below ground stories do not count toward building height provided they do not extend more than 4 feet above sidewalk grade. (C, per Table 5.5-1) c. Uninhabited roofs, chimneys, cupolas, antennae, vents, elevator bulkheads, stair housings, and other uninhabited accessory elements do not count toward building height. (D, per Table 5.5-1) d. Mezzanines exceeding 40% of the floor area of a tenant space or residential unit, count toward building height as additional stories. 5.6.3. Story Height a. Above ground stories are limited in height as specified in Table 5.5-2. and as follows: i. Story height is measured from finished floor to finished ceiling. ii. Story height is measured at all points within the structure. iii. Where an above ground story exceeds the maximum story height it is counted as one or more stories by dividing the story height by the maximum story height, and rounding up. iv. Ceiling height in bathrooms, kitchens, closets, and other ancillary rooms may be lower than minimum story height. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..6666--2.STORY SSSTTTOOORRRYYY HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT DISTRICT LEVEL TABLE 4.5-1 MINIMUM HEIGHT MAXIMUM HEIGHT T5 Ground Floor Non-Residential A 16 ft. 25 ft. T5 Ground Floor Residential A 10 ft. 16 ft. T5 Upper Stories B 10 ft. 14 ft. T4 Ground Floor A 10 ft. 14 ft. T4 Upper Stories B 8 ft. 12 ft. T3.2, T3.1 Ground Floor A 9 ft. 12 ft. T3.2, T3.1 Upper Stories B 8 ft. 10 ft. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 44 ooooffff 99993333 5.7. BUILDING OOOORRRRIIIIEEEENNNNTTTTAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN 5.7.1. Lots with a single building, excluding accessory dwelling units and structures less than 600 sf in footprint, are subject to the following, as generally illustrated in Table 5.6-1(a): a. The principle building must be oriented parallel to the front property line or tangent to a curved front property line. b. The building must have a primary entry accessible from the sidewalk. 5.7.2. Lots with multiple buildings, excluding accessory dwelling units and structures less than 600 sf in footprint, are subject to the following, as generally illustrated in Table 5.6-1(b): a. The building closest to the front property line must be oriented parallel to the front property line or tangent to a curved front property line. b. The building is considered the primary building and must have a primary entry accessible from the sidewalk. c. Accessory dwelling units and structures less than 600 sf must be behind or beside the building relative to to the front property line. 5.7.3. Lots arranged as a cluster are subject to the following, as generally illustrated in Table 5.6- 1(c): a. Each dwelling unit must be oriented towards shared open space or along pedestrian paths. b. Each dwelling unit must have a primary entry accessible from shared open space or along a pedestrian path. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..7777--1. BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGG OOOORRRRIIIIEEEENNNNTTTTAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN (a) Single building (b) Multiple buildings (c) Clusters Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 45 ooooffff 99993333 5.8. FRONTAGE 5.8.1. General a. Frontage requirements regulate the following: i. The yard space between front and side street lot lines and building facades nearest those lot lines, Frontage Yards; ii. Building facades nearest the front and side street lot lines, Frontage Facades; and iii. Elements projecting from building facades into frontages, Frontage Projections. b. The regulating plan may specify required frontage yard types, frontage projections types, and storefronts. 5.8.2. Frontage Assignment a. Primary and secondary frontages may be assigned on the regulating plan. b. Where primary and secondary frontages are not assigned on the regulating plan, they are assigned as follows: i. Primary frontages correspond with the lot line bearing the address. ii. Secondary frontages correspond with all side street lot lines. 5.8.3. Frontage Buildout a. Frontage buildout requirements apply to T4 and T5 districts only. b. Frontage buildout requires that a minimum length of frontages, primary or secondary, are lined with building facades situated between the minimum and maximum setbacks, as generally illustrated in Table 5.7-1. i. At corner lots, frontage buildout measurements exclude the building setback (a and b in Table 5.7-1) in the measurement of total frontage length. c. In T4, frontage buildout at primary frontages must be a minimum of 60%. d. In T5, frontage buildout at primary frontages must be a minimum of 80%. e. In T5, frontage buildout at secondary frontages must be a minimum of 50%. f. Properties facing onto Mountain Vista and Giddings are exempt from frontage buildout requirements. 5.8.4. Frontage Yards a. A frontage yard type must be selected from Table 5.7-2 and as follows: i. Urban and Shallow Yards must be 14 feet or less in depth. ii. Door Yards and Fenced Yards must be 12 feet or greater in depth. iii. Continuous Yards must be 16 feet or greater in depth. b. Frontage yards are subject to the requirements specified in Table 5.7-3 and as follows: i. Pedestrian Forecourts are limited to 2,500 square feet in area. ii. Cottage Court frontage yards must maintain a minimum of 30 feet in width between all structures and projections along the depth of the court. c. Cottage Court frontage yards have a minimum area of 1,800 square feet within the court, excluding the space between buildings and the public sidewalk. 5.8.5. Frontage Facades a. The primary building entry must be located along a frontage facade. b. Access to the primary building must be provided from the front property line. c. Glazing along frontage facades must meet the requirements specified in Table 5.7-4 and as follows: Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 46 ooooffff 99993333 i. Glazing is calculated on a per-story basis along the frontage facade. ii. Glazing is calculated as the percentage of the total area of glazing within a story divided by the total facade area of that story. iii. Window muntins and other glazing divisions less than 4 inches in width are considered glazed areas. 5.8.6. Frontage Projections a. Building features that project forward from frontage facades into front or side street setbacks are frontage projections. b. Frontage projections are limited as specified in Table 5.7-5 and as follows: i. Trim, cornices, eaves, plaques, mailboxes, bay and bow windows, storefront windows, and elements that are anchored to walls may project up to 4 feet. ii. Signs may project into frontages. iii. Additional requirements and projection allowances by type of frontage projection are specified in Table 5.7-6. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 47 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--1.FRONTAGE FFFRRROOONNNTTTAAAGGGEEE BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDOOOOUUUUTTTT DISTRICT PERMITTED FRONTAGE YARD TYPES T5 T4 (a) Side street setback is excluded from the primary frontage length when determining frontage buildout. (b) Front setback is excluded from the secondary frontage length when determining frontage buildout. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--2. PPPPEEEERRRRMMMMIIIITTTTTTTTEEEEDDDD FFFFRRRROOOONNNNTTTTAAAAGGGGEEEE YYYYAAAARRRRDDDD TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEESSSS DISTRICT PERMITTED FRONTAGE YARD TYPES T5 Urban, Pedestrian Forecourt, Shallow Yard, Door Yard T4 Shallow Yard, Cottage Court, Fenced Yard, Door Yard T3.2 Cottage Court, Fenced Yard, Continuous Yard T3.1 Cottage Court, Continuous Yard Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 48 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--3.FFFFRRRROOOONNNNTTTTAAAAGGGGEEEE YARD YYYAAARRRDDD TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEE RRRREEEEQQQQUUUUIIIIRRRREEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS YARD ILLUSTRATION REQUIREMENTS Urban Planting Permitted within raised containers, hanging planters and vertical garden features, block face must contain minimum 10% plantings in addition to public street trees Surface Must be paved and at sidewalk grade, should match sidewalk material Fencing Metal fencing permitted at outdoor seating areas only Pedestrian Forecourt Planting Optional, no minimum requirement. Surface Must be a minimum of 30% paved and at sidewalk grade Fencing Masonry walls permitted along the frontage facade line. Area 2,500 square feet, max. Activation Must be lined by habitable spaces Shallow Yard Planting All: Ornamental, Fastigiate, or Columnar trees at 20’-40’ spacing with a minimum lawn area of 55 sf. per tree, as permitted by adjacency to street trees. T4: 4 shrubs per 400 sf. min.; 50% min. planted surface. Surface Landscaped in T4, may be paved in T5 Walkways 1 per building entry Fencing Permitted Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 49 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--3.FFFFRRRROOOONNNNTTTTAAAAGGGGEEEE YARD YYYAAARRRDDD TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEE RRRREEEEQQQQUUUUIIIIRRRREEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS YARD ILLUSTRATION REQUIREMENTS Door Yard Planting & Surface All: Canopy shade trees at 30’-40’ spacing or Ornamental, Fastigiate, or Columnar trees at 20’- 40’ spacing, as permitted by adjacency to street trees. T4: 60% min. planted surface, 40% max. paved. T5: 30% min. planted surface, 70% max. paved. Walkways 1 per building entry Fencing Required Cottage Court Planting Canopy shade trees at 30’-40’ spacing, Coniferous evergreens or Ornamental trees at 20’-40’ spaces, as permitted by adjacent street trees. A minimum of 50% trees should be canopy shade trees. 60% min. planted surface. Surface Landscaped, programmed spaces optional. Walkways Required, connecting each building entry to sidewalks. Fencing Frontage fencing permitted at streets and to define yards for each unit. Fenced Yard Planting Canopy shade trees at 30’-40’ spacing, Coniferous evergreens or Ornamental, Fastigiate, or Columnar trees at 20’-40’ spaces, as permitted by adjacent street trees. A minimum of 50% trees should be canopy shade trees. 60% min. planted surface. Surface Landscaped, paving limited to walkways, driveways, and terraces Walkways 1 per building entry Fencing Required along front and side street property lines Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 50 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--3.FFFFRRRROOOONNNNTTTTAAAAGGGGEEEE YARD YYYAAARRRDDD TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEE RRRREEEEQQQQUUUUIIIIRRRREEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS YARD ILLUSTRATION REQUIREMENTS Continuous Yard Planting Canopy shade trees at 30’-40’ spacing, Coniferous evergreens or Ornamental trees at 20’-40’ spaces, as permitted by adjacent street trees. A minimum of 50% trees should be canopy shade trees. 70% min. planted surface. Surface Landscaped, paving limited to walkways, driveways, and terraces Walkways 1 per building entry Fencing Permitted at frontage facade lines, not permitted along front or side street property lines. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 51 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--4.FRONTAGE FFFRRROOONNNTTTAAAGGGEEE FFFFAAAACCCCAAAADDDDEEEE GGGGLLLLAAAAZZZZIIIINNNNGGGG DISTRICT LEVEL MINIMUM GLAZING MAXIMUM GLAZING T5 Ground Floor 60% 90% Upper Stories 30% 60% T4 Ground Floor 30% 50% Upper Stories 30% 50% TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--5. PPPPEEEERRRRMMMMIIIITTTTTTTTEEEEDDDD FFFFRRRROOOONNNNTTTTAAAAGGGGEEEE PPPPRRRROOOOJJJJEEEECCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS DISTRICT ELEMENT MAXIMUM DEPTH T5 Arcades 100% of setback Galleries 100% of setback Canopies & Marquees 100% of setback Awnings 100% of setback T4 Enclosed Porch Up to 8 feet excluding steps Open Porch Up to 8 feet excluding steps Stoop Up to 5 feet excluding steps Terrace 100% of setback T3.2 Enclosed Porch Up to 8 feet excluding steps Open Porch Up to 8 feet excluding steps Stoop Up to 5 feet excluding steps T3.1 Enclosed Porch Up to 8 feet excluding steps Open Porch Up to 8 feet excluding steps Stoop Up to 5 feet excluding steps Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 52 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..8888--6.FRONTAGE FFFRRROOONNNTTTAAAGGGEEE PPPPRRRROOOOJJJJEEEECCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS RRRREEEEQQQQUUUUIIIIRRRREEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS PROJECTION REQUIREMENTS Arcades Depth 10 ft. min., to within 2 feet of curbs Width 80% of facade width, min. Material Masonry or metal Galleries Depth 8 ft. min., to within 2 feet of curbs Width 20 ft. min. Material Metal or wood Canopies & Marquees Depth 6 ft. min., to within 2 feet of curbs Width Shopfront bay width (min), 20 ft. min. Material Metal; wood ceiling permitted Awnings Depth 6 ft. min., to within 2 feet of curbs Width Per Section 4.7 Material Fabric or canvas over metal structure Enclosed Porches Depth 4 ft. min. Width 12 ft. min. Vertical Material Wood & glazing Railing Material Wood infill panels Floor Material Wood or Masonry Open Porches Depth 6 ft. min. Width 12 ft. min. Vertical Material Wood Railing Material Wood Floor Material Wood or Masonry Stoops Depth 4 ft. min. Width 4 ft. min. Vertical Material Wood or Masonry Railing Material Metal or Masonry Floor Material Masonry Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 53 ooooffff 99993333 5.9. SHOPFRONTS 5.9.1. All ground floor commercial uses must have shopfronts. 5.9.2. Shopfronts must occupy a minimum percentage of ground floor tenant facades as follows: a. Tenant spaces 50 feet or less in width require shopfronts across 100% of the tenant facade; b. Tenant spaces between 50 and 100 feet in width require shopfronts across a minimum of 70% of the tenant facade, not less than 50 feet total; c. Tenant spaces over 100 feet in width require shopfronts across a minimum of 50% of the tenant facade. 5.9.3. Shopfronts should be designed with the following elements: a. A bulkhead, between the sidewalk and 18 to 30 inches above the sidewalk; b. Shopfront display windows, between bulkheads and transoms, meeting the following standards: i. Glazing must be clear; ii. Reflective, tinted, and low-e glazing are not permitted; iii. Display windows may project forward of the facade up to 3 feet. c. Transom windows, between shopfront display windows and the signage band, meeting the following standards: i. Glazing should match shopfront window glazing; ii. Transom windows should be a minimum of 18 inches in height; iii. Transom windows should have dividing muntins; iv. Transom windows should be free of signage. d. A signage band to accommodate band signs above transom windows, between 18 and 30 inches in height. e. A transition band, terminating the shopfront by delineating the space between ground floor commercial uses and upper story uses. i. Gooseneck lighting is recommended, located within the transition band to illuminate band signs. f. Roll-up windows may take the place of shopfront display windows and bulkheads. 5.9.4. Shopfronts entries should meet the following standards: a. Entry doors should be recessed from the sidewalk where required to accommodate outward door swings. b. Walls providing entry door recesses should be glazed to match shopfront display windows. c. Entry doors should be a minimum of 8 feet in height. d. The business address should be advertised with a window sign on the transom above the entry door. 5.9.5. Shopfront awnings should meet the following standards: a. Awnings should be installed between shopfront windows and transom windows. b. Awnings may be fixed or retractable. c. Awnings should span the entire width of the shopfront or be installed with minimal breaks for pilasters between windows. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 54 ooooffff 99993333 5.10. FENCING AAAANNNNDDDD WWWWAAAALLLLLLLLSSSS 5.10.1. Fencing and walls within frontage yards is limited as specified in Table 5.7-3. 5.10.2. T2 and related support operations are exempt from this section. 5.10.3. The following fencing is prohibited: a. Electric, barbed wire, razor wire, hog wire, rolled wire, or other types of hazardous fencing; b. Chain link fencings; c. Any wire smaller in size than 12 gauge. 5.10.4. Fence and wall height is limited as specified in Table 5.9-1 and as follows (see Table 5.9-3 for terminology): a. Frontage fencing and wall must be located as follows: i. Fencing and walls must be a minimum of 4 inches from public sidewalks in all instances. ii. Fencing and walls must be within 3 feet of frontage lines. iii. Fencing and walls over 3 feet in height must be set back from the street-side edge of sidewalks at least 2 feet plus the minimum sidewalk width specified in LCUASS for the street type designation. iv. Where the desired appearance is fencing and walls with zero setback from sidewalks, a sidewalk extension may be provided on the private lot, in which case a control joint is required to separate the public and private sidewalks. b. Fencing and walls along side and rear property lines is considered frontage fencing and walls. 5.10.5. Fence and wall materials are limited as specified in Table 5.9-2. a. Metal and iron fencing must be black. b. Masonry walls may be combined with decorative metal or wrought iron with the masonry portion below and optionally forming pillars. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..11110000--1.MAXIMUM MMMAAAXXXIIIMMMUUUMMM FFFFEEEENNNNCCCCEEEE AAAANNNNDDDD WWWWAAAALLLLLLLL HHHHEEEEIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT DISTRICT FRONTAGE FENCING FRONTAGE FACADE SIDE REAR REAR ALLEY T5 4 ft. at seating areas 8 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. T4 4 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. T3.2 4 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. T3.1 n/a 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 4 ft. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 55 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..11110000--2. FFFFEEEENNNNCCCCEEEE AAAANNNNDDDD WWWWAAAALLLLLLLL MMMMAAAATTTTEEEERRRRIIIIAAAALLLLSSSS DISTRICT MASONRY DECORATIVE METAL OR WROUGHT IRON WOOD T5 Permitted; Stain or stucco required. Permitted; 70% opaque max. Prohibited T4 Permitted; Stain or stucco required. Permitted; 40% opaque max. Permitted; Paint required. T3.2 Prohibited Permitted Permitted; Paint or stain required. T3.1 Prohibited Prohibited Permitted TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..11110000--3.FENCING FFFEEENNNCCCIIINNNGGG TTTTEEEERRRRMMMMIIIINNNNOOOOLLLLOOOOGGGGYYYY Frontage Fencing Frontage Facade Fencing Side Fencing Rear Fencing Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 56 ooooffff 99993333 5.11. AAAACCCCCCCCEEEESSSSSSSSOOOORRRRYYYY DDDDWWWWEEEELLLLLLLLIIIINNNNGGGG UUUUNNNNIIIITTTTSSSS 5.11.1. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are permitted where specified in Chapter 2. Use. 5.11.2. ADUs may be provided in the following locations: a. Within the primary dwelling structure; b. Above a free-standing garage; c. As an independent, free-standing outbuilding. 5.11.3. ADUs are limited to a maximum area of 800 square feet. 5.11.4. ADUs must have an entry independent of the primary dwelling, accessible from a sidewalk or from a rear alley. 5.12. EXTERIOR LLLLIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTIIIINNNNGGGG 5.12.1. General a. Fluorescent and compact fluorescent lights are prohibited on the exterior of structures, including within open porches and stoops. b. Exterior lights should have a color temperature below 3,200 kelvin. c. Exterior lighting must include controls to automatically extinguish lighting when sufficient daylight is available. d. Exterior lighting should include controls to automatically lower lighting lumens by 30% or more after 10 pm, except in the following conditions: i. In T5; ii. Landscape lighting; iii. Where a single exterior luminaire is provided such as at residential front doors; and iv. Motion activated lighting. 5.12.2. Uplighting Restricted a. Lighting must be angled or shielded to limit vertical projection of light beyond 90 degrees and as follows: i. Signage lighting may be specifically permitted to be angled upwards as specified in Chapter 7; ii. Uplighting is limited in total lumens per fixture and maximum overall foot-candles projected above 90-degrees as specified in Table 5.11-1; iii. Unshielded luminaires are further restricted in intensity as specified in Table 5.11- 3. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..12222-1 -1.MAXIMUM MMMAAAXXXIIIMMMUUUMMM UUUUPPPPLLLLIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTIIIINNNNGGGG DISTRICT MAXIMUM LUMENS MAXIMUM FC T5 1,000 lumens 0.8 FC T4 100 lumens 0.3 FC T3 20 lumens 0.1 FC Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 57 ooooffff 99993333 5.12.3. Non-residential and Mixed-use Lighting Limits a. Total site lighting for non-residential and mixed-use properties is limited to a maximum lumens per exterior hardscape area as specified in Table 5.11-12. i. Shopfront and signage lighting is excluded from total site lighting limits. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..12222-1 -2.TOTAL TTTOOOTTTAAALLL SSSSIIIITTTTEEEE LLLLIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTIIIINNNNGGGG DISTRICT MAXIMUM LUMENS T5 5.0 lumens per sf of hardscape T4 2.5 lumens per sf of hardscape b. Additional lumens are permitted in the following amounts and conditions: i. Drive-through windows are permitted 8,000 lumens per window, within 20 feet of the window; ii. Gas stations are permitted 16,000 lumens per fuel pump to achieve an average 20 foot-candles. 5.12.4. Residential Lighting Limits a. Light intensity is limited by total lumens per luminaire as specified in Table 5.11-3. b. Exterior lighting must not project or reflect light upward or onto a neighboring property. c. Directional fixtures such as exterior entryway lighting, floodlights, and spotlights, must be shielded, installed, and aimed so that they do not project light into the windows of neighboring residences. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 5555..12222-1 -3.MAXIMUM MMMAAAXXXIIIMMMUUUMMM LLLLIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTIIIINNNNGGGG LIGHT TYPE T5 T4 T3 Primary Entry, unshielded luminaires 630 lumens 630 lumens 420 lumens Other unshielded luminaires 315 lumens 315 lumens 315 lumens Fully shielded luminaires 1,260 lumens 1,260 lumens 1,260 lumens Landscape lighting 2,100 lumens 1,050 lumens Not permitted Low voltage landscape lighting 525 lumens 525 lumens Not permitted Directional or flood lighting 2,100 lumens 1,260 lumens Not permitted 5.13. JUSTFICATION FFFFOOOORRRR MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIICCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS OOOOFFFF LLLLOOOOTTTTSSSS AAAANNNNDDDD BBBBUUUUIIIILLLLDDDDIIIINNNNGGGG SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 5.13.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Lots and Buildings advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. Standards for lots and buildings encompass the majority of design and development standards for Montava. These are written to ensure a very predictable development outcome among a variety of buildings and over a long development horizon. Primarily these standards are concerned with where buildings are located on each lot, where parking is located, the orientation of the building, the design of building facades, and the design of the space between building facades and sidewalks. Many of these requirements exist in the LUC, Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 58 ooooffff 99993333 however they are either not determinant of character, or they anticipate a single character of neighborhood space, concerned primarily with use, not character. While the use of property and buildings is a concern of Montava’s development standards, this concern is secondary to the character of the transect district. This approach to development regulation is commonly referred to a form-based coding, where the form of buildings is of primary concern and the use of secondary concern. Montava’s standards coordinate the elements of the built environment within each transect district, creating a series of environments with different characters, from very urban to natural. Creating a variety of characters, a diversity of feeling, is necessary across a site as large as Montava. The variety of overall district character is important in providing prospective residents with options to fit their personal preferences, and residents and neighbors with the ability to walk into areas that feel different from where their house is located. When coordinated carefully with the affected transect district, the character of each transect district also assists in navigating the community. People intuit the relationship between an increase in character intensity and the location of commercial districts. Similarly they intuit the relationship between a decrease in character intensity and the location of natural areas. Montava’s design intent seeks to create a variety of different character experiences throughout the community. 5.13.2. Lot Size Lot size standards set minimum and maximum thresholds based on the width and depth of lots, and maximum lot areas in mixed-use districts where large lots with multiple buildings are more prevalent. The lot size standards affect the character of the district by influencing the size of buildings and spacing between buildings. Housing in T3.1 consists of larger buildings on larger lots than T3.2. Housing and other uses in T4 typically consist of smaller buildings that are taller as a result. In T5, there are allowances for shallow lots to accommodate liner buildings. 5.13.3. Lot Occupation and Lot Coverage Overall district feel is significantly affected by how much of a lot is taken up by buildings and covered structures and impervious surfaces. In T5, buildings may take up nearly their entire lot, which is likely to be fully paved in unbuilt areas. This reflects a condition like downtown. However, in T3.1, a significant portion of each lot should be unbuilt and left pervious, relating to the adjacent natural areas. T3.2 and T4 areas are steps in-between, where buildings and impervious surfaces occupy an increasing portion of their lots. 5.13.4. Building Setbacks The distance that buildings are set back from sidewalks and from each other is a key component affecting community character. In T5, buildings are set very close to sidewalks, creating a main street or downtown district character. In T3.1, buildings are set much further back from sidewalks and further from each other, signaling adjacency to natural areas. T3.2 and T4 areas are steps in-between, where buildings are located closer to each other and the street, and where buildings can begin to be attached 5.13.5. Building Height Building height variety across the community is important to signal the location of more intense and less intense character and activity. In T5, buildings should be taller, while in T3 they should be shorter, with T4 in between. The heights in Montava’s development standards are in line with the LUC’s three mixed-use district intensities, organized by transect rather than by neighborhood. In Montava, each neighborhood is constructed of Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 59 ooooffff 99993333 multiple transect districts, which results in significant local variety and diversity across the site. 5.13.6. Building Orientation Building should generally be oriented parallel to their front lot line, and tangent to a lot line that is curved. This simple rule is important to ensure buildings face onto sidewalks and support active streets. An exception is provided for housing that faces onto shared green spaces, a feature used throughout Montava, where the green space may technically be located at a side lot line. 5.13.7. Housing Type and Model Variety Montava’s use of the transect and neighborhood design based upon a mix of multiple transects and districts with varying densities and lot sizes achieves the goals of housing model variety and mix of housing requirements. Each phase of Montava targets three or more market segments, which demand different types and sizes of homes. Additionally, the Montava design review process will work with builders to orchestrate the design of each street. Implementing varied housing types and uses in each neighborhood leads to greater diversification in support of the intent of mixed-use. However in many cases, such as townhouses and small cottages on shared greens, a series of the same housing model is likely to located in a row. The design review process will ensure that meaningful facade variation is provided in such cases. Where lots are narrow, modifications to housing models don’t create any meaningful differences along the street facade. The combination between transect districts and design review will ensure diversity and variety of character. 5.13.8. Building and Lot Frontages Control of building and lot frontages is one of the most critical aspects affecting the design intent of Montava. Like other development standards, frontage standards are varied according to the transect, which also coordinates frontage requirements with lot size, building height, and building setback. Montava’s frontage requirements encompass a number of building design standards throughout the LUC. Frontage standards regulate the design of the entire space between the sidewalk and building facades, including facade projections, landscaping and hardscape, fencing, frontage occupation, facade glazing, and special conditions such as forecourts, door yards, and cottage courts. Facade projection standards include requirements for porches, stoops, galleries, arcades, and shopfronts. In T5, frontages are generally paved without fencing or walls, permitting access to shopfronts and common building entries. Buildings are required to provide shopfronts for each tenant space and along a minimum percentage of facade length, restricting blank walls. In T3, frontages are landscaped with trees, and may include fencing. Each standard is coordinated to create a predictable character for the district. 5.13.9. Yards Yards are controlled by a combination of frontage standards and lot occupation and coverage standards. Frontage standards control the frontage yard, which is yard space located between building facades and sidewalks. Lot occupation and coverage standards ensure that yard space is provided in T3 and T4, and that it is landscaped commensurate with the intensity of the district. 5.13.10. Shopfront Design Shopfront design guidelines are included in Montava’s development standards, encouraging facade design in the town center to follow well established rules including the use of clear glass, the division of facades, and providing for appropriate locations for signage. Poor shopfront design can lead to the degradation of main street vitality. However, shopfront design is evolving, and the standards are specifically written as guidelines to provide room for innovation. 5.13.11. Fencing and Walls The design, materials, and height of fencing and walls significantly influences district character. Like many others, this set of design standards varies by Transect district. In T5, Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 5:LLLLoooottttssss aaaannnndddd BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss 60 ooooffff 99993333 fencing is not permitted along streets, however fencing along parking lots and between properties should be tall and masonry or metal. In T3, fencing should be primarily wood, low along frontages and sufficiently tall for privacy between properties. Fencing and wall standards are coordinated with frontage standards. 5.13.12. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) standards are necessary to ensure ADUs are limited in size and designed in coordination with the primary building. 5.13.13. Solar Orientation Development standards affecting solar orientation are located between site and building standards and architectural character standards. These account for the primarily southwest to northeast orientation of streets in Montava, aligned with Long’s Peak. Sufficient solar PV access is achieved through the design of roofs, capturing SE and SW light. Rooftop design must account for different types of housing, such as townhouses that slope towards the front of the lot and small single family housing which slope towards the side of the lot. In all cases, lot orientation provides for SE and SW exposure. Solar standards require that those roof portions with best exposure be designed to accommodate PV systems, including the location of plumbing vents and other roof penetrations. Standards also require that exposure be considered in the design of floor plans, to maximize light access into dwellings. In addition to solar orientation and PV access, Montava will be built to Net Zero Ready Home standards, reducing the amount of PV necessary to achieve net zero. 5.13.14. Exterior Lighting Site and exterior light development standards are designed to implement International Dark- Sky Association (IDA) recommendations across the community. IDA’s model ordinance provides for a series of standards coordinated with the intensity of development. This system integrates directly with the Transect, where T3 implements LZ1, T4 implements LZ2, and T5 implements LZ3. The exterior light standards are derived from the model ordinance, coordinated with the Transect. This ensures that each district in Montava plays its part in protecting dark skies, as is appropriate to the intensity of use and development. Montava’s design in coordination with exterior light standards contributes to light protection in natural areas by locating T5 / LZ3 far from natural areas and transitioning in development and light zone intensity down to T3 / LZ1 adjacent to natural areas, as envisioned by IDA recommendations. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 61 ooooffff 99993333 6. PARKING 6.1. OVERVIEWWWW OVERVIE 6.1.1. The development standards of this Section 6 for Parking shall apply to all development in the Montava PUD Master Plan. Such development standards modify all LUC standards in Article 3 and Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 thereof which regulate parking, with the exception of Division 3.8, Supplemental Regulations, which are the subject of Chapter 12. 6.2. VEHICULAR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD ACCESS:T3.1 6.2.1. Driveways a. Driveways are limited as follows: i. Driveway width is limited to a maximum of 12 feet; ii. Driveways accessing multiple garage doors may be up to width of the garage within 20 feet of the garage doors; b. Driveways may have a single point of access or two points of access in a loop. c. Lots with side street lot lines should provide parking access from that lot line. d. Lots with alley access must provide parking access from the alley. 6.2.2. Carports and Covered Parking a. Carports and covered parking are permitted. 6.2.3. Garages a. Individual garage doors are limited to a maximum width of 10 feet. b. Garages must be configured in one of the following orientations, as generally illustrated in Table 6.1-1: i. Type 1: Independent of the dwelling. ii. Type 2: Front-entry, subservient to the dwelling facade. iii. Type 3: Side-entry, within the main dwelling volume. iv. Type 4: Side-entry, forward of the main dwelling volume. c. Type 1 garages are subject to the following requirements: i. The garage must be detached from the dwelling a minimum of 10 feet. ii. Where the garage is closer to the front property line than the dwelling: (1) Vehicular entry movement must be parallel with the front property line. (2) A minimum of one window must be installed on the garage facade, facing the front property line. d. Type 2 garages are subject to the following requirements: i. The garage must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the principal dwelling facade, excluding projections. e. Type 3 garages are subject to the following requirements: i. The garage should be set towards the rear of the main dwelling volume. ii. The garage may not extend forward of the main dwelling volume. iii. Where the garage is located parallel with the dwelling front facade, a minimum of one window must be installed on the garage facade, facing the front property line. f. Type 4 garages are subject to the following requirements: i. Vehicular entry to the garage must be parallel with the front property line. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 62 ooooffff 99993333 ii. A minimum of one window must be installed on the garage facade, facing the front property line. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..2222--1.GGGGAAAARRRRAAAAGGGGEEEE TYPES TTTYYYPPPEEESSS AAAANNNNDDDD OOOORRRRIIIIEEEENNNNTTTTAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN TYPE 1: FREESTANDING, REAR TYPE 1: FREESTANDING, FRONT TYPE 2: ATTACHED, FRONT ENTRY TYPE 3: ATTACHED, SIDE ENTRY TYPE 4: ATTACHED, FORWARD OF HOUSE Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 63 ooooffff 99993333 6.3. VEHICULAR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD ACCESS:T3.2 AAAANNNNDDDD TTTT4444 6.3.1. On-street parking spaces located along lot lines count towards minimum required parking. 6.3.2. Off-street parking may be provided individually or clustered within the same block. 6.3.3. Driveways are limited as follows: a. Driveways providing parking access to 4 or fewer units are limited to a maximum of 12 feet in width. b. Driveways providing parking access to more than 4 units are limited to a maximum of 22 feet in width. 6.3.4. Garages within the front half of a lot are limited to a maximum width of 30% of the lot width. 6.3.5. Carports and covered parking are permitted in off-street parking areas and must be located behind buildings relative to front lot lines. 6.3.6. Parking access is permitted as follows: a. Where alleys abut any property line for individual or clustered properties, on-site parking must be accessed from an alley. b. Lots or clustered properties without alley access with any side street lot lines must access parking from a side street lot line. c. Lots without alley access or side street lot lines may access parking from the front lot line, limited to one access point adjacent to a side lot line. d. Clustered properties without alley access or side street lot lines may access parking from the front lot line, limited to two access points, each along a side lot line. 6.3.7. Off-street parking must be located behind buildings relative to the front lot line. 6.3.8. Off-street parking serving clustered properties must be located as follows: a. Parking must be a minimum of 10 feet behind the facade of the nearest building to front and side street lot lines. b. Parking must be shielded from front and side street lot lines by buildings or frontage facade fencing. 6.4. VEHICULAR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD ACCESS:TTTT5555 6.4.1. Minimum required parking may be provided as follows: a. Leased from the Metro District, on-street or in shared parking lots, within 800 feet of the use; b. Provided on-site independent of the Metro District; c. Both leased from the parking district and provided on-site. 6.4.2. Off-street parking must be located behind buildings relative to front lot lines. 6.4.3. Off-street surface parking adjacent to side street lot lines must be lined or screened as follows: a. One or more liner buildings should be located along the sidewalk as generally illustrated in Table 6.3-1(a); b. In the case that liner buildings are not feasible, parking must be screened with a street screen as generally illustrated in Table 6.3-1(b) and as follows: i. The street screen must meet the fencing standards for T5; ii. The street screen may be interrupted for pedestrian and vehicular access. 6.4.4. Off-street structured parking must be lined or screened as follows: Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 64 ooooffff 99993333 a. One or more liner buildings, a minimum of 30 feet in depth, should be located along the sidewalk as generally illustrated in Table 6.3-1(d); b. In the case that liner buildings are not feasible, parking must be screened as generally illustrated in Table 6.3-1(c) and as follows: i. The ground floor of the parking structure must include habitable spaces along sidewalks; ii. Ground floor habitable spaces may be interrupted for pedestrian and vehicular access; iii. Ground floor habitable spaces must be designed with shopfronts; iv. Openings above the ground floor must meet the window proportion and minimum glazing requirements. Openings count towards minimum glazing. c. Along designated main streets, structured parking must be lined. 6.4.5. Adjacent lots providing off-street parking and district managed parking lots must be supplied with vehicular and pedestrian connections to any on-site parking areas. 6.4.6. Carports and covered parking are permitted in off-street parking areas. 6.4.7. Along side street lot lines, parking must be shielded by buildings or frontage facade fencing. 6.4.8. Parking access is permitted as follows: a. Where alleys abut any property line, access to on-site parking must be provided from the alley. b. Lots with side street lot lines may provide one access point from each side street lot line. c. Lots without alley or side street lot line access may provide one access point from the front property line. d. Where more than one access point is required for circulation, access points should be located along different property lines. 6.4.9. Driveways are limited to a maximum of 22 feet in width. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 65 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..4444--1.LLLLIIIINNNNEEEEDDDD AND AAANNNDDD SSSSCCCCRRRREEEEEEEENNNNEEEEDDDD PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG (a) Screened Surface Parking (b) Lined Surface Parking (c) Screened Structured Parking (d) Lined Structured Parking 6.5. REQUIRED VVVVEEEEHHHHIIIICCCCUUUULLLLAAAARRRR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG 6.5.1. Parking is required for each residential dwelling unit in the amounts specified in Table 6.4- 1. a. Multi-family residential parking provided on site may not exceed 200% of the minimum parking requirement, excluding on-street parking spaces. 6.5.2. Parking is required for each non-residential use in the amounts specified in Table 6.4-2. 6.5.3. Parking for assembly uses, schools, and libraries is required in the amounts specified in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. 6.5.4. Shared parking provided by the Metro District may exceed maximum parking ratios to provide for future uses and events. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..5555--1: MMMMIIIINNNNIIIIMMMMUUUUMMMM RRRREEEESSSSIIIIDDDDEEEENNNNTTTTIIIIAAAALLLL PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG USE T5 T4 T3.2 T3.1 Single Family Detached n/a 1.5 / du 2 / du 2 / du Single Family Attached 1 / du 1.5 / du 2 / du n/a Accessory Dwelling Units 0.5 / du 1 / du 1 / du n/a Multi-Family 0.75 / du 1 / du 1.5 / du n/a Affordable Housing 0.5 / du 0.75 / du 1 / du 1.5 / du Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 66 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..5555--2:NON NNNOOONNN--RRRREEEESSSSIIIIDDDDEEEENNNNTTTTIIIIAAAALLLL PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG USE MINIMUM MAXIMUM Restaurant / Bar 5 / 1000 sf 10 / 1000 sf General Commercial 2 / 1000 sf 4 / 1000 sf Office 1 / 1000 sf 4 / 1000 sf Light Industry, Workshop 1 / 1000 sf 4 / 1000 sf Industrial 0.5 per employee n/a Lodging 0.5 per key 1 per key 6.6. REQUIRED VVVVEEEEHHHHIIIICCCCUUUULLLLAAAARRRR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG AAAADDDDJJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS 6.6.1. Transit Oriented District a. Transit oriented district parking reductions specified in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code continue to apply to uses within Transit Oriented Districts. 6.6.2. Parking Studies a. An applicant may elect to commission a parking study, providing evidence of parking requirements above or below the standards of this Chapter. b. Parking study methodology must comply with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. 6.6.3. Shared Parking a. Shared parking may be used to adjust down the number of required parking spaces within a single site or within the parking district. b. Within a single site, shared parking may only be applied to uses within the site. c. Within the parking district, shared parking is limited as follows: i. Shared parking is calculated collectively for all shared parking lot uses; ii. Uses must be within 800 feet of the shared parking lot; iii. On-street parking spaces included within the shared parking district are limited to those located along the block-face of uses accounted for in shared parking calculations. d. Shared parking reductions are calculated using Table 6.5-1 and as follows: i. A sample shared parking calculation is provided in Table 6.5-2; ii. The number of required spaces for each use as determined in Section 5.4 is entered into the yellow column; iii. For each use and time of day, the number of required parking spaces is multiplied by the occupancy rate listed, entered into the red columns; iv. Each column is summed vertically in the green row; v. The adjusted minimum required parking spaces is the highest result within the green row. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 67 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..6666--1:SSSSHHHHAAAARRRREEEEDDDD PARKING PPPAAARRRKKKIIINNNGGG RRRREEEEDDDDUUUUCCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS USE USING SHARED PARKING MIN. SPACES MON-FRI 8AM-6PM MON-FRI 6PM-12AM MON-FRI 12AM-8AM SAT-SUN 8AM-6PM SAT-SUN 6PM-12AM SAT-SUN 12AM-8AM Residential sp 60% sp*.6 100% sp 100% sp 80% sp*.8 100% sp 100% sp Lodging sp 70% sp*.7 100% sp 100% sp 70% sp*.7 100% sp 100% sp Restaurant / Bar sp 70% sp*.7 100% sp 10% sp*.1 70% sp*.7 100% Sp 20% sp*.02 Retail sp 90% sp*.9 80% sp*.8 5% sp*.05 100% sp 70% sp*.7 5% sp*.05 Office, Industrial sp 100% sp 20% sp*.2 5% sp*.05 5% sp*.05 5% sp*.05 5% sp*.05 Assembly sp 40% sp*.4 100% sp 10% sp*.1 80% sp*.8 50% sp*.5 50% sp*.5 Religious sp 10% sp*.1 5% sp*.05 5% sp*.05 100% sp 5% sp*.05 5% sp*.05 Required:sum sum sum sum sum sum sum TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6.6666--2:CCCCOOOOMMMMPPPPLLLLEEEETTTTEEEEDDDD SSSSHHHHAAAARRRREEEEDDDD PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE USE USING SHARED PARKING MIN. SPACES MON-FRI 8AM-6PM MON-FRI 6PM-12AM MON-FRI 12AM-8AM SAT-SUN 8AM-6PM SAT-SUN 6PM-12AM SAT-SUN 12AM-8AM Residential 120 sp 60% 72 100% 120 100% 120 80% 96 100% 120 100% 120 Lodging 70% 0 100% 0 100% 0 70% 0 100% 0 100% 0 Restaurant / Bar 55 sp 70% 39 100% 55 10% 6 70% 39 100% 55 20% 11 Retail 45 sp 90% 41 80% 36 5% 3 100% 45 70% 32 5% 3 Office, Industrial 80 sp 100% 80 20% 16 5% 4 5% 4 5% 4 5% 4 Assembly 40% 0 100% 0 10% 0 80% 0 50% 0 50% 0 Religious 10% 0 5% 0 5% 0 100% 0 5% 0 5% 0 Required:300 sp 232 ssssppppaaaacccceeeessss 227 spaces 133 spaces 184 spaces 211 spaces 138 spaces Shared parking reduces the initial required of 300 spaces by 68 spaces to 232 total spaces required. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 68 ooooffff 99993333 6.7. VEHICULAR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG LLLLOOOOTTTT DDDDEEEESSSSIIIIGGGGNNNN 6.7.1. Parking lots must have a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet and 15 feet where the facility is to be used by trucks or for loading or along a garbage collection path. 6.7.2. Compact stalls may account for up to 40% of off-street spaces in each parking lot. 6.7.3. Drive aisles must meet the minimum size requirements as specified in Table 6.6-1. 6.7.4. Parking stalls must meet the minimum size requirements as specified in Table 6.6-2. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..7777--1.DRIVE DDDRRRIIIVVVEEE AAAAIIIISSSSLLLLEEEE MMMMIIIINNNNIIIIMMMMUUUUMMMM SSSSIIIIZZZZEEEESSSS PARKING ANGLE AISLE: ONE-WAY SINGLE LOADED AISLE: ONE-WAY DOUBLE LOADED AISLE: TWO WAY, DOUBLE LOADED 90 deg. 23 ft. min. 23 ft. min. 23 ft. min. 60 deg. 12.8 ft. min. 11.8. ft. min. 19.3 ft. min. 45 deg. 10.8 ft. min. 9.5 ft. min. 18.5 ft. min. Parallel 10 ft. min. 12 ft. min. 20 ft. min. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..7777--2.PARKING PPPAAARRRKKKIIINNNGGG SSSSTTTTAAAALLLLLLLL MMMMIIIINNNNIIIIMMMMUUUUMMMM SSSSIIIIZZZZEEEESSSS STALL TYPE STALL WIDTH STALL LENGTH Standard Stall 8.5 ft. min. 18 ft. min. Compact Stall 8 ft. min. 15 ft. min. Parallel Stall 7 ft. min. 22 ft. min. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 69 ooooffff 99993333 6.8. VEHICULAR PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG LLLLOOOOTTTT LLLLAAAANNNNDDDDSSSSCCCCAAAAPPPPIIIINNNNGGGG 6.8.1. Parking lot landscaping is required as specified in Chapter 7: Private Lot Landscaping. 6.9. BICYCLE PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD ACCESS:TTTT5555 6.9.1. On-street bicycle parking spaces and bicycle parking in parking district shared parking lots may be provided by the Metro District. Allocation of shared spaces towards individual requirements is determined by the Metro District. 6.9.2. Minimum required bicycle parking may be provided as follows: a. Provided by the parking district, on-street or in shared parking lots within 400 feet of the use; b. Provided on-site independent of the parking district; c. Both provided from the parking district and on-site. 6.9.3. Off-street bicycle parking must be located within buildings or behind or to the side of buildings relative to front lot lines. 6.10. REQUIRED BBBBIIIICCCCYYYYCCCCLLLLEEEE PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG 6.10.1. Bicycle parking is required in the amounts specified in Table 6.9-1, and as follows: a. A minimum percentage of spaces must be enclosed for each use; b. Enclosed spaces for multi-family residential must be located: i. In a common area on the ground floor; ii. In the ground floor of a separate structure on the same site; iii. In the ground floor of an attached structure. c. A maximum percentage of spaces may be located on-street for each use. TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 6666..11110000--1.BICYCLE BBBIIICCCYYYCCCLLLEEE PPPPAAAARRRRKKKKIIIINNNNGGGG USE MINIMUM SPACES ENCLOSED ON-STREET SPACES Multi-family Residential 1 per bedroom 40% min. 0% max. Restaurant / Bar 1 / 1,000 sf 0% min. 100% max. General Commercial 1 / 4,000 sf 0% min. 100% max. Office 1 / 4,000 sf 20% min. 80% max. Light Industry / Workshop 4 0% min. 100% max. Industrial 4 0% min. 100% max. Lodging 1 per 4 keys 60% min. 40% max. Education & Assembly 1 / 3,000 sf 0% min. 100% max. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 6:PPPPaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg 70 ooooffff 99993333 6.11. JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFICATIONS OOOOFFFF PARKING SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 6.11.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Parking advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. 6.11.2. Parking standards modifications are necessary for Montava because the ownership model and proximity of building uses in Montava are unique, in particular within the Town Center. In the lower intensity areas, Montava's parking standards are similar to the LUC, with a few supplemental standards concerning garage orientation, access to parking, and driveway size limitations. Within the Town Center, Montava’s design is based upon District-managed shared parking - for both cars and bikes - in lots and on-street parking. Rather than providing parking on an individual basis for each building or use, that parking is leased through the District. As a result the district can benefit from shared parking, using a park- once strategy. Being a mixed-use Town Center, individual properties may also benefit from shared parking if they choose to provide their own parking rather than working with the District. The shared parking strategy requires a different approach to parking requirements where shared parking is the rule rather than the exception. Each land use requires a minimum number of parking spaces as is typical. Shared parking is then a calculation applied across users of a shared parking lot, eliminating space requirements where the peak usage time differs between nearby land uses, such as housing and office. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 7:PPPPrrrriiiivvvvaaaatttteeee LLLLooootttt LLLLaaaannnnddddssssccccaaaappppiiiinnnngggg 71 ooooffff 99993333 7. PRIVATE LLLLOOOOTTTT LLLLAAAANNNNDDDDSSSSCCCCAAAAPPPPIIIINNNNGGGG 7.1. OVERVIEW 7.1.1. The development standards of LUC Section 3.2.1 shall apply to development in the Montava PUD Master Plan except as modified in this Chapter. 7.2. MODIFICATIONS TTTTOOOO LLLLAAAANNNNDDDD UUUUSSSSEEEE CCCCOOOODDDDEEEE SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 7.2.1. Tree Planting Standards a. Section 3.2.1.(D).(1).(c) is modified to exempt landscape areas within frontages, which are required to be landscaped in accordance with Section 4.7 Frontage standards. 7.2.2. Landscape Standards a. Section 3.2.1.(E).(1) buffering requirements may not be accomplished with landform shaping in T3, T4, or T5. b. Section 3.2.1.(E).(2).(d) Foundation Planting is modified to exempt the following: i. Buildings in T5; ii. Where building walls are located within 5 feet of lot lines; iii. Where walls or fencing visually obscures the building wall from view at frontages. c. Section 3.2.1.(E).(4).(b) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping is modified as follows: i. Residential uses in T5 do not require screening; ii. Non-residential uses do not require screening; iii. Mid-block parking lots in T5 only require screening from streets. 7.3. LANDSCAPE MMMMAAAATTTTEEEERRRRIIIIAAAALLLLSSSS 7.3.1. Landscape materials must comply with the following landscape materials lists and requirements: a. General Limitations i. City-approved species including native plants will be utilized; ii. Invasive species as listed in the Larimer County Noxious Weed Management Plan are prohibited; iii. Artificial plants or trees do not satisfy the requirements of this chapter. b. Edible Landscape i. Edible landscaping may be substituted for all landscape list materials except ground cover and grasses used adjacent to vehicular areas. ii. Edible landscape tree species within the public right-of-way and on private lots will be reviewed by City of Fort Collins at time of each PDP. 7.3.2. Native and pollinator supportive landscaping is recommended for ground cover, shrubs, and ornamental gardens. 7.4. JUSTIFICATION FOR PPPPRRRRIIIIVVVVAAAATTTTEEEE LLLLOOOOTTTT LLLLAAAANNNNDDDDSSSSCCCCAAAAPPPPIIIINNNNGGGG SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 7.4.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Private Lot Landscaping advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. 7.4.2. Modifications to Landscape standards are necessary to enable the specific relationship between buildings and streets which is a key design feature of Montava. In the town center and other areas in the T5 district, buildings are located at the back of sidewalks. This Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 7:PPPPrrrriiiivvvvaaaatttteeee LLLLooootttt LLLLaaaannnnddddssssccccaaaappppiiiinnnngggg 72 ooooffff 99993333 relationship supports walkable streets but leaves no space for landscaping between the building and streets with exemption of public right-of-way street trees. In other districts, the architectural design vision for Montava locates buildings at different distances from the sidewalk depending on the condition, which affects the amount of landscaping that can be located along the building. Overall the amount of landscaping provided is no less than required in the existing, unmodified standards, but the location of that landscaping differs as a result of building relationships with the street. This relationship is referred to as frontage, which is addressed in some LUC standards and addressed in a high level of specificity in Montava’s design standards. Landscape standards modifications enable Montava’s highly detailed frontage standards to direct design vision. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 8:SSSSiiiiggggnnnnaaaaggggeeee 73 ooooffff 99993333 8. SIGNAGE 8.1. OVERVIEW 8.1.1. The development standards of LUC Section 3.8.7 shall apply to development in the Montava PUD Master Plan except as modified in this Chapter. 8.2. TRANSECT DDDDIIIISSSSTTTTRRRRIIIICCCCTTTT CCCCOOOORRRRRRRREEEELLLLAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN 8.2.1. For the purpose of determining applicable signage regulations in Section 3.8.7 of the Land Use Code, the Transect Districts correlate to Sign Districts as follows: a. T2: Commercial / Industrial b. T3: Single-Family c. T4: Mixed-Use d. T5: Downtown 8.3. MODIFICATIONS TTTTOOOO LLLLAAAANNNNDDDD UUUUSSSSEEEE CCCCOOOODDDDEEEE STANDARDS STANDARDS 8.3.1. External Sign Illumination a. Gooseneck and similar light sources which shield direct view of luminaires but are themselves visible and intended to be architecturally integrated into shopfronts are considered to conceal the light source from view, pursuant to Section 3.8.7.1(i)(3)(b). 8.4. JUSTIFICATION FOR SSSSIIIIGGGGNNNNAAAAGGGGEEEE SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 8.4.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Signage advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. Montava’s signage standards section provides a correlation between the City’s Sign Districts and Montava’s Transect Districts to ensure the correct Sign District is used. Because Montava’s town center is modeled on traditional downtowns like Downtown Fort Collins, the Downtown Sign District is applied to T5. Other districts - Mixed-Use and Single-Family - are applied to Transect Districts as correlated to their uses. The Commercial / Industrial Sign District is applied to T2 to account for farm-related business signage. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 9:AAAArrrrcccchhhhiiiitttteeeeccccttttuuuurrrraaaallll Charactttteeeerrrr Charac 74 ooooffff 99993333 9. AAAARRRRCCCCHHHHIIIITTTTEEEECCCCTTTTUUUURRRRAAAALLLL CCCCHHHHAAAARRRRAAAACCCCTTTTEEEERRRR 9.1. OVERVIEW 9.1.1. The development standards of this Chapter 9 for Architectural Character shall apply to all development in the Montava PUD Master Plan. Such development modify all LUC standards in Article 3 and Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 thereof which regulate architecture with exception of Division 3.8, Supplemental Regulations, which are the subject of Chapter 12. 9.2. BBBBUILDING UILDING MMMMAAAATTTTEEEERRRRIIIIAAAALLLLSSSS 9.2.1. Where multiple exterior materials are used on a single building, they may only be combined through horizontal transitions, with the heavier material below. a. Building attachments and projections may differ in material from the building volume, with the attachment or projection being of a lighter material, except for chimneys where the projection may be of a heavier material. 9.2.2. Vinyl siding must imitate wood in size, thickness, profile, and joining. 9.2.3. Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (E.I.F.S.) are prohibited. 9.2.4. All exposed exterior wood must be painted or stained. 9.3. OPENINGS 9.3.1. All openings, including porches, galleries, doors, and windows must be vertical or square in proportion. Horizontal openings may be provided by combining multiple vertical or square openings together. 9.3.2. Doors and windows that operate as sliders are prohibited along facades facing front or side street lot lines. 9.3.3. Where exterior shutters are installed, they must be operable, and sized and oriented to fit the entire opening when closed. 9.4. FOUNDATIONS 9.4.1. Any structure or building projection on a raised foundation with piers must have skirting or wood lattice screening between piers 9.5. SOLAR OOOORRRRIIIIEEEENNNNTTTTAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN 9.5.1. Where practical, roofs should be designed to provide generally unobstructed roof surfaces facing south, south-east, or south-west, both in the overall roof form and in the location of ventilation stacks, antennae, and other rooftop equipment and openings. 9.5.2. Building volumes and openings should be oriented to capture south, south-east, and south- western light. 9.6. MECHANICAL EEEEQQQQUUUUIIIIPPPPMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT AAAANNNNDDDD RRRREEEEFFFFUUUUSSSSEEEE SSSSTTTTOOOORRRRAAAAGGGGEEEE 9.6.1. Building mechanical equipment, at or above ground level, and refuse storage must not be visible from front or side street lot lines. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 9:AAAArrrrcccchhhhiiiitttteeeeccccttttuuuurrrraaaallll Charactttteeeerrrr Charac 75 ooooffff 99993333 9.7. OUTBUILDINGS 9.7.1. Outbuildings, storage structures, and sheds should match the wall and roof style, color and material of the primary dwelling. 9.8. JUSTIFICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL CCCCHHHHAAAARRRRAAAACCCCTTTTEEEERRRR SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 9.8.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Architectural Character advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. 9.8.2. Building design within Montava is coordinated among a number of standards in Chapter 9 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards regarding Lots and Buildings, and supplemented with the Architectural Character controls of this Chapter 9, addressing general issues of architectural design. Current LUC standards concerning character are aimed at minimizing the impact of suburban development patterns and buildings by ensuring variety within a single structure, particularly in commercial and multi-family areas. Development within Montava differs from the LUC’s expectations as it is oriented towards LUC goals at its core, and based upon character, not style, as a community-wide element of design. 9.8.3. Due to the scale of Montava, specific stylistic details and materials may change by neighborhood. At the overall PUD Master Plan level, architectural character standards address broad but common details to be further supplemented. This Architectural Character chapter deals with basic material prohibitions, the combination of materials, the shape of openings, orientation of building shape for solar access, the location of mechanical systems and refuse storage, and outbuilding design. This set of foundational standards are embedded in Chapter 9 of the PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards regarding Lots and Buildings, which ensures that building are oriented to face streets and open spaces, that projection into yards and on facade (such as porches and stoops), are usable and coordinated, that fencing is appropriate in scale and materials, that a minimum amount of doors and windows is provided along streets, and that shopfronts are well designed. Together these ensure an overall harmony among buildings within Montava, yet allow for more specific architectural detail to be determined by phase. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 76 ooooffff 99993333 10. CIVIC SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE 10.1. OOOOVVVVEEEERRRRVVVVIIIIEEEEWWWW 10.1.1. The development standards of this Chapter 10 for Civic Space shall apply to all development of civic space in the Montava PUD Master Plan. Such development standards modify all LUC standards in Article 3 and Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 thereof which regulate civic space, with the exception of Division 3.8, Supplemental Regulations, which are the subject of Chapter 12. 10.2. CIVIC SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEESSSS 10.2.1. A civic space type must be selected for all parks and recreation, urban agriculture, and open lands provided within T3.1, T3.2, T4, and T5, as illustrated in Table 10.1-1. 10.2.2. Civic space types must be configured according to Table 10.1-2, Table 10.1-3, and as follows: a. The minimum dimension must be maintained throughout the civic space; b. For triangular spaces, proportion is the ratio of the shortest edge length to the longest edge length; c. For irregular spaces, proportion is measured using an inscribed rectangle; d. Building coverage includes covered and enclosed structures; e. Required landscaping excludes stormwater management areas; f. A minimum of 50% of trees provided must be Canopy shade trees; g. Stormwater management and LID infrastructure may be integrated into civic space design where indicated in Table 10.1-3; h. Stormwater management areas should be shared use where possible; i. Where civic space abuts existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle trails, pedestrian and bicycle trails must be continued through the civic space. 10.2.3. Civic space types must be programmed according to the following: a. Programming must be selected from Table 10.1-4; b. Each civic space must include a minimum number of program elements, in addition to requirement elements, as specified in Table 10.1-4. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 77 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 11110000..2222--1.CCCCIIIIVVVVIIIICCCC SPACE SSSPPPAAACCCEEE TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEE IIIILLLLLLLLUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS TYPE ILLUSTRATION TYPE ILLUSTRATION PARK SQUARE GREENWAY PLAZA COMPACT GREEN POCKET PARK GREEN PASSAGE Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 78 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 11110000..2222--2.CCCCIIIIVVVVIIIICCCC SPACE SSSPPPAAACCCEEE TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEESSSS -LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN AAAANNNNDDDD DDDIIIMMMEEENNNSSSIIIOOONNNSSS DIMENSIONS TYPE TRANSECT DISTRICTS STREET FRONTAGE SIZE MINIMUM DIMENSION PROPORTIONS Natural Area All n/a 5 acres min. n/a n/a Park All 1 side min. 5 acres min. n/a n/a Greenway All 25% perimeter 2 acres min. (may be interrupted by streets) 40 ft. n/a Compact Green T3.2, T4 1 side min. 0.5 acres max. 40 ft. n/a Green T3.1, T3.2, T4 2 sides min. 0.5 - 5 acres 80 ft. 0.2:1 - 1:1 Square T4, T5 2 sides min. 0.2 - 3 acres 80 ft. 0.25:1 - 1:1 Plaza T5 1 side min. 0.2 - 2 acres 60 ft. 0.25:1 - 1:1 Pocket Park T3.2, T4, T5 1 side min. 1,000 sf - 0.25 acres 30 ft. 0.25:1 - 1:1 Passage All n/a n/a 12 ft. n/a Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 79 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 11110000..2222--3.CCCCIIIIVVVVIIIICCCC SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE TTTTYYYYPPPPEEEESSSS -DDDDEEEESSSSIIIIGGGGNNNN TYPE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SEATING LIGHTING STORM WATER Natural Area n/a n/a TBD by City of Fort Collins n/a n/a ✓ Park n/a n/a TBD by City of Fort Collins Required Required ✓ Greenway 30% max. 1% max. 1 Canopy tree or 2 Ornamentals per 4,000 sf. Optional Optional ✓ Compact Green 30% max. 3% max. 1 Canopy tree or 2 Ornamentals per 3,000 sf. Optional Optional Green 40% max. 5% max. 1 Canopy tree or 2 Ornamentals per 3,000 sf. Required Required ✓ Square 60% max. 50% max. 1 Canopy tree or 2 Ornamentals per 4,000 sf. Required Required ✓ Plaza 50 - 90% 15% max. 1 Canopy tree or 2 Ornamentals per 6,000 sf. Required Required Pocket Park T3.2, T4: 50% max. T5: 80% max. 3% max. 1 Canopy tree or 2 Ornamentals per 3,000 sf. Required Optional Passage 70% max. n/a n/a n/a n/a Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 80 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 11110000..2222--4.CCCCIIIIVVVVIIIICCCC SPACE SSSPPPAAACCCEEE PPPPRRRROOOOGGGGRRRRAAAAMMMM PROGRAM NATURAL AREA PARK GREEN- WAY COMPACT GREEN GREEN SQUARE PLAZA POCKET PARK PASSAGE Program Elements n/a 5 min. 1 min. 1 min. 2 min. 2 min. 2 min. 1 min. n/a Formal Garden ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Community Garden* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Pollinator Garden/Path* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Playground ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Nature Play Area* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Bird/Butterfly Garden* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Dog Park ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Skate Park ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Exercise Equipment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Athletic Fields - structured ✓ Athletic Fields - unstructured ✓ ✓ ✓ Paths (walking) Required Required Required ✓ Required Required Required ✓ Required Paths (cycling) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Performance Space ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Outdoor Dining & Sales ✓ ✓ ✓ Conservation Area Required ✓ ✓ Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 81 ooooffff 99993333 TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE 11110000..2222--4.CCCCIIIIVVVVIIIICCCC SPACE SSSPPPAAACCCEEE PPPPRRRROOOOGGGGRRRRAAAAMMMM PROGRAM NATURAL AREA PARK GREEN- WAY COMPACT GREEN GREEN SQUARE PLAZA POCKET PARK PASSAGE Restroom Facilities Required ✓ ✓ c. A minimum of two (2) Nature in the City elements, signified with an asterisk (*) in Table 10.1-4 shall be incorporated into each Phase of development. 10.3. JUSTIIIIFFFFIIIICCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN JUST FOR CIVIC SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 10.3.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Civic Space advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. 10.3.2. Montava’s system of parks and open spaces, with the exception of the Community Park, are distributed broadly throughout Montava and vary in their design and programming. They are connected in a network throughout the community, providing trails, places for active and passive recreation, and places for gathering in a variety of different land use contexts. To coordinate civic space use and design with adjacent land uses, the development standards uses a series of recognizable types, such as plazas, squares, and greens, and relates them to the appropriate land use context. For instance, in the Town Center, plazas and squares with active programming are appropriate while within lower intensity neighborhoods, pocket parks and playgrounds are appropriate. Each civic space type has associated size and proportion requirements to ensure they are right-sized for their context and activities. Distributing and diversifying these spaces provides greater variety and more frequent access of open spaces to neighborhood residents, further supporting walkability. These standards are similar to the park requirements of Article 4 of the LUC, modifying them to implement the vision of Montava and ensuring that open spaces are active and diverse in support of LUC goals. 10.3.3. This modification to standards allows for design innovation by promoting a diversity of types of parks and open spaces. While large neighborhood parks check the box, they don’t always meet residents’ needs, nor are they sufficiently close to where they live. Montava’s park and open space system provides for open space activities and access in a more distributed manner, more frequently throughout the community. The distributed system allows the design of each type of space to be coordinated with surrounding land uses. Montava’s system of parks and civic spaces are designed to fulfill the purpose of neighborhood parks according to the Park and Recreation Policy Plan, providing a variety of passive and active recreational uses and amenities to meet the needs of a growing and changing population that are well distributed throughout the community and connected to and within walking distance of the neighborhoods they are intended to serve. Additionally, a significant trail system is integrated into the community’s design, connecting surrounding regional trails and new community assets, providing a public benefit for both Montava residents and the City as a whole. 10.3.4. The civic space development standards ensure that the parks and open spaces provided are activated to fulfill adequate public facility needs, while also ensuring that they are diverse in size, location, and design in order to implement the vision of Montava. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 10:Civic SSSSppppaaaacccceeee 82 ooooffff 99993333 Figure 3- Larger Civic Space Areas Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 11:BBBBuuuuffffffffeeeerrrriiiinnnngggg 83 ooooffff 99993333 11. BUFFERING FFFFOOOORRRR RESIDENTIAL AAAANNNNDDDD HIGH OCCUPANCY BUILDING UNITS 11.1. OOOOVVVVEEEERRRRVVVVIIIIEEEEWWWW 11.1.1. LUC Section 3.8.26 requires use of a Buffer Yard D to buffer residential and high occupancy building units from oil and gas operations. 11.1.2. The development standards of LUC Section 3.8.26 shall apply to development of residential and high occupancy building units in the Montava PUD Master Plan except as modified in this Chapter. 11.2. MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIICCCCAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS TTTTOOOO LLLLAAAANNNNDDDD UUUUSSSSEEEE CCCCOOOODDDDEEEE SSSSTTTTAAAANNNNDDDDAAAARRRRDDDDSSSS 11.2.1. Prior to the approval of any Project Development Plan for any phase of development that includes a residential dwelling within 500’, or a high occupancy building unit within 1000’, of one of the two Verified Well Locations within the Montava PUD Master Plan, the Developer shall cause the well at each such location to be plugged or replugged, as applicable, and abandoned under the supervision of a qualified Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Engineer. Evidence of the plugging or replugging, as applicable, and abandonment of a well shall be provided to the City. 11.2.2. Buffer Yard D is exempt from the distances and screening requirements referred to in LUC Section 3.8.26(C)(3) and set forth in Chart 2. 11.2.3. The standards applicable to Buffer Yard D in LUC Sections 3.8.26(C)(4)(a), (b) and (e) are modified as follows and as subject to Sections 11.2.3 and 11.2.4 below: i. Measured. For purposes of the Buffer Yard D standards, the buffer yard shall be measured as the distance from the center of any plugged well to the nearest wall or corner of any dwelling or high occupancy building unit location. Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas. ii. Minimum Buffer Distances. The following minimum buffer distances shall apply: (1) Residential Development. The minimum buffer between a dwelling and the center of any plugged well shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet. Public playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces shall not be placed within a buffer. Private common areas within a buffer shall not contain playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces. (2) High Occupancy Building Units. The minimum buffer between a high occupancy building unit and the center of any plugged well shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet. Public or private playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces shall not be allowed within a buffer iii. Buffer Yard D is exempt from the fencing requirements of Section 3.8.26(C)(4)(e). 11.2.4. The Developer shall for a period five (5) years after the plugging or replugging, as applicable, of the well at each Verified Well Location within the PUD Master Plan complete annual soil and groundwater monitoring at each such location in accordance with the Sampling and Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to Section 11.3.2 below. The results of the annual monitoring shall be provided to the City. 11.2.5. In the event that the results of the annual monitoring indicate that the soil, gas and/or groundwater quality has been adversely impacted in the vicinity of a plugged well, the Developer shall take reasonable and appropriate steps to address any such condition in accordance with the following applicable regulations: United States Environmental Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 11:BBBBuuuuffffffffeeeerrrriiiinnnngggg 84 ooooffff 99993333 Protection Agency (“USEPA”) Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels (“RSLs”); Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (“CDPHE”) Groundwater Protection Values Soil Cleanup levels, and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) 900 Series Rule Table 910-1 screening levels (as to soil); and USEPA Maximum Contaminant Limits (“MCLs”); and CDPHE Groundwater Organic Standards (as to groundwater). 11.3. JUSTIFICATION FOR BUFFERING FOR RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH OCCUPANCY BUILDING UUUUNNNNIIIITTTTSSSS 11.3.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(3)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modified development standards for Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. 11.3.2. A Phase I Environmental Assessment of the Montava PUD property was completed by ERO Resources Corporation on September 21, 2017 and a copy thereof is included as Supplemental Documentation to the PUD Master Plan. Historic documentation, including mapping, GPS coordinates and location and well bore data and lots, was obtained from the COGCC for two well sites within the Montava PUD Master Plan boundary; neither well has a documented history of active operations. The Lind Farms (west) wellbore documentation indicates it was drilled, abandoned and plugged within a short time period in 1973. The Chandler (east) wellbore documentation dated 1999 indicates it was drilled and abandoned. Historic documentation for the two wells has been provided as Supplemental Documentation to the PUD Master Plan. There is no visible sign of either the Lind Farms or Chandler wellbores. Farming operations have taken place over the well locations for many years. Since there is no visible sign of the wells, the Developer engaged Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC (“GPRS”) to search for the underground well heads using ground-based electromagnetic equipment, and evidence of the two well locations was discovered in June, 2018. Shallow excavations were conducted in both locations, but no well head was found or exposed, so they were presumed to be deeper underground. Subsequent to the Phase I Environmental Assessment and the GPRS site survey, TRC Solutions, a qualified environmental engineering and consulting firm with experience in oil and gas investigations prepared a Sampling and Monitoring Plan dated June 21, 2018 which plan was approved by the Director. The approved Sampling and Monitoring Plan includes the following requirements: i. Site survey, historical research, and/or physical locating techniques to determine exact location and extent of oil and gas operations and facilities ii. Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections. iii. Soil sampling, including soil gas testing means and methods iv. Groundwater sampling means and methods Thereafter, TRC Solutions conducted site investigations, sampling and testing in accordance with the approved Sampling and Monitoring Plan and prepareda Phase II Environmental Assessment on June 19, 2019. The sampling results for soil were screened against the following applicable residential regulations: USEPA Residential Soil RSLs; CDPHE Groundwater Protection Values Soil Cleanup levels, and COGCC 900 Series Rule Table 910- 1 screening levels. The sampling results for groundwater were screened against the following applicable residential regulations: USEPA MCLs; and CDPHE Groundwater Organic Standards. The report concluded that the soil and groundwater samples at the two Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 11:BBBBuuuuffffffffeeeerrrriiiinnnngggg 85 ooooffff 99993333 well locations met these requirements and that there are no constituents in the soil or groundwater that pose risk to human health or the environment. Therefore the Minimum Buffer Distances set forth in Section 11.2.3 above would not pose a greater health or safety risk for future residents or users of the site than the Minimum Buffer Distances set forth in Section 3.8.26(C)(4)(b). A copy of the approved Phase II Environmental Assessment is included as Supplemental Documentation to the PUD Master Plan. On September 30, 2019, the Developer engaged Juniter Unmanned Inc. to conduct a drone- mounted aerial magnetic survey of each of the two quarter sections that include the mapped wells, The location of the Lind Farms well bore was confirmed, however, it was determined that the Chandler wellbore is in a different location than had previously been identified. The verified locations of both the Lind Farms and Chandler well bores (“Verified Well Locations”) are shown on the Montava PUD Master Plan. Both Verified Well Locations are subject to the requirements of Section 11.2 which require plugging or replugging, as applicable, use of a Buffer Yard D as modified herein, and five years of annual monitoring with remediation, if necessary. 11.3.3 Modifications to the minimum buffer distances from oil well locations are necessary to enable the uses and densities, including the farm, which are key features for Montava. The oil well sites are located in the area of the planned farm and contiguous residential neighborhoods. The west well area will be protected as a natural open space, and the east well area will remain in farming operations or supporting farm uses. This modification significantly advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan by promoting innovation in design and contiguity within neighborhood uses. This modification provides greater documentation, testing and certainty of potential nuisances related to the abandoned, non-operational oil well sites. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 12:MMMMooooddddiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss 86 ooooffff 99993333 12. MODIFICATIONS TTTTOOOO SSSSUUUUPPPPPPPPLLLLEEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTAAAALLLL RRRREEEEGGGGUUUULLLLAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS 12.1. OOOOVVVVEEEERRRRVVVVIIIIEEEEWWWW 12.1.1. Pursuant to LUC Section 4.29(G)(1), the Supplemental Regulations of LUC Division 3.8 are modified as set forth in Table 12.1 below. The provisions of Division 3.8 that are not modified herein or in Chapter 11 shall continue to be applicable to development within the Montava PUD Master Plan. Table 12.1-1 Modification to Supplemental Regulations Sec. Title Modification 3.8.7 Signs Sec. 3.8.7 will be modified in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.9 Yards Sec. 3.8.9 is modified by Chapter 5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.10 Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements Sec. 3.8.7 is modified by Chapter 6 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.11 Fences and Walls Sec. 3.8.11 is modified by Chapter 5, Section 5.10 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.14 Preemption Uses Sec. 3.8.14 is modified to refer to the uses not permitted under the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards, and to compliance with all development standards of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.15 Housing Model Variety Sec. 3.8.15 is modified by Chapter 5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.17 Building Height Sec. 3.8.17 is modified by Chapter 5, Section 5.6 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.19 Setback Regulations Sec. 3.8.19 is modified by Chapter 5, Section 5.5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.25 Permitted Uses; Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses Sec. 3.8.25 is modified to refer to the applicable standards of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 12:MMMMooooddddiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss 87 ooooffff 99993333 Table 12.1-1 Modification to Supplemental Regulations 3.8.28 Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations Sec. 3.8.28 is modified to allow extra occupancy rental houses in Transect T4 subject to the occupancy limits and separation requirements of the L-M-N zone, and modified to allow extra occupancy rental houses in Transect T5 subject to the occupancy limits and separation requirements of the M-M-N zone, with both subject to basic development review and the occupancy restriction contained in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.30 Multi-family and Single-family Attached Dwelling Development Standards Sec. 3.8.30 is modified by Chapter 5 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 3.8.34 Short Term Rentals Sec. 3.8.34(C) is modified to refer to the transects and special districts of the Montava PUD Master Plan and their respective lists of permitted uses described in Chapter 2 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. Sec. 3.8.34(D) is modified to refer to the Parking standards in Chapter 6 of the Montava PUD Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards. 12.2. JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFICATIONS 12.2.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an in-depth explanation of how the modifications to the Supplemental Regulations advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. 12.2.2. Unlike other LUC standards, the Supplemental Regulations cover a wide variety of subjects. As a result there are a variety of reasons that modifications are necessary to enable the development vision of Montava. 12.2.3. Section 3.8.7 Signs: This section is modified in order to correlate existing signage provisions to the Transect Districts used in Montava. Minor modifications are included in order to address the types of buildings planned for Montava’s town center. The building are similar to Downtown’s existing building stock. As such, the majority of existing standards are retained. 12.2.4. Sections 3.8.8 Lots and 3.8.9 Yards: These sections are closely related and replaced together by Montava’s design standards which specify lot sizes, setbacks, and frontage yard standards in accordance with the Transect Districts and building types planned for Montava. The Transect Districts each handle yards differently, related to the type of buildings and uses within them. Lot sizes, orientation, and boundaries similarly vary by Transect District in order to accommodate the building types and uses specific to each district. 12.2.5. Section 3.8.10 Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements: This section is modified by Montava’s comprehensive parking standards, which include standards for each use, with differentiation based upon Transect District. This differentiation correlates with Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 12:MMMMooooddddiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss 88 ooooffff 99993333 parking demand differences between neighborhoods and centers, and accommodates parking conditions anticipated by Montava’s development intent. 12.2.6. Section 3.8.11 Fencing and Walls: This section is modified by Montava’s design standards which are tightly correlated with standards for lots, yards, and building facades, coordinated by Transect District. Fencing allowances differ by Transect District in material, height, location, and where they are permitted or prohibited. The standards also address the Frontage Yard concept of the Montava design standards which is the most significant design control, coordinating yard elements according to the intensity of use in each district. 12.2.7. Section 3.8.14 Preemption Uses: This section is modified in order to correlate the existing standards with Montava’s Transect Districts, within which uses are regulated. Details of Section 3.8.14 standards are not modified. 12.2.8. Section 3.8.15 Housing Model Variety: This section is modified because it is provided for in an alternative manner and precludes unforeseen means of providing for model variety. Additionally, the repetition of a small number of units has been used very successfully as an advantageous design feature. Housing model control is provided by the mixture of Transect Districts and lot sizes proposed for Montava. Lot size variety responds to different housing types that are desired by the market. At the scale of Montava, the development has to attract residents from multiple market segments. Each phase of Montava targets 3 or more market segments, which demand different types and sizes of homes. Across the site, the mixture of Transect Districts further varies the lot conditions for homes, with different responses to varied setbacks and street conditions. Overall, variety of experience is central to Montava’s design vision. 12.2.9. Section 3.8.17 Building Height: This section is modified by Montava’s design standards in order to correlate building height to Montava’s Transect Districts and encourage compatibility. Building height is limited by the district, most of which are mixed-use. Height similarities between uses aids in use compatibility within mixed-use neighborhoods. Building height is correlated with setbacks and frontage yards to establish the character of each Transect District. 12.2.10. Section 3.8.19 Setback Regulations: This section is modified by Montava’s deisgn standards in order to correlate building height to Montava’s Transect Districts and encourage compatibility. Setbacks are determined by the Transect District rather than by building use. Consistent setback ranges between different uses and building types contributes to compatibility, along with similarities in building height. Similarly, a townhouse very close to the sidewalk with a stoop responds to a very different market demand and character than a townhouse with a deep, landscaped setback and a porch. The physical relationship between buildings and sidewalks and variation thereof across the site establishes the character of each Transect District. 12.2.11. Section 3.8.25 Permitted Uses; Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses: This section is modified in order to reference the applicable Montava design standards as they are applicable to aspects of abandonment and reconstruction. Other specific requirements of Section 3.8.25 are not modified. 12.2.12. Section 3.8.28 Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations: This section is modified in order to correlate Montava’s Transect Districts to the applicable standards in Section 3.8.28 for Transect Districts within which the use is permitted. Other specific requirements of Section 3.8.28 are not modified. 12.2.13. Section 3.8.30 Multi-Family and Single-Family Attached Dwelling Development Standards: This section is modified by Montava’s design standards which establish use compatibility Montava Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt SSSSttttaaaannnnddddaaaarrrrddddssss CH 12:MMMMooooddddiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss 89 ooooffff 99993333 within mixed-use neighborhoods by Transect Districts. Each district employs similar building height, setback, yard, and façade treatment standards in order to create compatibility between single-family, single-family attached, multi-family, and non- residential uses. 12.2.14. Section 3.8.34 Short Term Rentals: This section is modified to refer to the Transect District use tables for Montava in order to determine where Short Term Rentals are permitted, and to Montava’s parking standards for standards related to Short Term Rentals. Monnnnttttaaaavvvvaaaa Mo Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt Standards Standards CH 13:Definitions 90 ooooffff 99993333 13. DEFINITIONS 13.1. REQUEST FFFFOOOORRRR MMMMOOOODDDDIIIIFFFFIIIIEEEEDDDD DDDDEEEEFFFFIIIINNNNIIIITTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS 13.1.1. The following definitions shall apply whenever one of the following specific terms is used in the PUD Master Plan and such definition shall modify Section 5.1.2 of the LUC in regard to such terms. With the exception of the definitions contained in this Chapter 13 and any future definition modifications which may be approved, the definitions of LUC Section 5.1.2 shall apply to development within the PUD Master Plan. 13.1.2. Term. Definition. a. AAAAcccccccceeeessssssssoooorrrryyyy DDDDwwwweeeelllllllliiiinnnngggg UUUUnnnniiiitttt (ADU). A dwelling unit that is subservient to a primary dwelling unit in size, location, and design, often located above garages or in independent buildings towards the rear of a property. ADU’s may be rented provided the property owner lives in the primary dwelling unit. Alternatively, the property owner may live in the ADU and rent the primary dwelling unit. b. AAAAlllllllleeeeyyyy Loaded.Referring to properties where vehicular access is provided from an alley. c. CCCCiiiivvvviiiicccc Space.The category of use types described in Chapter 10 which are intended for active or passive recreation, community gatherings and events, and public and/or private supportive structures. d. Cluster;CCCCoooottttttttaaaaggggeeee Cluster;CCCClllluuuusssstttteeeerrrr Housing;BBBuuuiiillldddiiinnnggg Building Cluster.More than one building arranged on a single lot or adjacent lots, designed together for aesthetic purposes or for the purpose of repeated building within Montava. e. CCCCoooonnnnttttiiiinnnnuuuuoooouuuussss Yard.A yard type where the yards of neighboring properties are not distinguished from each other by fencing, hedges, or buildings. f. Facade.The vertical elevation of a building along one plane. g. FFFFaaaarrrrmmmm animals.Animals commonly raised or kept in an agricultural, rather than an urban, environment, including, but not limited to, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, cattle, llamas, emus, ostriches, donkeys and mules, chicken hens, ducks or pygmy or dwarf goats h. Food ccccaaaatttteeeerrrriiiinnnngggg or ssssmmmmaaaallllllll food ppprrroooddduuucccttt product preparation.An establishment in which the principal use is the preparation of food and/or meals on the premises, and where such food and/or meals are delivered to another location for consumption or distribution, and where such use occupies not more than five thousand (5,000) square feet in gross floor area in T2 and not more than two thousand (2,000) square feet in gross floor area in T4. i. Food mmmmeeeemmmmbbbbeeeerrrrsssshhhhiiiipppp ddddiiiissssttttrrrriiiibbbbuuuuttttiiiioooonnnn site.A site where a producer of agricultural products delivers them for pick-up by customers who have pre-purchased an interest in the agricultural products. j. FFFFrrrroooonnnntttt setback.The closest distance a structure is permitted to be located relative to the front lot line. k. Frontage.The portion of the property located between the front lot line and the primary structure front setback and between the side street lot line and the primary structure side street setback, extended to side and rear lot lines. l. Frontage,Primary.(see Primary Frontage) m. Frontage,Secondary.(see Secondary Frontage) n. FFFFrrrroooonnnnttttaaaaggggeeee Projection.Building elements that project forward more than 2 feet beyond frontage facades into the front setback or side street setback Monnnnttttaaaavvvvaaaa Mo Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt Standards Standards CH 13:Definitions 91 ooooffff 99993333 o. FFFFrrrroooonnnnttttaaaaggggeeee Facade.The building facade closest to and facing the front lot line and the side street lot line. p. FFFFrrrroooonnnnttttaaaaggggeeee FFFFaaaaccccaaaaddddeeee FFFFeeeennnncing.cing. Fencing that is aligned with, or parallel up to 20 feet behind, a frontage facade, spanning between the frontage facade and a side or rear property line. q. FFFFrrrroooonnnnttttaaaaggggeeee Fencing.Yard fencing that is located along or within frontages. r. FFFFrrrroooonnnnttttaaaaggggeeee Landscaping.Landscaping that is located within a frontage. s. FFFFrrrroooonnnnttttaaaaggggeeee Yard.The portion of a property located between frontage facades and frontages. t. Glazing;FFFFaaaaccccaaaaddddeeee Glazing.The portion of a building facade that is comprised of transparent glass, typically set in windows and doors. u. HHHHoooouuuussssiiiinnnngggg Cluster.(see Cluster Housing) v. Intensity.A relative measure used to describe the extent or amount of activity, housing, or diverse uses in a given area. w. LLLLaaaannnnddddssssccccaaaappppeeee aaaarrrreeeeaaaa means that area within the boundaries of a lot or tract of land which consists of planting materials including, but not limited to, trees, shrubs, ground covers, grass, flowers, and native plant materials; also including, but not limited to, inorganic features such as concrete planters, stone, brick, and aggregate forms, water, and other landscape elements. Inorganic elements shall not predominate over the use of organic plant material. Artificial plants are not considered landscape materials. x. LLLLiiiinnnneeeerrrr Building.A building or structure that is located between an off-street parking area and a street, which provides a visual barrier partially or wholly obscuring the off-street parking area from view by pedestrians along sidewalks. y. Lot Coverage.The portion of a lot that is covered by impervious surfaces as a percentage of the gross lot area. z. Lot Occupation.The portion of a lot that is covered by buildings and covered structures as a percentage of the gross lot area. aa. OOOOffffffff--ssssttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt ppppaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg space.A parking space on private land accessible from a usable street or alley. bb. Open-Open -aaaaiiiirrrr ffffaaaarrrrmmmmeeeerrrrssss market.An occasional or periodic market held in an open area or in a structure where groups of individual sellers offer for sale to the public such items as fresh produce, seasonal fruits, fresh flowers, arts and crafts items, and food and beverages (but not to include second-hand goods) dispensed from booths located on-site. cc. OOOOuuuuttttbbbbuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnngggg..A structure that is of secondary importance, due to both size and use, to one or more principal buildings on a lot. Outbuildings may contain accessory uses, including accessory dwelling units. dd. OOOOuuuuttttddddoooooooorrrr vendor.Any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or employee, who sells or attempts to sell, or who offers to the public free of charge, any services, goods, wares or merchandise, including, but not limited to, food or beverage, from any outdoor location, except for those activities excluded from the definition of outdoor vendor in §15-381 of the City Code. ee. PPPPrrrriiiimmmmaaaarrrryyyy Frontage.Frontage that is located along the property line that bears the lot’s address. ff. PPPPrrrriiiinnnncccciiiippppaaaallll BBBBuuuuiiiillllddddiiiinnnnggggssss..Any structure on a lot that is not considered an outbuilding. Monnnnttttaaaavvvvaaaa Mo Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt Standards Standards CH 13:Definitions 92 ooooffff 99993333 gg. RRRReeeeaaaarrrr AAAAlllllllleeeeyyyy Setback.The closest distance a structure is permitted to be located relative to the rear lot line in instances that an alley is located along the rear lot line. hh. Rear Setback.The closest distance a structure is permitted to be located relative to the rear lot line. ii. SSSSeeeeccccoooonnnnddddaaaarrrryyyy Frontage.All frontages other than the primary frontage. jj. Shopfront.The portion of a facade bordering a commercial occupancy or tenant. kk. SSSSiiiiddddeeee Setback.The closest distance a structure is permitted to be located relative to the side lot line. ll. SSSSiiiiddddeeee SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt LLLLooootttt Line.Any lot line, other than the front lot line, that is located along a right-of-way or civic space. mm. SSSSiiiiddddeeee SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt Setback.The closest distance a structure is permitted to be located relative to the side street lot line. nn. SSSSiiiiddddeeee SSSShhhhaaaarrrreeeedddd Fencing.Fencing that is located along property lines shared between two or more properties. oo. STC. Sound Transmission Class, a standard measure of the amount of sound insulation provided by a material or assembly of materials.. pp. Story.The vertical extent of one floor within a structure. qq. SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt Screen.A wall, hedge, structure, or other element that partially or wholly obscures the view of off-street parking and services areas from view by pedestrians along sidewalks. rr. Transect.An organizational element used to arrange, divide, and allocate elements of the built environment and their regulations in order to establish compatibility through intensity of use, diversity of use, hardness of material, height of buildings, and other elements of the built environment rather than through the buffering of different adjacent uses. ss. UUUUrrrrbbbbaaaannnn agriculture.Gardening or farming involving any kind of lawful plant, whether for personal consumption, sale and/or donation, including the cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers produced on the premises. tt. VVVVaaaalllluuuueeee AAAAddddddddeeeedddd Agriculture.Processing, packaging and preservation of agricultural commodities and products for storage or sale. uu. VVVVeeeetttteeeerrrriiiinnnnaaaarrrryyyy facilities,hospital.Any facility which is maintained by or for the use of a licensed veterinarian in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of animal diseases. 13.2. JUSTFICATION FFFFOOOORRRR DDDDEEEEFFFFIIIINNNNIIIITTTTIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS 13.2.1. As required by LUC Sections 4.29(G)(b) and (c), following is an explanation of how the modified Definitions advance and are necessary for the achievement of the development objectives of Montava. To ensure that Montava’s development standards are properly interpreted, a set of additional definitions is provided. Three types of terms are included: terms that are unique to Montava are included, terms within the Land Use Code that are modified for use within Montava, and terms within the Land Use Code we wish to vest with their current definition. Some terms are similar to LUC terms, such as those relating to lot lines and frontages. These new definitions are designed to clarify regulations relating to frontage, which also rely upon lot lines to determine where frontages are located. These development standards focus more heavily on frontage than the LUC, necessitating new definitions. New use definitions are also included, primarily to ensure that the Farm can fully function and that agrarian Monnnnttttaaaavvvvaaaa Mo Uses,Densities,aaaannnndddd DDDDeeeevvvveeeellllooooppppmmmmeeeennnntttt Standards Standards CH 13:Definitions 93 ooooffff 99993333 elements can be fully integrated into Montava, as envisioned in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. CIty Plan Neighborhood Livability and Social Health Policy LIV 3.2 – Access to outdoor spaces Policy LIV 3.4 – Design standards and guidelines Policy LIV 3.5 – Distinctive design Policy LIV 3.6 – Context-sensitive development Principle LIV 4: Enhance neighborhood livability Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices Policy LIV 6.4 – Permanent supply of affordable housing Policy LIV 9.1 – Efficiency and resource conservation Policy LIV 9.2 – Outdoor water use Culture and Recreation Policy CR 2.1 – Recreation opportunities Policy CR 2.2 – Interconnected system Economic Health Policy EH 4.4 – Future employment areas Policy EH 6.1 – Balanced growth Environmental Health Principle ENV 1: Conserve, create and enhance ecosystems and natural spaces within Fort Collins, the GMA and the region Policy ENV 3.2 – Efficient buildings Policy ENV 3.3 – Electrification Safe Community Policy SC 4.1 – Active transportation Policy SC 4.2 – Design for active living Policy SC 4.3 – Community gardens and markets Policy SC 4.4 – Regional food system Transportation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 35 Principle T 1: Coordinate transportation plans, management and investment with land use plans and decisions Policy T 2.3 – Layered networks Policy T 2.7 – Complete network Policy T 6.1 – Connected bicycle facilities Policy T 7.1 – Pedestrian facilities Policy T 7.4 – Pedestrian connections Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan Land Use PRINCIPLE MV-LU-1 The Mountain Vista subarea will have a balance of residential, employment, commercial, civic, and open lands uses. Policy MV-LU-1.2 Policy MV-LU-1.4 Policy MV-LU-1.6 Economic Sustainability and Development Policy MV-ECON-1.3 Transportation PRINCIPLE MV-T-1 Consistent with the Land Use Code, the transportation system within this subarea will have: 1) Arterial corridors providing safe and efficient multi-modal access to and through the subarea, including major features such as railroad under/overpasses (where necessary), and significant landscape mitigation features; 2) Multi-modal connections to and across the arterial corridors, including pedestrian and bicycle connections, providing convenient access to and from the local networks that serve individual developments and buildings; and 3) Integrated local networks with direct, convenient interconnections between developments and surrounding areas. Policy MV-T-1.4 PRINCIPLE MV-T-3 The Community Commercial District will be designed with an emphasis on pedestrians. Policy MV-T-3.1 Policy MV-T-3.2 Community Appearance and Design PRINCIPLE MV-CAD-1 Important views toward the nearby mountains should be preserved and emphasized by the arrangement and design of development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 35 Policy MV-CAD-1.1 Policy MV-CAD-1.2 Policy MV-CAD-1.3 Natural Areas and Open Lands PRINCIPLE MV-NOL-1 This subarea will provide a balanced system of recreation facilities, parks, trails, natural areas, and open lands. Policy MV-NOL-1.2 Policy MV-NOL-1.3 Policy MV-NOL-1.4 Policy MV-NOL-1.5 Policy MV-NOL-1.6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 35 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY October 2018 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2 Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 6 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Traffic Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 12 3 Project Travel Demand ...................................................................................................... 19 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 19 Project Travel Demand Estimation ........................................................................................................ 23 4 Regulatory Framework and Scenario Development ......................................................... 33 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 33 Scenario Development Methodology .................................................................................................. 35 5 Year 2040 Baseline and Project Conditions ...................................................................... 43 Year 2040 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................ 43 Year 2040 Plus Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 48 6 Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 62 7 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 74 Table of Figures Figure 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 Existing Street Network and Study Intersections ................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Existing Transit Network ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations ........................................................................... 16 Figure 6 Existing Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions ................................................................. 17 Figure 7 Proposed Street Network and Classification System ...................................................... 20 Figure 8 Planned Bicycle Network ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9 Planned Pedestrian Network ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 10 Trip Distribution and Assignment – Inbound Trips ............................................................. 29 Figure 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment – Outbound Trips ......................................................... 30 Figure 12 AM Peak Project-Generated Trips ...................................................................................... 31 Figure 13 PM Peak Project-Generated Trips ...................................................................................... 32 Figure 14 Year 2040 NFRMPO Model Output ................................................................................... 36 Figure 15 Average Annual Growth Rates – Roadway Network ..................................................... 38 Figure 16 Calculated Year 2040 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .................................. 39 Figure 17 Approved but Not Built Project Vehicle Trips ................................................................... 41 Figure 18 Total Baseline Year 2040 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................. 42 Figure 19 Year 2040 Baseline Intersection Lane Configurations .................................................... 46 Figure 20 Year 2040 Baseline Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions .......................................... 47 Figure 21 Year 2040 plus Project Lane Configurations .................................................................... 50 Figure 22 Year 2040 plus Project Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions..................................... 53 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3 Figure 23 Transfort Transit Master Plan Future Scenario 2 .............................................................. 56 Figure 24 School Locations and Routing ............................................................................................... 59 Figure 25 Year 2040 plus Project with Mitigation - Traffic Control and Lane Configurations ......................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 26 Year 2040 plus Project Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions – With Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. 72 List of Tables Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions (HCM Method) ............................. 13 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions (HCM Method) ......................... 14 Table 3 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................. 14 Table 4 Existing Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service .......................................... 18 Table 5 Land Use Program .................................................................................................................. 23 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimation ...................................................................................... 27 Table 7 Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) .................................................................... 34 Table 8 Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS Standards .............................................................................. 35 Table 9 Average Annual Growth Rates (Year 2012 to 2040) .................................................... 37 Table 10 Approved but Unbuilt Projects – Trip Generation ........................................................... 40 Table 11 Year 2040 Baseline Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service ................... 44 Table 12 Potential Intersection Improvements Summary – Year 2040 Baseline ......................... 48 Table 13 Year 2040 Plus Project Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service .............. 54 Table 14 Pedestrian Level of Service Summary ................................................................................ 61 Table 15 Mitigation Measure Summary Table ................................................................................... 64 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Master Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed Montava Development (herein referred to as the "project") and to examine the extent to which the project would affect the surrounding circulation network. The scope of work for this transportation study includes an analysis of potential transportation and circulation impacts under future (2040) analysis scenarios. The TIS was prepared in accordance with the guidelines and standards per the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (2007) and in coordination with the City of Fort Collins. For purposes of assessing transportation and circulation conditions within the project environs, vehicle trips were estimated based on trip generation rates and vehicle distribution data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (ITE, 2018) and adjustments were applied to account for the context of the project site and proposed multimodal environs. Nelson\Nygaard collected existing roadway volumes and intersection turning movement counts (auto, bicycle and pedestrian) on Tuesday, April 3, 2018 during the typical weekday commute peak period (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). It is noted that intersection and roadway data was collected when all schools were in session, during a typical weekday (and not around a national holiday period) and weather conditions included clear skies and moderate temperatures. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Three analysis scenarios were analyzed to determine the extent to which the project may affect the surrounding transportation environment during weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods. These scenarios are discussed below:  Existing Conditions − This scenario represents current traffic conditions and the existing roadway network. Intersection traffic volumes are based on existing intersection turning movement counts collected by Nelson\Nygaard.  Future Year (2040) Baseline Conditions – Future traffic conditions based on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) regional travel demand model. This scenario also includes approved but unbuilt projects (and associated trip generation estimates) provided by City staff.  Future Year (2040) Plus Project – Year 2040 conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project and per recommended street network changes associated with the project.1 1 Note: at time of publication, the City is currently reviewing the Master Street Plan Amendment associated with the project and therefore, the analysis results for Year 2040 plus Project scenario herein may be subject to change. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5 The following chapters provide a detailed description and methodology of each above-mentioned scenario. STUDY AREA The project site 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 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 Subarea 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). The roadway network in and around the project site is comprised mostly of rural and residential streets with limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities (bikeways, sidewalks) and on-street parking. Figure 1 presents the study area. Figure 1 Study Area Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing transportation-related context of the project is described below, beginning with a description of the street network that serves the project site and surroundings. Existing transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the project are also described. Intersection and roadway segment levels of service are then defined, and current conditions for roadways and intersections in the project vicinity are summarized. ROADWAY NETWORK The project site is located in the northeastern region of the City of Fort Collins and bounded by Richards Lake Road to the north, Busch Drive to the east, Turnberry Road to the west, and Mountain Vista Drive to the south. Interstate 25 (I-25) and a series of City arterial roadways provide regional and local access to the project site. A full description of regional and local roadways in the context of the project vicinity is provided below. Figure 2 illustrates the existing street network and intersections selected for analysis. Regional Roadways Interstate 25 (I-25) is a north-south highway that stretches the entire extents of Colorado and provides regional access to the City of Fort Collins. Within the study area, I-25 has two travel lanes in each direction. There is one full-access interchange at Mountain Vista Drive. The most recent data published by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) indicates that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume on I-25 is about 31,000 vehicles near the project site2. 2 Colorado Department of Transportation; available online at: https://data.colorado.gov/Transportation/Highway- Traffic-Counts-in-Colorado-2015/3bgg-gcfa/data ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7 Figure 2 Existing Street Network and Study Intersections Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Street System Roadways Local roadways that serve the project site include Richards Lake Road, Mountain Vista Drive, Timberline Road, Giddings Road, and Turnberry Road, which also provide additional connections to other local and regional streets. These and other local streets are described below. Mountain Vista Drive is an east-west arterial that connects between Turnberry Road and I- 25 interchange (and points further east). The road includes one travel lane in each direction, is undivided (no median) and includes no sidewalks or on-street parking. The road includes a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane. The road is classified as two-lane arterial between Turnberry Road and Timberline Road and as a four-lane arterial between Timberline Road and the I-25 interchange per the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan (2013). Timberline Road is a north-south arterial that connects between Mountain Vista Drive and Vine Drive (and points further south beyond City boundaries). Within the project area, the road has one travel lane in each direction with no sidewalks or on-street parking direction. The road includes a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane. Per the Master Street Plan, Timberline Road is classified as a four-lane arterial between Mountain Vista Drive and Prospect ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8 Road and then a six-lane arterial south of Prospect Road to Harmony Road, and then a four- lane arterial further south of Harmony Road. Richards Lake Road is an east-west arterial that connects between I-25 and Turnberry Road (and points further west in Larimer County). The road has one travel lane in each direction and does not include sidewalks, bikeways, or on-street parking. The road is classified as a two-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan. Turnberry Road is a north-south arterial that connects between Douglas Road and Mountain Vista Drive and includes one travel lane in each direction. The road includes striped bike lanes on-street parking. There are intermittent sidewalks located along the road between Brightwater Drive and Country Club Road. The road is classified as a two-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan. Giddings Road is a north-south arterial that connects between Country Road 58 (in Larimer County) and Mountain Vista Drive and includes one lane in each direction. The road includes a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane and the road does not include sidewalks or on-street parking. The road is classified as a two-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan. Busch Drive is a north-south collector that connects between Richards Lake Road and Mountain Vista Drive and includes one lane in each direction. The road includes a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane and the road does not include sidewalks or on-street parking. The road is classified as a two-lane collector per the Master Street Plan. Vine Drive is an east-west street that connects between I-25 and Lemay Avenue and includes one lane in each direction. The road includes a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane and intermittent sidewalks and on-street parking north of Conifer Street. The road is classified as a two-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan. Lemay Avenue is a north-south street that connects between Country Club Road and Vine Drive and includes one lane in each direction. The road includes a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane or on-street parking. There are intermittent sidewalks along the road, primarily adjacent to residences but not along the entire extents of the road. The road is classified as a four-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan. Bar Harbor Road is a north-south collector that connects between Brightwater Drive and Country Club Road. The road includes one travel lane, a striped bike lane and on-street parking in each direction. The road is classified as a two-lane collector per the Master Street Plan. Maple Hill Drive is an east-west road that connects between Turnberry Road and Thoreau Drive. The road includes one travel lane, a striped bike lane and on-street parking in each direction. The road is classified as a local street per the Master Street Plan . Country Club Road is an east-west street that connects between Terry Lake Road (in Larimer County) and Thoreau Drive and includes one lane in each direction. The road does not include sidewalks or on-street parking. The road does include a wide, striped shoulder lane that serves as a bike lane. The road is classified as a two-lane collector per the Master Street Plan. Suniga Drive currently exist as an east-west street that connects between Blue Spruce Drive and Redwood Street and includes two lanes in each direction (separated by a planted/landscaped median). The road includes separated sidewalks and bikeways and no on- street parking. Suniga is proposed to replace Vine Drive as a four-lane arterial from College Avenue to Timberline Road. This realigned road is classified as a four-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan, and will connect to Vine Drive east of Timberline Drive. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9 Conifer Street is an east-west street that connects between College Avenue and Lemay Avenue. The road includes one travel lane, a striped bike lane and on-street parking in each direction. The road is classified as a two-lane collector between College Avenue and Lemay Avenue and then becomes a two-lane arterial per the Master Street Plan. Transit Service Transfort operates fixed-route bus transit service throughout the City of Fort Collins and portions of Larimer County. There is currently no transit service within or adjacent to the project area, with the exception of Route 14, which operates along Vine Drive. This route operates as loop traveling eastbound along Vine Drive and providing connectivity to the Downtown Transit Center. Three stops are located in the study area along Vine Drive at Three Forks Drive, Campfire Drive, and Waterglen Drive. Route 14 operates with a one-hour frequency throughout the service period on all days of the week. Service runs from 6 AM to 6 PM on weekdays and Saturdays, and from 8 AM to 6 PM on Sundays. Per Transfort’s Strategic Plan3, there is consideration of extending the transit service network to the northeast region of the City, and provide bus service along Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive. No detailed plans have been approved nor implemented at the time of publication of the Master TIS document. The Colorado Department of Transportation provides the “Bustang” interregional transit service to communities, major employment centers and local transit hubs along the I-25 and I-70 corridors. The North Line service provides a direct route between Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center (Mason Street, between Maple Street and Laporte Avenue) and the Denver Downtown Bus Center on weekdays and weekends4. Figure 3 presents the existing transit network in the general vicinity of the project site. 3 Transfort Strategic Plan, information provided online at: http://www.ridetransfort.com/abouttransfort/plans-and- projects/transfort-strategic-plan 4 CDOT Bustang, information provided online at: https://www.ridebustang.com/north-line ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10 Figure 3 Existing Transit Network Source: TransFort All Routes Map, 2018. Bicycle Network Figure 4 presents the existing bicycle network in the study area. According to the City of Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan (2014)5, bikeways are classified as bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, priority shared lanes (for both bicyclists and autos), protected bike lanes, and paved trails/shared-use paths (for bicyclists and pedestrians). Within the study area, existing bikeways are located within the Maple Hill Neighborhood which includes striped bicycle lanes (i.e., Maple Hill Drive, Bar Harbor Drive, and Thoreau Drive), and striped bicycle lanes along Turnberry Road. Other bikeways are located along Mountain Vista Drive, Giddings Road, Busch Drive, Timberline Road, Vine Drive, and Lemay Avenue. However, it is noted that these bikeways are currently striped as wide shoulder lanes and do not include specific pavement markings indicated that these are bicycle lanes. Per the Bicycle Master Plan, there are several planned bikeways (including recreational shared- use pathways) in and around the project area. These improvements include protected bike lanes along Mountain Vista Drive and Turnberry Road, a buffered bike lane along Giddings Road, 5 City of Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan, 2014; available online at: https://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/bike-plan.php ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11 Busch Drive and Richards Lake Road, and paved trails/shared-use pathways along Timberline Road and within the Maple Hill Neighborhood. Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Network Source: City of Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan, 2014. Pedestrian Network Pedestrian facilities generally include sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and streetscape/landscape amenities (e.g., benches, tree-lined buffers, planters, bulb-outs, street lighting, etc.). The majority of streets within the study area do not include pedestrian facilities with the exception of the following locations:  Sidewalks on both sides of Turnberry Road between Richards Lake Road and Country Club Road averaging six feet in width.  Sidewalks on the north side of Country Club Road east of Turnberry Road, averaging five feet in width.  Sidewalks on Richards Lake Road between Turnberry Road and the end of the Maple Hill neighborhood, averaging five feet in width with trees.  Sidewalks on Maple Hill Drive and Bar Harbor Drive in the Maple Hill neighborhood averaging five feet in width. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12  Sidewalks along all streets adjacent to residences located at the northeast corner of Mountain Vista Drive and Turnberry Road, and along portions of Conifer Street and Suniga Drive. None of the intersections within the study area include pedestrian signals and crosswalks (with the exception of Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue). There is an existing trail (“Richards Lake Trail”) that runs from southeast to northwest within the Maple Hill Neighborhood and then heads west adjacent to residences in Larimer County. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing intersection operations were evaluated in accordance to regulations and performance standards established by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. All of the study intersections are located within the City of Fort Collins jurisdiction. Intersection count data was collocated on Tuesday, April 3, 2018; Appendix A includes intersection turning movement count data. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodologies Transportation engineers commonly describe the operations of roadways, with respect to motor vehicle traffic delays, using the concept of “automobile level of service” (a.k.a. “level of service” or LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of motor vehicle traffic flow based on factors such as motor vehicle speeds, travel times, and levels of delay at intersections. Transportation engineers describe six levels of service ranging from LOS A (i.e., best operating conditions for motor vehicles) to LOS F (worst operating conditions for motor vehicles). Intersection levels of service for motor vehicles are based on the average amount of delay experienced by drivers traveling through the intersection. As described below, different methods are used to assess signalized and unsignalized (stop-controlled) intersections. Both signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated using methods set forth in the Transportation Research Board’s 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. These methods are approved for traffic level of service analyses as presented in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (2007). The study intersections were analyzed for level of service using Synchro Version 10 traffic analysis software. Signalized Intersections Peak hour levels of motor vehicle delay at signalized intersections were estimated using methods provided in Transportation Research Board’s 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. This operations analysis method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between average control delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions (HCM Method) Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Description A ≤10.0 Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Operations with very low delay, when signal progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green light phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. B >10.0 and ≤20.0 Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: Generally, occurs with good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. C >20.0 and ≤35.0 Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: Higher delays resulting from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Drivers begin having to wait through more than one red light. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D >35.0 and ≤55.0 Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays result from unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. E >55.0 and ≤80.0 Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. High delays indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. F >80.0 Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Occurs with oversaturation when flows exceed the intersection capacity. Represents jammed conditions. Many cycle failures. Queues may block upstream intersections. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Unsignalized Intersections Peak hour levels of motor vehicle delay at unsignalized intersections were estimated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. At two-way or side-street controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, as well as the left-turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between average control delay per vehicle and LOS for unsignalized intersections. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 14 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions (HCM Method) Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Description A ≤10.0 No delay for stop-controlled approaches. B 10.0 and ≤15.0 Operations with minor delay. C >15.0 and ≤25.0 Operations with moderate delays. D >25.0 and ≤35.0 Operations with increasingly unacceptable delays. E >35.0 and ≤50.0 Operations with high delays, and long queues. F >50.0 Operations with extreme congestion, and with very high delays and long queues unacceptable to most drivers. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. The following intersections in Table 3 were analyzed under existing and future year 2040 baseline conditions and Year 2040 plus Project conditions. It is noted that the evaluation of future intersections (planned by the City and/or the project) are included in Chapter 4. Table 3 Study Intersections No. Intersection Name Status 1 Turnberry Road / Richards Lake Road Existing 2 Turnberry Road / Maple Hill Drive Existing 3 Bar Harbor Drive / Maple Hill Drive Existing 4 Turnberry Road / Country Club Road Existing 5 Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road Existing 6 Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road Existing 7 Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road Existing 8 Giddings Road / Richards Lake Road Existing 9 Busch Drive / Richards Lake Road Existing 10 Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive Existing 11 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp Existing 12 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp Existing 13 Timberline Road / Vine Drive Existing 14 Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive Existing 15 Conifer Street / Turnberry Road Planned by City per MSP1 16 Turnberry Road / Timberline Road / Conifer Street Planned by City per MSP1 17 Timberline Road / Suniga Drive Planned by City per MSP1 18 Giddings Road / Conifer Street Planned per Montava 19 Country Club Road / New Road #3 Planned per Montava 20 Country Club Road / New Road #2 Planned per Montava 21 Maple Hill Drive / New Road #1 Planned per Montava ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 15 22 Richard’s Lake Road / New Road #1 Planned per Montava 23 Giddings Road / New Road #2 Planned per Montava 24 Giddings Road / New Road #3 Planned per Montava 25 Mountain Vista Drive / New Road #4 Planned per Montava Note: 1) these intersections are included in the City’s Master Street Plan (MSP) but are not yet built and operational. Intersection Conditions Analysis The weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection levels of service under existing conditions are shown in Table 4. During both weekday AM and PM peak hours, all of the intersections would operate at acceptable LOS conditions, with the exception of the Vine Drive/Lemay Avenue intersection, which is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour; this is primarily due to heightened delays in the eastbound and westbound approaches along Vine Drive and resulting in unacceptable LOS conditions. Detailed LOS and average delay outputs by approach for each intersection are provided in Appendix B and LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Figure 5 presents the existing intersection lane configurations and Figure 6 presents the LOS conditions for each study intersection under this scenario. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 16 Figure 5 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 17 Figure 6 Existing Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 18 Table 4 Existing Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service # Intersection Control Typea AM Peakb PM Peakb Delayc LOS Delay LOS 1 Turnberry Road / Richards Lake Road TWSC 10.4 (WB) B 9.9 (WB) A 2 Turnberry Road / Maple Hill Drive SSSC 10.7 (WB) B 10.3 (WB) B 3 Bar Harbor Drive / Maple Hill Drive AWSC 7.2 A 7.2 A 4 Turnberry Road / Country Club Road TWSC 15.8 (EB) C 23.7 (EB) C 5 Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road AWSC 11.0 B 9.5 A 6 Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road SSSC 16.5 (NB) C 18.4 (NB) C 7 Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road SSSC 17.1 (SB) C 16.3 (SB) C 8 Giddings Road / Richards Lake Road TWSC 11.5 (WB) B 13.3 (WB) B 9 Busch Drive / Richards Lake Road TWSC 9.2 (NB) A 9.6 (NB) A 10 Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive SSSC 16.8 (SB) C 17.9 (SB) C 11 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp TWSC 12.8 (SB) B 12.7 (SB) B 12 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp TWSC 15.0 (NB) B 27.4 (NB) D 13 Timberline Road / Vine Drive AWSC 24.4 D 23.1 D 14 Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive Signal 37.1 D 58.5 E Notes: a. Signal = Signalized intersection; AWSC = All-Way STOP-Controlled intersection; TWSC = Two-Way STOP-Controlled; and SSSC = Side-Street STOP-Controlled intersection. b. LOS calculations performed using Synchro and Transportation Research Board HCM 2010. c. Average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) is reported for the intersection as a whole for signalized and AWSC intersections, and for worst STOP-controlled movement or approach only for TWSC and SSSC intersections. BOLD indicates intersection operating at unacceptable LOS conditions. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 19 3 PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND This chapter provides a description of the project and a detailed travel demand methodology to estimate vehicle trip generation, distribution, and assignment of project-generated traffic along area roadways and intersections. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 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). Planned Roadway Network The project would introduce a series of new roadways within the development as well as new and/or enhanced connections to the existing roadway network. A Master Street Plan Amendment report has been prepared by Nelson\Nygaard and submitted to City of Fort Collins for review; it is noted that the document is currently under review at the time of preparation of the Master TIS. The Master Street Plan Amendment includes a description of proposed and/or potential improvements to existing and proposed street classifications. In general, the project would not require any substantial, physical changes to current street classifications and would include additional internal streets as well as extensions of existing streets. For example, the proposed street network would include the extension of Turnberry Road further south, the extension of Country Club Road to the east, the extension of Giddings Road to the south, the extension of Timberline Road to the north, and new connections to Conifer Street and Suniga Road. It is noted that these planned improvements support the City’s vision for the Master Street Plan network in the future. The proposed roadway network and street classification is presented in Figure 7. [Note to Reviewer(s): the above discussion of the Master Street Plan Amendment will be revised based on comments/revisions from City staff and therefore, content herein will be subject to change, as appropriate.] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 20 Figure 7 Proposed Street Network and Classification System Source: DPZ and Nelson\Nygaard, June 2018. In addition to the proposed roadway network, the project would also include new and/or improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, creating additional bikeways, recreational trails, and a series of connected, continuous sidewalks. The following figures present the bicycle and pedestrian network associated with the project. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 21 Figure 8 Planned Bicycle Network Source: DPZ and Nelson\Nygaard June 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 22 Figure 9 Planned Pedestrian Network Source: DPZ and Nelson\Nygaard, June 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 23 PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND ESTIMATION The following outlines the methodology to estimate vehicle trips generated by the project. As discussed below, the methodology uses traditional trip generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) and then specific adjustments were incorporated to refine (and reduce) daily and weekday peak-hour vehicle trips based on a number of factors that influence travel behavior. Development Assumptions The table below presents the land-use development assumptions associated with the project at “full buildout” (i.e., all proposed land uses are built and occupied). Table 5 Land Use Program Land Uses Metrics (Units, Square Footage) Residential Single Family Multi Family 2,350 dwelling units 2,110 dwelling units Office 200,000 square feet Retail/Commercial 200,000 square feet Industrial 100 acres (4.35 million square feet) (assumed 20% occupied space = 871,000 square feet) Source: HF2M Colorado, March 2018. As previously described, the project would include infrastructure improvements, including new roadway connections to existing streets bounded by Mountain Vista Drive to the south, Richards Lake Road to the north, Turnberry Road to the west, and I-25 to the east, respectively. As previously illustrated, a complete internal street grid network is proposed that supports mixed- use development, a walkable and bikeable system, and vast areas of open space and trails. It is noted that these build-out assumptions are accounted for in the vehicle trip generation estimation (see discussion below). Methodology The estimation of vehicle trips was based on the planned land-use and infrastructure program area within and adjacent to the project. It is noted that for purposes of the estimation of typical daily and weekday peak-hour vehicle trips, the analysis assumes that the “retail/commercial” uses are defined as “shopping-oriented” uses that may range from small, local retailers (including boutique, “mom-and-pop” shops”) to neighborhood-scaled chain retailers, such as nationally- branded clothing store. In addition, due to the limitations of using national standards vehicle trip generation rates, the planned agricultural and farm-related services are categorized as “general light industrial” uses, which is broadly defined as free-standing facilities devoted to a single use and facilities that have an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing and typically have minimal office space6. Because it is reasonable to assume that planned total acreage of industrial 6 Definition provided in ITE Trip Generation (10th Edition) for “General Light Industrial Uses”. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 24 use (approximately 100 acres) would not generate vehicle trips, it is assumed that approximately 20% of the total space would be occupied by external vehicle-generating uses, therefore, the total acreage was converted to square feet (totaling 4.35 million square feet), then 20% of this space (or 871,200 square feet) was incorporated into the vehicle trip generation analysis; this is shown in Table 1, above. Regardless, in order to not underestimate vehicle trips associated with general retail/commercial and industrial uses, the vehicle trip generation methodology uses industry standards rates that are most comparable to these uses, which are often conservative in nature and thus, generate a higher trip rate; this is explained in detail below. In accordance with Chapter 4 – Transportation Impact Study Guidelines of Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards (2007), the vehicle trip generation methodology uses the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) to determine baseline daily and weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak-hour vehicle trips7. The traditional impact methodologies of the ITE Trip Generation Manual are regularly used to conduct local area or use-specific traffic studies, as they include the most comprehensive sources of empirical data on the traffic impacts of different land uses. That said, Trip Generation is generally well suited for auto-oriented, stand-alone suburban sites, from where the vast majority of data were collected. For downtown mixed-use areas or neighborhoods with good public transportation, ITE simply advises that traffic engineers either collect local data or adjust the ITE average trip generation rate to account for reduced auto use – hence the ad hoc approach used by project proponents. The methods of performing a traffic study often fail to account for a variety of potential conditions that have been shown to have significant impacts on vehicle trip rates, such as parking pricing, quality of bike facilities, live-work mix, or housing density. The traditional methodology for conducting traffic studies is well established in the transportation planning and traffic engineering profession. The first step – which is the only element considered for revision in this study – is to calculate the number of vehicle trips that will be generated by each land use. Engineers draw from the Trip Generation manual, which notes that: “The average trip generation rates… were primarily collected at suburban locations having little or no transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or transportation demand management (TDM) programs. At specific sites, the user may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this document to reflect the presence of public transportation service, ridesharing or other TDM measures, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities, or other special characteristics of the site or surrounding area (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010).” Accordingly, adjustments to the trip generation estimation were applied because of the existing transportation network, accessibility to available modes, and because the project would promote increased modal connectivity and multimodal facilities aimed to reduce dependency on vehicle trips for all trip purposes, and provide a mixed-use development. Internal/External Trip Capture Mixed-use developments, such as the proposed project, generally shorten trips and thus allow what might otherwise be vehicle trips to external destinations to become internal walking, cycling, or transit trips. Thus, a mixed-use development that generates a given number of total trips 7 ITE Land Use Codes used: Land Use 210 (Single Family); Land Use 220 (Multifamily Housing [Low-Rise]); Land Use 820 (Shopping Center); and Land Use Code 110 (Industrial). Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, Volume 2: Date; ITE, 2017. For purposes of this analysis and to provide a conservative estimation of potential vehicle demand, land uses categorized as “suburban-urban” were applied as opposed to land uses categorized as “dense, mixed-use urban, or city core”, to avoid overestimating vehicle trip reductions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 25 creates less demand on the external roadway network than single-use developments generating the same number of trips. For example, the project would include 200,000 square feet of retail located within close proximity to the residential units; therefore, a certain percentage of the residents would likely opt to bike or walk to these shops instead of driving. As a result, a percent reduction in total vehicle trips generated is applicable. Trip reductions were calculated using the MXD+ method developed by Fehr & Peers, which is a combination of quantifiable methods used to more accurately assess trip generation estimation for mixed-use developments; the quantifiable methods that form the basis for the MXD+ method were developed and sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Transportation Research Board (TRB). The MXD+ method uses ITE trip generation rates and then adjusts those estimates to account for the mix of uses and environmental characteristics (e.g., geographic layout of the site, land use in surrounding area, socioeconomic data, proximity to land uses and transportation resources, etc.)8 The findings indicate that the amount of external traffic generated is affected by a wide variety of factors including the mix of employment and residents, the overall size and density of the development, the internal connectivity for walking or driving among land uses, the availability of transit service, and the surrounding trip destinations within the immediate area outside the project site. An empirically validated method of estimating vehicle trip generation at mixed-use developments was the result of the research. The model allows for predicting external vehicle trip reduction as a function of the mixed-use characteristics. Applying the external vehicle trip reduction percentage to “raw trips”, as predicted by ITE, produces an estimate for the number of vehicle trips traveling in or out of the site. To be clear, the basis for this model is the standard ITE trip generation rates and equations. In taking into account the internalization of person trips as well as external walking, biking, and transit trips (all of which reduce vehicle demand generation) and planned multimodal facilities to better connect new uses to existing, nearby destinations, the estimated vehicle trips are reduced by 12% to reflect internal/external trip capture as described above. As previously discussed, there are a number of planned infrastructure improvements that would result in a connected, multimodal network that supports transit and other non-driving modes; key adjustments factors are described below. Additional Reduction Factors for Consideration Jobs-housing balance The balance between jobs and housing serves as an indicator of the overall mix of uses, which has a significant impact on travel behavior. Fewer people will choose to drive if they can access more types of destinations with short walking or bicycling trips. More people will use transit if it is serving multiple types of locations within a short ride; for example, a transit line that accesses both daytime uses such as jobs as well as evening uses such as housing is likely to have greater use. Multiple sources enumerate the auto trip-reducing impact of a good land use mix. For this approach, Robert Cervero and Reid Ewing’s 2010 meta-analysis of more than 200 studies 8 The MXD+ has also been peer reviewed in the ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development (Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(3), 248-261), peer reviewed in a 2012 TRB paper evaluating various smart growth trip generation methodologies (Shafizadeh, Kevan et al. “Evaluation of the Operation and Accuracy of Available Smart Growth Trip Generation Methodologies for Use in California”), promoted in an American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service (Walters, Jerry et al. “Getting Trip Generation Right – Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development”), which recommended it for evaluating traffic generation of mixed-use and other forms of smart growth. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 26 provides well-documented and supported research. Based on elasticities identified in this study, the methodology for the observed or future jobs-housing balance seeks an “ideal” housing balance of 1.5 jobs per household,9 and with percentage adjustments ranging from +3% (poor use mix) to -9%10 (ideal use mix). Using the same formula and methodology and factoring in the existing and future number of housing units and employment within a half mile of the site, the estimated percentage reduction in trips would be approximately 1%. In addition, the methodology gives a small bonus for the presence of local-serving retail of another 2%. This is on the lower end of the spectrum of established research, both to be conservative and to avoid double counting any trips reduced from the jobs-housing mix balance calculation. Transit Access The presence of high-quality transit is a clear factor in auto trip reduction in Fort Collins and for the Montava project in particular. Frequency of service is one of the most important factors in defining the quality of transit service. In addition, the location of transit facilities, including bus stops, stations, and routes play a critical role as well as located such facilities within and adjacent to a walkable and bikeable network; the stronger the connections and frequency, the higher propensity of shifting mode choice from auto to walk, bike, and transit. Transfort is currently updating their Strategic Plan and staff are aware of the potential need to enhance and expand service to the northeast portion of the City and the project site in particular. No service changes or plans have been finalized and such improvements would likely be planned once development in the area becomes realized. Per the TransFort Strategic Operating Plan Update – Phase 3 Improvements, transit service would be located along Vine Drive, Timberline Road, and Mountain Vista Drive, respectively11. Additionally, per the City’s Transportation Master Plan, Timberline Road and Suniga Drive are categorized as “Enhanced Travel Corridors” (ETCs) that are designed for high-frequency transit, bicycling and walking as part of the corridor. These dedicated ETCs are intended to support high-quality economic opportunities for mixed- use, transit-oriented development and support the City’s active lifestyles and environmental goals. The intention of Timberline Road ETC is to enhance travel time through the corridor to connect primary destinations. Suniga Drive would be extended further west to College Avenue and extend to the east with a potential connection to Timberline Road or potentially further east to Giddings Road. The roadway would be 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. It is noted that for purposes of the trip generation estimation, no additional trip reductions were considered based on these potential transit improvements. However, it is reasonable to assume that due to the planned transit improvements; strengthening transit connections and frequency of 9 This number assumes some households have two wage earners, while others have one. For example, a jobs-housing balance above this would indicate that there are more jobs than there is housing to hold those workers. For more information, see Cervero, R., “Jobs-Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility,” University of California Transportation Center, 1989. 10 This number based on research linking jobs-housing balance to an elasticity of demand for VMT. For more information, see Ewing, R. & Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), pp. 265-294. 11 North Front Range Transit Vision Feasibility Study, Final Report (April 2013); available online at: http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/FINAL_NFRTV_Final_Report_April_2013_web.pdf ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 27 service between Montava and other parts of the City, the overall mode shift from auto to transit is likely to occur but not measurable at this point in time. Therefore, by not considering the potential (and foreseeable) reduction in vehicle trips due to enhanced transit service, the analysis provides a very conservative estimation of vehicle trips and over time, the number of trips traveling to/from the project site would be less than as presented herein. Transportation Demand Management There are a number of transportation programs available to residents and employees as well as management measures to regulate traffic and parking demand. Subsidized and/or free transit passes, community- or neighborhood-wide bikeshare programs, Safe Routes to Schools programs, telecommuting, shuttle services, unbundling parking and charging for parking along public/private streets are all examples of systems that have proven to reduce vehicle demand. Because there are no established programs for Montava at this point in time, no reductions (based on empirical and academic findings) were applied. However, it is reasonable to assume as the project develops over time combined with the buildout of a well-connected street network, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and parking programs would be established to further offset vehicle demand generate by the project. Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis This section describes the trip generation estimation of daily and weekday AM and PM peak-hour trips generated by the project. The analysis includes the vehicle trip reduction analysis and adjustments based on the nature of mixed-use development, a multimodal network and accessibility. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimation ITE Land Use Code & Rates1 Project Project Trip Generation Use Daily AM PM Units/Rooms/ksf7 Daily AM PM IN1 Out1 IN1 Out1 Single-Family Detached --2 --2 --2 2,350 units 18,981 418 1,225 1,326 779 Multi-Family (Low-Rise) --3 --3 --3 2,110 units 15,911 199 665 561 330 Retail --4 --4 --4 200 ksf 9,632 156 96 436 472 Office --5 --5 --5 200 ksf 2,078 162 26 35 185 Industrial --6 --6 --6 871.2 ksf8 3,360 195 27 22 147 Unadjusted Total Vehicle Trips 49,962 1,130 2,039 2,380 1,913 Trip Reduction (%)9 -15% -15% -15% Calculated Trip Reduction -7,494 -170 -306 -357 -287 Adjusted Total Vehicle Trips 42,468 961 1,733 2,023 1,626 Notes: 1. Trip rates and Inbound/Outbound trip distribution based on ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition. 2. Daily Rate: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X)+2.71; AM Peak Rate: T = 0.71(X)+4.80; PM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.96 Ln(X)+0.20 3. Daily Rate: T = 7.56(X)-40.86; AM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(X)-0.51; PM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X)-0.02 4. Daily Rate: Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X)+5.57; AM Peak Rate: T = 0.50(X)+151.78; PM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X)+2.89 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 28 5. Daily Rate: Ln(T) = 0.97 Ln(X)+2.50; AM Peak Rate: T = 0.94(X)+26.49; PM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(X)+0.36 6. Daily Rate: T = 3.98(X)+57.96; AM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X)+0.39; PM Peak Rate: Ln(T) = 0.69 Ln(X)+0.43 7. "ksf" = 1,000 gross square feet of development. 8. Analysis assumes that 20% of industrial development comprises buildings that would generated vehicle trips; remaining acreage dedicated to industrial uses would not be generating vehicle trips. 9. Trip Reduction based on MXD+ Model (external/internal trip capture) and additional factors (jobs-housing balance, local-serving retail). Other reduction factors including transit access improvement and TDM are not applicable at this point in time. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution and assignment of project-generated vehicle trips were developed based on the following:  The existing and planned roadway network in proximity of the project site  A review of population densities (distribution of population and housing based on Year 2012 and 2040 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization model outputs) for determining the non-employee trip distribution patterns and model trip assignments along existing/planned roadway network In addition, vehicle trip distribution and assignment patterns were determined based on new access points, land-use distribution throughout the entire project site, and considering the placement of residential uses, non-residential uses, and key access locations to these uses that would be made by residents, employees, and visitors. For example, because the majority of non- residential uses would be concentrated along southwestern, southern, and central portions of the project site, these commercial trips were assigned to specific entry/exit points at the site to reflect more accurate travel patterns for those destined to these locations. The following figures present the vehicle trip distribution (inbound/outbound) and projected- generated traffic during the weekday peak hours. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 29 Figure 10 Trip Distribution and Assignment – Inbound Trips ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 30 Figure 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment – Outbound Trips ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 31 Figure 12 AM Peak Project-Generated Trips ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 32 Figure 13 PM Peak Project-Generated Trips ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 33 4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT This chapter includes a description of the City’s regulatory framework (“significance criteria”) to determine whether a project would result in a significant transportation impact is also included in this chapter. This chapter also provides a detailed methodology of how future scenario under Year 2040 conditions was developed for purposes of this TIS document. It is noted that potential project-related impacts were not evaluated under existing conditions as the buildout of the project relative to other planned developments would occur over a long-term period and per the City’s direction, the evaluation of transportation conditions were under Year 2040, when it is assumed the project and other adjacent developments are fully built and operational. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The City of Fort Collins has established intersection level of service standards, as presented in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, and has defined that a project would significantly impact a study intersection when one of the following criteria are satisfied: At a signalized intersection, an impact is considered significant if it: − When the added project traffic causes movements, approaches, or the overall intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standards in Table 4-3; or − When the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standards; and when the project adds 10 or more vehicle trips through the intersection; or [Note to Reviewer(s): significance criteria is subject to change after review and approval by City Council] − When added project traffic is determined to create potential safety problems.  At an unsignalized intersection, an impact is considered significant if it: − When the added project traffic causes movements at an intersection or the overall intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standards in Table 4-3; or − When the backstacking (queuing) would create impeded traffic flows and/or excessive congestion; or − When added project traffic is determined to create potential safety problems. The LOS standards as referred to in the above criteria is presented below in Table 7. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 34 Table 7 Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Intersection Type Overall Any Approach Leg Any Movement Signalized D1 E E2 Unsignalized Arterial/Arterial E3 F4 -- Collector / Collector Unsignalized D3 F4 -- Arterial/Collector Arterial/Local Collector/Local Local/Local Roundabout E3,5 E4,5 E5 Notes: 1. In mixed use district including downtown as defined by structure plan, overall LOS E is acceptable. 2. Applicable with at least 5% of total entering volume. 3. Use weighted average to identify overall delay. 4. Mitigation may be required. 5. Apply unsignalized delay value thresholds to determine LOS. Source: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Table 4-3(2007). Per Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, all projects are anticipated to achieve the minimum acceptable LOS standard for on- and off-site bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities are to be evaluated for compliance with the following elements, or quality indicators and then ranked with a LOS score; Table 8 presents the LOS criteria12. 12 Full descriptions of each quality indicator is presented in Table 4-4 of the Urban Area Street Standards (page 4-29). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 35 Table 8 Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS Standards Quality Indicators A B C F Security Well used, good lighting levels and unobstructed lines of sight Unobstructed lines of sight, good lighting levels Sidewalk configuration and parked cars present sight problems, moderate lighting Major pedestrian visibility problems, streetscape is pedestrian intolerant Directness < 1.4 1.4 – 1.8 1.8 – 2.2 > 2.2 Continuity Quality, continuous pedestrian networks that are physically separated from street and built to current standards Continuous sidewalk network on both sides of the street. May not be built to current standards Sidewalk network where there may not be sidewalks on both side of the street or there are minor interruptions in connectivity Breakdown in pedestrian network to where each pedestrian chooses a different route Street Crossings (Signalized Intersection) 3 or fewer lanes to cross, clear indications (striping, etc.), well marked crosswalks, good lighting, standard curb ramps, automatic pedestrian signal, pedestrian amenities, unobstructed views 4 or 5 lanes to cross, clear indications, well marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge area, standard curb ramps, pedestrian MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 36 Year 2040 Baseline Conditions For the Master Street Plan Amendment, Year 2040 traffic volumes were used to determine if roadway classifications per the City’s current Master Street Plan need to be modified based on projected future traffic volumes, access locations, and roadway capacities with implementation of the project. Future forecasted background volumes were obtained from the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) forecasting model. The roadway traffic volumes from the NFRMPO model were based on a series of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that encompass the project site. The traffic model data for 2040 is illustrated below in Figure 14. The 2040 model output in the following figure includes three sets of volumes per roadway: “A” represents the combined total of future background traffic volumes with implementation of Montava and Timberline projects; “M” represents preliminary traffic volumes generated by Montava (which are primarily based on the land uses assumed in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan); and “T” represents the preliminary traffic volumes generated by a small TAZ located in the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive, labeled “Timberline”. In order to avoid overestimating future traffic volumes with and without implementation of the project, the “M trips” were subtracted out of the total. Figure 14 Year 2040 NFRMPO Model Output Source: NFRMPO, March 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 37 Calculated average annual growth rates were developed based on model data and presented in Table 9. The growth rates were adjusted based on discussion with City staff and professional judgement and to maintain a level of consistency along each study roadway and intersection. For purposes of the Master TIS report, these growth rates were be applied to the Year 2018 traffic volumes that were collected by Nelson\Nygaard in April 2018. These traffic volumes represent Year 2040 baseline intersection turning movement volumes and were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hours (see Chapter 5). Figure 15 illustrates the calculated average annual growth rates that were applied to existing Year 2018 volumes and Figure 16 presents the initial baseline intersection turning movements with the applied average annual growth rates. Table 9 Average Annual Growth Rates (Year 2012 to 2040) Street Location 2012 Model 2040 (Adjusted) Model1 Average Annual Growth Rate2 Richards Lake Road East of Giddings Road 895 4,928 6% Richards Lake Road West of Giddings Road 1,180 4,090 5% Turnberry Road North of Maple Hill Drive 690 1,978 4% Bar Harbor Drive South of Maple Hill Drive n/a n/a n/a Country Club Road South of Sherell Drive 8,139 11,248 1% Turnberry Road North of Sherell Drive 6,959 9,258 1% Mountain Vista Drive West of Timberline Road 8,399 10,149 1% Mountain Vista Drive East of Timberline Road 7,579 15,523 3% Mountain Vista Drive West of Busch Drive 6,410 13,259 3% Timberline Road South of Mountain Vista Drive 6,776 15,926 3% Giddings Road North of Mountain Vista Drive 1,605 2,661 2% Suniga Road West of Timberline Road 7,000 26,041 5% Notes: 1. Volumes represent Year 2040 model output volumes without Montava trips. 2. Growth rate (extrapolation) calculation: Rate = ((2040 Volume / 2012 Volume)^(1/2040-2012)))-1. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 38 Figure 15 Average Annual Growth Rates – Roadway Network ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 39 Figure 16 Initial Baseline Year 2040 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 40 Approved but Unbuilt Projects – Travel Demand Estimation In addition to these 2040 baseline volumes, there are a number of approved but not built projects planned within the study area; these projects are listed below. Estimated project-generated traffic from these approved but not built projects, including intersection turning movements for intersections within the project area were provided by the City of Fort Collins. The majority of these projects would be located the north and south sides of Vine Drive between College Avenue and the I-25 interchange; however, Water’s Edge would be located north of the project site. Nelson\Nygaard applied trip distribution and assignment of these estimated vehicle trips throughout the study area network and it is noted that due to the location of these projects, it is reasonable to assume that not all vehicle trips from these planned developments would traverse through the entire study area but for only a few study intersections, as appropriate. The estimated vehicle trips within the study area from approved but not built projects are illustrated in Figure 17 on the following page. Table 10 Approved but Unbuilt Projects – Trip Generation Project AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Eastridge 162 210 Old Towne North 8 8 Timbervine 3 3 Waterfield (3rd Filing) 61 81 Capstone Cottages 3 5 Waters Edge 18 29 Trailhead Condos 10 12 Crowne at Old Town North 31 37 Old Towne North (3rd Filing) 9 11 Total Approved but Unbuilt Trips 305 396 Source: City of Fort Collins; 2018. Year 2040 Adjusted Baseline Intersection Turning Movement Volumes The anticipated traffic generated from approved but unbuilt projects were added to the baseline 2040 volumes (shown in Figure 17). Figure 18 presents the Year 2040 volumes with the addition of approved but not built projects; these traffic volumes would represent future “baseline traffic conditions”. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 41 Figure 17 Approved but Not Built Project Vehicle Trips ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 42 Figure 18 Total Baseline Year 2040 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 43 5 YEAR 2040 BASELINE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS This chapter includes a discussion of potential transportation conditions with implementation of the project under Year 2040 conditions, as previously described in Chapter 4. YEAR 2040 BASELINE CONDITIONS Under this scenario, traffic operations were analyzed with the future year 2040 volumes provided by the NFRMPO regional travel demand model and vehicle trips associated with approved but unbuilt projects within the study area. The roadway network under this scenario is based on the City’s most recent Master Street Plan, which is assumes to be in place in the future, without buildout of the project. This scenario includes the widening of both Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road from a two-lane to a four-lane arterial. In addition, it is assumed that the intersections of Turnberry Road/Country Club Road (#4) and Timberline Road/Vine Drive (#13) would be signalized under 2040 baseline conditions. These planned improvements are fully funded and design is underway, according to recent communication with City staff.13 It is noted that intersection design and controls for the three (3) future planned intersections per the City’s Master Street Plan are assumed to be either Side-Street or All-Way STOP-Controlled intersections for purposes of the analysis. The same assumption applies to network connections, which includes the intersections of Mountain Vista Drive/Timberline Road/Giddings Road and Turnberry /Mountain Vista Drive. However, it is important to note that the ultimate design and controls for these intersections would require additional planning, engineering, and further review and approval by City staff. Therefore, the LOS results are for informational purposes only. Potential improvement measures for the City to consider are discussed further in this section and these are not direct, project-related impacts and improvement measures. Table 11 presents the intersection results for Year 2040 baseline conditions. Intersections that would operate at unacceptable conditions are described below.  During the both peak hours, the intersection of Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road would operate at unacceptable LOS conditions due to considerable delays along the eastbound STOP-controlled approach;  During the weekday PM peak hour, the northbound I-25 off-ramp and Mountain Vista Drive would experience considerable delays and queues that degrade operations at the majority of intersection approaches; and 13 Communication with Martina Wilkinson, August 10, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 44  During the weekday PM peak hour, the intersection at Timberline Road and Vine Drive would experience substantial queuing and average vehicle delays in the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches.  During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive would operate at unacceptable conditions mostly due to the increased delays and queues along the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches; and  During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Timberline Road and Conifer Street would experience substantial queuing and average vehicle delays in the eastbound STOP- controlled approach. Detailed LOS and average delay outputs by approach for each intersection are provided in Appendix B and LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 11 Year 2040 Baseline Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service # Intersection Control Typea AM Peakb PM Peakb Delayc LOS Delay LOS 1 Turnberry Road / Richards Lake Road TWSC 15.7 (WB) C 12.7 (WB) B 2 Turnberry Road / Maple Hill Drive SSSC 12.5 (WB) B 11.7 (WB) B 3 Bar Harbor Drive / Maple Hill Drive AWSC 7.2 A 7.3 A 4 Turnberry Road / Country Club Road Signal 6.5 A 14.5 B 5 Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road AWSC 31.3 D 40.1 E 6 Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road SSSC >50 (EB) F >50 (EB) F 7 Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road AWSC 15.5 C 15.3 C 8 Giddings Road / Richards Lake Road TWSC 34.9 (WB) D 31.0 (WB) D 9 Busch Drive / Richards Lake Road TWSC 11.3 (NB) B 12.3 (NB) B 10 Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive SSSC 23.9 (SB) C 35.4 (SB) E 11 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp TWSC 24.5 (SB) C 20.1 (SB) C 12 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp TWSC 32.3 (NB) D >50 (NB) F 13 Timberline Road / Vine Drive Signal 19.5 B 64.6 E 14 Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive Signal 50.2 D >80 F 15 Conifer Street / Turnberry Road (planned) SSSC 14.7 (SB) B 18.2 (SB) C 16 Timberline Road / Conifer Street (planned) SSSC 13.5 (EB) B 35.3 (EB) E 17 Timberline Road / Suniga Drive (planned) AWSC 10.3 B 18.0 C Notes: a. Signal = Signalized intersection; AWSC = All-Way STOP-Controlled intersection; TWSC = Two-Way STOP-Controlled; and SSSC = Side-Street STOP-Controlled intersection. Note that some controls have changed for specific intersections between existing and future conditions. b. LOS calculations performed using Synchro and Transportation Research Board HCM 2010. c. Average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) is reported for the intersection as a whole for signalized and AWSC intersections, and for worst STOP-controlled movement or approach only for TWSC and SSSC intersections. BOLD indicates intersection operating at unacceptable LOS conditions. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 45 Figure 19 presents the assumed, future intersection lane configurations and Figure 20 presents the LOS conditions for each study intersection under this scenario. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 46 Figure 19 Year 2040 Baseline Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 47 Figure 20 Year 2040 Baseline Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 48 Potential Improvements for City Consideration Preliminary improvements for the intersections that would operate poorly under Year 2040 baseline conditions are presented below. Table 12 Potential Intersection Improvements Summary – Year 2040 Baseline No. Intersection Mitigation Measure AM Peak LOS Result PM Peak LOS Result 6 Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road Install traffic signal1 A A 12 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 NB Ramp Install traffic signal1 --2 C 13 Timberline Road / Vine Drive Widen northbound approach to include exclusive left-turn lane (protected phase), one through lane, and one shared through-right turn lane and optimize signal. --2 D 14 Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive Future intersection alignment/design under City review. Potential for grade-separation on Lemay Avenue over existing railroad tracks. n/a n/a 16 Timberline Road / Conifer Street (planned) Install traffic signal1 --2 B Note: 1) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Peak Hour Warrant Analysis #3 were conducted to determine if a signal may be warranted to improve LOS conditions to acceptable conditions. 2) Intersection would operate at acceptable LOS conditions during AM Peak Hour; no improvements are necessary. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. YEAR 2040 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Traffic Conditions Under this scenario, the estimated weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes generated by the project were added to the future roadway network. It is noted that the roadway network under this scenario includes the planned/recommended roadway network with implementation of the project (per the Draft Montava Master Street Plan Amendment prepared by Nelson\Nygaard in June 2018), therefore specific alignments and connections to current/future intersections planned by the City were adjusted accordingly; no adjustments to assumed traffic controls were applied. For example, if the intersection of Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road is an unsignalized, STOP-controlled intersection, it is assumed that the intersection would remain an unsignalized intersection to then determine potential direct projected-related impacts to the intersection and to determine if mitigation measure(s) are required. It is further noted that none of the potential intersection improvements shown in the above table were included under this scenario in order to best identify potential project-related traffic impacts. Similarly, this analysis also takes into consideration of new internal streets/intersections within the project. However, for new intersections proposed by the project, traffic controls and intersection geometries were assumed and developed by Nelson\Nygaard based on future ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 49 vehicular demand, access and proximity to other intersections, and to achieve appropriate service levels based on the recommended street classifications. Figure 21 presents the assumed, future lane configurations for the proposed intersections. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 50 Figure 21 Year 2040 plus Project Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 51 Figure 22 presents the LOS conditions for each study intersection under this scenario and Table 13 presents the LOS summaries for each study intersection. During the weekday AM and PM peak hours, 12 study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS conditions and the increase in vehicle trips associated with the project would exacerbate conditions and further degrade LOS conditions at these intersections. Because the additional vehicle trips would worsen LOS conditions and per the City’s significance thresholds, the project would result in a significant traffic impact to these study intersections. These potential traffic impacts at each affected intersection are described in detail below.  Intersection #5: Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during the weekday AM peak hour, the average vehicle delays in the southbound approach along Turnberry Road would be considerable and result in LOS F conditions. During the PM peak hour, the westbound approach along Mountain Vista Drive would experience heightened vehicle demand and cause a substantial increase in average vehicle delays, therefore resulting in LOS F conditions.  Intersection #6: Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during the weekday AM peak hour, the average vehicle delays along the northbound and southbound approaches on Timberline Road, and westbound approach on Mountain Vista Drive would experience heightened average vehicle delays, resulting in LOS F conditions. The LOS conditions would also operate poorly at LOS F for the same intersection approaches during the PM peak hour.  Intersection #7: Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during both weekday AM and PM peak hours, the average vehicle delays along all of the intersection approaches would result in considerable increases in average vehicle delays, resulting in LOS F conditions.  Intersection #10: Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during both weekday AM and PM peak hours, the average vehicle delays along all the southbound approach on Busch Drive (which would be STOP-controlled) would result in considerable increases in average vehicle delays, resulting in LOS F conditions.  Intersection #11: Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during both weekday AM and PM peak hours, the average vehicle delays along all the southbound approach on the I-25 off-ramp (which would be STOP-controlled) would result in considerable increases in average vehicle delays, resulting in LOS F conditions.  Intersection #12: Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during both weekday AM and PM peak hours, the average vehicle delays along all the northbound approach on the I-25 off-ramp (which would be STOP-controlled) would result in considerable increases in average vehicle delays, resulting in LOS F conditions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 52  Intersection #13: Timberline Road / Vine Drive: − The intersection is assumed to be signalized under future conditions and during the weekday PM peak hour, the average vehicle delays along the northbound and southbound approaches on Timberline Road, and westbound approach on Vine Drive would experience heightened average vehicle delays, resulting in LOS F conditions.  Intersection #14: Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive: − The intersection is assumed to be signalized under future conditions and during the weekday AM peak hour, the average vehicle delays along the southbound approach on Lemay Avenue would operate poorly at LOS F with increased average vehicle delays, resulting in an overall LOS F for the intersection. The LOS conditions would also operate poorly at LOS F for all intersection approaches during the PM peak hour.  Intersection #15: Conifer Street / Turnberry Road: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during the weekday AM peak hour, the operations along the southbound approach on Turnberry Road and westbound approach on Conifer Street would operate poorly at LOS F with substantial average vehicle delays, resulting in an overall LOS F for the intersection. The LOS conditions would also operate poorly at LOS F for all intersection approaches during the PM peak hour.  Intersection #16: Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during both peak hours, operations along the southbound STOP-controlled approach on Turnberry Road would operate poorly at LOS F with substantial average vehicle delays, resulting in an overall LOS F for the intersection.  Intersection #17: Timberline Road / Suniga Drive: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during the weekday AM peak hour, the average vehicle delays along the southbound approach Timberline Road and westbound approach on Suniga Drive would operate poorly at LOS F with increased average vehicle delays, resulting in an overall LOS F for the intersection. The LOS conditions would also operate poorly at LOS F for all intersection approaches during the PM peak hour.  Intersection #18: Giddings Road / Conifer Street: − The intersection is assumed to be unsignalized under future conditions and during the weekday PM peak hour, the average vehicle delays along northbound and southbound approaches on Giddings Road would operate poorly at LOS F with increased average vehicle delays, resulting in an overall LOS F for the intersection. Detailed LOS and average delay outputs by approach for each intersection are provided in Appendix B and LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Recommended mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 6 to address these potential impacts and to reduce them to a less-than-significant level. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 53 Figure 22 Year 2040 plus Project Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 54 Table 13 Year 2040 Plus Project Weekday Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service # Intersection Control Typea AM Peakb PM Peakb Delayc LOS Delay LOS 1 Turnberry Road / Richards Lake Road TWSC 15.8 (WB) C 12.9 (WB) B 2 Turnberry Road / Maple Hill Drive SSSC 12.5 (WB) B 11.8 (WB) B 3 Bar Harbor Drive / Maple Hill Drive AWSC 7.2 A 7.3 A 4 Turnberry Road / Country Club Road Signal 9.0 A 22.4 C 5 Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road AWSC >50 F >50 F 6 Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road AWSC >50 F >50 F 7 Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road AWSC >50 F >50 F 8 Giddings Road / Richards Lake Road TWSC 39.4 (WB) E 36.4 (WB) E 9 Busch Drive / Richards Lake Road TWSC 11.3 (NB) B 12.3 (NB) B 10 Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive SSSC >50 (SB) F >50 (SB) F 11 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp TWSC >50 (SB) F >50 (SB) F 12 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp TWSC >50 (NB) F >50 (NB) F 13 Timberline Road / Vine Drive Signal 36.5 D >80 F 14 Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive Signal >80 F >80 F 15 Conifer Street / Turnberry Road (planned) AWSC >50 F >50 F 16 Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive (planned) SSSC >50 (SB) F >50 (SB) F 17 Timberline Road / Suniga Drive (planned) AWSC >50 F >50 F 18 Giddings Road / Conifer Street (planned) SSSC 31.0 (EB) D >50 (EB) F 19 Country Club Road / New Road #3 (planned) SSSC 27.9 (SB) D 46.9 (SB) E 20 Country Club Road / New Road #2 (planned) AWSC 13.8 B 37.5 E 21 Maple Hill Drive / New Road #1 (planned) AWSC 7.1 A 7.1 A 22 Richard’s Lake Road / New Road #1 (planned) SSSC 11.0 (NB) B 10.3 (NB) B 23 Giddings Road / New Road #2 (planned) SSSC 13.3 (EB) B 13.6 (EB) B 24 Giddings Road / New Road #3 (planned) Signal 5.2 A 4.1 A 25 Mountain Vista Drive / New Road #4 (planned) SSSC 46.9 (SB) E 49.5 (SB) E Notes: a. Signal = Signalized intersection; AWSC = All-Way STOP-Controlled intersection; TWSC = Two-Way STOP-Controlled; and SSSC = Side-Street STOP-Controlled intersection. Note that some controls have changed for specific intersections between existing and future conditions. b. LOS calculations performed using Synchro and Transportation Research Board HCM 2010. c. Average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) is reported for the intersection as a whole for signalized and AWSC intersections, and for worst STOP-controlled movement or approach only for TWSC and SSSC intersections. BOLD indicates intersection operating at unacceptable LOS conditions. Shaded indicates significant traffic impact to intersection per City LOS criteria and mitigation is required due to failing intersection. Italicized LOS values indicates significant traffic impact to the intersection per City LOS criteria and mitigation may be required but not necessary. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 55 Transit Capacity and Access Improvements The project would be designed to provide residents, employees, and visitors with a variety of transportation options. High-quality transit connectivity between the project site and key regional destinations, particularly downtown Fort Collins, is a core element of the project. As previously described, existing transit service to the study area is sparse due to the lack of development at the existing site. It is anticipated that the project, in combination with other planned development within the study area would require substantial expansion of existing transit infrastructure and service program. Transfort Transit Master Plan The Transfort Transit Master Plan (updates to this plan are in progress) proposes several future scenarios for transit service in the Fort Collins area. Several of these scenarios take into account the proposed development within the Mountain Vista Subarea (inclusive of the project). All of these scenarios identify Timberline Road as a major transit corridor for frequent transit service. With this in mind, it is reasonable to assume that the project would prioritize amenities for transit riders along the Timberline Road corridor. These amenities may include but are not limited to: • Transit stops featuring shelters and adequate street furniture for waiting riders (note: stop locations to be determined in coordination with Transfort and City staff) • Ample pedestrian infrastructure feeding the Timberline Road corridor to ensure easy access to key transit stops • Planned bus transit routes that provide direct service to future residents, employees, visitors, and customers within and adjacent to the project Timberline Road is expected to accommodate frequent transit service in all future scenarios. Transfort’s “Draft Scenario 2” is displayed in the figure below for informational purposes only. This scenario is not final and is subject to change throughout the TransFort planning process. Please refer to the Transfort Transit Master Plan for further details on proposed transit service to the project site and surrounding environs. Because the project would develop a roadway network comprised of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in combination with a network designed to accommodate future transit (and related high-capacity transportation) service, it is reasonable to assume that the project would not conflict with nor interfere with transit accessibility, safety, or impede future operations. As a result, no transit impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. It is recommended that the Project Sponsor continue to coordinate with City staff and Transfort to plan, design, and implement a transit program for the project that aligns with the goals and objectives established by the appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 56 Figure 23 Transfort Transit Master Plan Future Scenario 2 Source: Transfort Transit Master Plan Draft, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 57 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis The project would be committed to providing the highest quality pedestrian and bicycle environment to residents, employees, visitors and customers alike. A robust multimodal transportation ecosystem ensures that all modes are utilized and dispersed throughout the network. It also means that existing and future patrons of all ages and abilities experience a safe, comfortable, and rewarding environment when they choose to walk, bike, or take transit to their destinations. Existing and Proposed Sidewalk Configurations Sidewalks are currently absent from the majority of study area roadways, as previously discussed in Chapter 2. The project would introduce an extensive sidewalk network by constructing sidewalks on both sides of all project roadways (see Chapter 3). The project would incorporate new sidewalks on all study roadways and continue the character of existing sidewalks where they exist. Although the actual dimensions of each planned street within the project site are subject to review and approval by City staff, the conceptual cross sections that have been provided to City staff would be compliant with City standards, and exceptions to such standards may be made upon further review. It is noted that the planned roadway network is designed to function based its classification and the planned pedestrian facilities would provide adequate spacing, movability, and safety treatments for those on foot, bike, strollers, etc. Geometric and Control Improvements for Pedestrian and Cyclists Given the current limited availability of sidewalks and other pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the study area, new sidewalks would be constructed along all study area roadways. Crosswalks would also be implemented along all approaches of intersections involving roadways of collector designation or higher, respectively. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that any new and/or modified signalized intersections would include pedestrian signs and signals (“walk/no walk”), and countdown timers, as appropriate. Specific improvements for consideration include: • Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road Intersection (#6): This intersection would serve as a major gateway to the project site and is expected to experience a substantial amount of multimodal traffic (autos, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians). It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at this location to maintain adequate traffic flows for all modes while also allowing for adequate crossing time for non-auto users and maintain a high level of safety for all users (see Chapter 6). Pedestrian signals and signs, ADA-accessible ramps, and high-visibility crosswalks are recommended. It is noted that the City of Fort Collins would review and approve any design and engineering concepts for the intersection and such treatments are to meet City standards, as appropriate. • Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road Intersection (#7): A substantial amount of middle school and high school pedestrian traffic would be expected to traverse this intersection for school access. In addition to crosswalks along all approaches, signal timings at this intersection should be optimized to provide adequate crossing time for pedestrians, reduce delays and encourages students to walk safely and to not encourage illegal crossings (“jaywalking”). • Planned (New) Intersections along Mountain Vista Drive (#19, #25): These unsignalized intersections provide an opportunity for north-south crossings along Mountain Vista Drive and key paths of travel to planned land uses. The planned ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 58 intersection along Mountain Vista Drive east of Timberline Road (intersection #25) would be a secondary access point to the proposed middle school and high school. While students may be encouraged traverse Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road intersection, this intersection should also be equipped with crosswalks at all approaches. Given the higher number of traffic volumes expected along Mountain Vista Drive, this intersection may be a candidate for a dedicated pedestrian signal, or HAWK beacon (High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon). Such measures would ensure the safe passage of students despite the large traffic volumes while avoiding the need for a primary traffic signal. Pedestrian and Bicycle Demand at High Activity Land Uses The project would be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity, particularly for internal trips, including recreational and commuter trips. The presence of sidewalks and bikeways along project roadways ensures that all internal trips could be made safely and efficiently by walking, biking, or rolling/strolling. The proposed traditional street grid network further facilitates efficient pedestrian and bicycle travel by avoiding circuitous routes. High-demand uses such as school, retail/commercial districts, and key employment centers would be provided with additional amenities, high visibility crosswalks, and optimized pedestrian signal timings. Any detailed plans and designs for planned roadways in and around the project site would be subject to review and approval by City staff and therefore, pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and amenities would need to comply with City standards. School Routing The City of Fort Collins requires school routing plans for all schools within 1.5 miles of the project site. The figure on the following page displays planned school locations within the study area. In order to ensure safe and easy pedestrian ingress and egress to all school sites, all planned roadways would be equipped with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway and crosswalks on all legs (or approaches) of intersections that include a roadway that is classified as a “collector” or “arterial”. Specific pedestrian roadway treatments at intersections at and adjacent to the planned schools were previously discussed under “Geometric and Control Improvements for Pedestrians and Cyclists”. In addition to these treatments, it is recommended that the main ingress/egress locations of the middle and high schools be concentrated along Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive. Within the school boundaries, there should be adequate circulation capacity for all vehicle types, including school buses and parking areas to allow for storage of vehicles in an off-street location (and not on street). It is also recommended that the City coordinate with Transfort to identify adequate locations for potential bus stops/stations adjacent to the school and within safe, convenient walking distances to the school buildings. For the planned elementary school, it is recommended that the main ingress/egress location be situated along the north side of Timberline Road (extension). The school should also include adequate parking capacity in an off-street area and with limited or no parking on street. The planned Timberline Road extension would include sidewalks and other pedestrian treatments that maintain a safe distance from moving vehicles and bicycles. Pedestrian crossings along this extent of Timberline Road are also recommended, including pedestrian activated (flashing) signals that are triggered by a pedestrian button to allow for safe crossings to/from the school. It is important to note that the planned schools are not associated with the project but the planned roadway network and land uses within the project site support the City’s vision to incorporate additional schools in the Mountain Vista Subarea. In the event that the schools are approved and built, a detailed transportation access management plan, or related document ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 59 would be prepared for City review and approval prior to implementation and to ensure that safety, access and circulation measures are adequately incorporated into the school plans. Figure 24 School Locations and Routing Pedestrian and Bicycle Links to Neighboring Uses The network design and mix of land uses associated with the project allows future residents, employees, visitors, and customers to reach a wide variety of uses within the site. Residential, office, retail, agriculture, and school and recreational uses would be available within the project site and supported with the planned multimodal transportation infrastructure. In addition, the planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would support existing uses adjacent to the project site. The pedestrian and bicycle network would provide new connectivity to the Anheuser Busch brewery along Busch Drive, which serves as a major employer in the area. A continuous network of sidewalks and crosswalks (as applicable) would provide stronger linkages along Richards Lake Road, Mountain Vista Drive, and Busch Drive and connecting the brewery to the project for those wishing to walk and bike. There would also be direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site for current residents of Maple Hill Neighborhood, including connections to open space, parkland, recreational areas, and other local-serving commercial areas. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 60 Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis The project team analyzed the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure using the pedestrian level of service LOS analysis guidelines in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The results of this analysis are presented in the text and table below. • Directness: The traditional street grid layout of the project site allows for direct, efficient pedestrian travel to and from key locations. Unlike a traditional suburban design, with cul-de-sacs and circuitous road alignments, the project would include a traditional “Town Center” structure with a street grid featuring parallel and perpendicular roadways, small- and medium-sized blocks, and a high intersection density. This facilitates direct routes between locations and avoids lengthy walking routes. • Continuity: The project site would not contain any gaps in the proposed pedestrian infrastructure. All roadways would feature sidewalks on both sides of the roadway and crosswalks as needed. Facades of proposed buildings would be oriented to interface with pedestrian infrastructure and present a comfortable, convenient, and connected system for pedestrians. • Street Crossings: The majority of study roadways are two lanes in width, with no area roadway segments being greater than four lanes in width. All intersections along existing and planned collector and arterial roadways would include crosswalks. Signalized intersections would be installed (as warranted) and monitored for pedestrian activity and would be timed (optimized) to reduce pedestrian delay and discourage jaywalking. All crossing locations would include ADA-compliant curb ramps. • Visual Interest and Amenity: The project site would be designed to provide a visually-appealing pedestrian environment and pedestrian-scaled development along planned roadways. Major thoroughfares would include street furniture and trees, buffered (landscaped) spacing between sidewalks and parking/travel lanes, wide sidewalks, and building facades that encourage building entry from the sidewalks rather than from parking areas. • Security: All planned roadways would include street lighting (as appropriate per City standards) and sidewalks that separate pedestrians from bicycle and vehicle traffic. • Surface Condition: Because the majority study area roadways do not currently feature sidewalks, it is reasonable to assume that all sidewalks proposed by the project would be in new condition, with regular maintenance as needed to preserve a high-quality sidewalk network. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 61 Table 14 Pedestrian Level of Service Summary Quality Indicators Project Grade Description Security A Well used, good lighting levels and unobstructed lines of sight. Directness A Street grid provides direct access between key locations. Continuity A Quality, continuous pedestrian networks that are physically separated from street and built to current standards Street Crossings (Signalized) A / B Primarily 3 or fewer lanes to cross, with some four lane roadways, clear indications (striping, etc.), well marked crosswalks, good lighting, standard curb ramps, automatic pedestrian signal, pedestrian amenities, unobstructed views. Street Crossings (Unsignalized) A Well-marked cross walks, good lighting levels, standard curb ramps, street character suggests pedestrian crossing, unobstructed views Visual Appeal and Amenities A Visually appealing and compatible with local architecture and artist themes, wide sidewalks, window shopping, pedestrian lighting, trees and street furniture Surface Condition A Smooth asphalt or concrete with few breaks or cracks Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 62 6 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES This chapter presents the transportation mitigation measures that would be required to reduce any identified significant impacts of the project to a less-than-significant level. Traffic-Related Mitigation Measures Amendments to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Sections 3.6.4 and 3.7.3, and associated standards and processes in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (“LCUASS”) including Sections 1.9.4, 4.2.2, 4.5.2 and 4.6. (collectively referred to herein as the “APF Amendments”), which the City Council will consider on first reading on August 21, 2018. The APF Amendments provide, among other things, that if typical improvements needed for overall intersection function are not proportional, not feasible, or not desired by the City, then an “Alternative Mitigation Strategy” may be used to provide a way forward in the manner acceptable to the City while still having development mitigate its impacts, and such amendments would ensure that mitigation is implemented proportionally and addresses localized impact. City staff has confirmed that preliminary staff analysis of mitigation may be made with a Master Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) provided that sufficient information is provided. Such a preliminary analysis is requested for the Project in connection with this Master TIS. Table 15 provides a summary of recommended traffic-related mitigation measures for intersections that would result in unacceptable LOS conditions (i.e., LOS F) and/or worsening of LOS conditions with implementation of the project. A detailed description of each recommended mitigation measure is included further below. Figure 25 presents recommended traffic controls and lane configurations with the mitigation and Figure 26 presents the LOS conditions with the mitigation. Appendix D includes LOS outputs for intersections with recommended mitigation measures. For each of the following intersections, and pursuant to the APF Amendments, the following formula is used to determine the Project’s reasonable and proportionate contribution toward the recommended mitigation strategy: (i) calculating the percentage of peak-hour (both AM and PM) project-generated trips through the affected intersection to the total number of peak-hour trips through the same intersection from all baseline traffic, including those from projects that have been approved, but not yet built; (ii) determining the approximate cost of the proposed ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 63 mitigation measures which has not been funded14 ; and (iii) calculating the project’s contribution to the proposed mitigation measures based on the percentage of project impact as determined in (i) above. It is recognized that perfect “equity” is not required, but rather “rough proportionality,” leaving room for negotiation between City staff and the Project Sponsor, not only as to the specific mitigation measures to be used, but also as to what constitutes reasonable and proportional mitigation under a particular set of circumstances, including the question of whether the City may have some responsibility for APF-deficient intersections. Finally, it is recognized and acknowledged that no final mitigation strategy or cost allocation can be made with a Master TIS. The project would be built in multiple phases over a significant period of time. A TIS will be submitted with each phases and Project Development Plan (PDP) and the final mitigation strategy and proportionate contribution for each such PDP will be determined at that time using the then-current applicable traffic counts in accordance with the provisions of the APF Amendments and generally consistent with the formula set forth in this Master TIS. 14 In some situations, government funding may have been allocated for a particular mitigation measure, in which case affected developments would pay their relative share of the remaining unfunded dost, while in other situations a mitigation measure would be funded through escrowed monies from all affected developments (or a development would front the improvements and be paid back through third party reimbursements), in which case every development’s proportionate share would be based on the total cost of the improvement (i.e. without deductions for any escrowed funds or up[front payments). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 64 Table 15 Mitigation Measure Summary Table No. Intersection Mitigation Measure AM Peak LOS Result PM Peak LOS Result 5 Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road  Install traffic signal1 B B 6 Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road  Install traffic signal1  Add NB/WB/EB left-turn pockets and protected phases D D 7 Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road  Install traffic signal1  Add NB/SB/EB/WB left-turn pockets  Add WB/SB right-turn pockets D E2 10 Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Drive Install traffic signal1 B A 11 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp Install traffic signal1 B B 12 Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp  Install traffic signal1  Add NB left-turn pocket  Add protected NB/EB left-turn phases B D 13 Timberline Road / Vine Drive Widen northbound approach to include exclusive left-turn lane (protected phase), one through lane, and one shared through-right turn lane and optimize signal. D D 14 Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive Future intersection alignment/design under City review. Potential for grade-separation on Lemay Avenue over existing railroad tracks. n/a n/a 15 Conifer Street / Turnberry Road (planned) Install traffic signal1 B B 16 Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive (planned) Install traffic signal1 B B 17 Timberline Road / Suniga Drive (planned) Install traffic signal1 A B 18 Giddings Road / Conifer Street (planned) Install traffic signal1 A B Note: 1) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Peak Hour Warrant Analysis #3 were conducted to determine if a signal may be warranted to improve LOS conditions. 2) Per the City of Fort Collins LOS guidelines for new development, LOS E is acceptable for signalized intersections within “Mixed Use” districts, such as the Montava development area. Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2018. Intersection #5: Mountain Vista Drive / Turnberry Road The intersection would operate at LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours and it is assumed that the intersection would remain an All-Way STOP-Controlled intersection. This intersection would serve as a primary gateway in and out of the project site and major north-south corridor linking the project site to neighborhoods to the north and west of the site. A traffic signal warrant analysis has been completed to determine whether the unsignalized study intersection that would operate at unacceptable LOS conditions may require or benefit from the installation of a traffic signal. The term “signal warrant” refers to any of the nine established ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 65 methods used to quantify the need for a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. It is industry practice that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered only if one or more of the eight signal warrants are met. This study performed the peak hour volume-based Warrant #3 for the study intersection during the weekday peak hours. For the purposes of this analysis, intersections that exceed the peak hour warrant are considered to be likely to meet one or more of the other signal warrants, such as the 4- or 8-hour warrants. This peak-hour analysis is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. The City establishes priorities for traffic signal installations citywide and conducts detailed warrant analyses. The need for traffic signals may be established as a part of the project. Appendix E includes the peak-hour signal warrant analysis outputs. Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 22% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #6: Mountain Vista Drive / Timberline Road The intersection would operate at under acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040; however, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours. This intersection would serve as a primary gateway in and out of the project site and major focal point along both Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road corridors. This intersection is expected to experience a substantial number of multimodal traffic, including autos, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. A previous study has also indicated the need for a traffic signal at this intersection, as described in the City-approved Waters’ Edge West Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Felsburg, Holt, Ullevig; January 2017). The previous traffic report also states that the Project Applicant for the development project would be committed to the installation of a signal at this intersection. In addition to a new traffic signal, it is recommended that additional lanes be installed at the intersection level. The additional exclusive left-turn lanes in the northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches (with dedicated phasing and optimization) would accommodate anticipated traffic demand at the intersection and reduce negative queueing effects and long delays for general traffic and public transit vehicles, while also allowing for adequate timing for crossing pedestrians and bicyclists. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 49% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 66 Intersection #7: Mountain Vista Drive / Giddings Road The intersection would operate at under acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040; however, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours. This intersection would serve as a primary gateway in and out of the project site. This intersection is expected to experience a substantial number of multimodal traffic, including autos, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. In addition to a new traffic signal, it is recommended that additional lanes be installed at the intersection level. The additional exclusive left-turn lanes in the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches and additional exclusive right-turn lanes in the southbound and westbound approaches would accommodate anticipated traffic demand at the intersection and reduce negative queueing effects and long delays for general traffic and public transit vehicles, while also allowing for adequate timing for crossing pedestrians and bicyclists. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 52% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #10: Mountain Vista Drive / Busch Road The intersection would operate at under acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040; however, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours, primarily due to the increase in average vehicle delays in the southbound Busch Drive approach (which is STOP controlled). Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 47% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #11: Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Southbound Ramp The intersection would operate at under acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040; however, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours, primarily due to the increase in average vehicle delays in the southbound I-25 ramp approach (which is STOP controlled). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 67 Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. Recommended Action: The intersection is under CDOT jurisdiction and not the City of Fort Collins. It is recommended that the Project Sponsor and the City of Fort Collins coordinate with CDOT to discuss the potential for a traffic signal at this intersection. It is likely that CDOT has and would continue to monitor operating performance of the intersection and measure performance on a scheduled basis as the project (and other approved developments) is implemented. CDOT does not have specific standards of significance for the performance of intersections under their jurisdiction. Per the City of Fort Collins standards (as described in Chapter 4), the project-generated traffic would result in more than a 2% increase in average vehicle delay and thus, potential improvements, such as installation of a traffic signal may be required. The installation of a traffic signal may be deemed necessary based on further analysis and approval by CDOT. In the event that a traffic signal is considered by CDOT, it is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible to pay a “fair share” contribution (or “reasonable proportionality”) to potential installation of a traffic signal at this intersection (to be negotiated with CDOT and City of Fort Collins) to mitigate their share of the need for a traffic signal at this intersection. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 42% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #12: Mountain Vista Drive / I-25 Northbound Ramp The intersection would not operate at acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040 (during the PM peak hour) and thus, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours, primarily due to the increase in average vehicle delays in the northbound I-25 ramp approach (which is STOP controlled). Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. In addition to a new traffic signal, lane configurations at the intersection are also recommended. The addition of an exclusive left-turning lane and protected northbound and eastbound left-turn phases would improve operating conditions with a new signal. Recommended Action: The intersection is under CDOT jurisdiction and not the City of Fort Collins. It is recommended that the Project Sponsor and the City of Fort Collins coordinate with CDOT to discuss the potential for a traffic signal at this intersection and recommended lane configuration modifications. It is likely that CDOT has and would continue to monitor operating performance of the intersection and measure performance on a scheduled basis as the project (and other approved developments) is implemented. CDOT does not have specific standards of significance for the performance of intersections under their jurisdiction. Per the City of Fort Collins standards (as described in Chapter 4), the project-generated traffic would result in more than a 2% increase in average vehicle delay and thus, potential improvements, such as installation of a traffic signal may be required. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 68 The installation of a traffic signal and lane configuration changes may be deemed necessary based on further analysis and approval by CDOT. In the event that a traffic signal and lane configurations are considered by CDOT, it is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible to pay a “fair share” contribution (or “reasonable proportionality”) to potential installation of a traffic signal and lane configuration modifications at this intersection (to be negotiated with CDOT and City of Fort Collins) to mitigate their share of the need for such improvements at this intersection. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 35% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #13: Timberline Road / Vine Drive The intersection would not operate at acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040 during the weekday PM peak hour and thus, with implementation of the project, the intersection would further degrade LOS F conditions. It is assumed that the intersection would be signalized under future conditions; however, the intersection would not operate at acceptable LOS conditions with and without the project. In order to accommodate estimated demand, the northbound approach along Timberline Road would need to be widened to allow for an exclusive left-turn lane, one northbound through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. The future design of the Timberline Road and Vine Drive intersection is uncertain, primarily due to the City’s vision to repurpose Vine Drive into a limited, local-serving street and no longer serve as a major east-west arterial. In addition, the at-grade crossing issues at this intersection may be subject to change (similar to Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive); however, no funding or plans have been established. Therefore, in the event that no physical changes to this intersection are planned, it is recommended that the northbound approach be modified, as discussed herein. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 18% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #14: Lemay Avenue / Vine Drive The intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040 during the PM peak hour and thus, with implementation of the project, the intersection would further degrade LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour. It is further noted that intersection operations would likely continue to worsen during frequent railroad crossings, as the tracks may continue to accommodate active freight activity in the future. The City of Fort Collins is currently undergoing the planning and engineering process to consider a completely grade-separated intersection and Lemay Avenue would be elevated above the railroad tracks and relocate the entire intersection farther to the north. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 69 Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 23% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #15: Conifer Street / Turnberry Road The intersection would operate at acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040; however, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours. It is assumed that the intersection would be All-Way STOP-Controlled but the actual traffic control and design has not been prepared nor finalized by City staff, which is planning on this intersection being developed per the City’s Master Street Plan. Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 51% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #16: Turnberry Road / Suniga Drive The intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040 with implementation of the project, primarily due to the substantial average vehicle delays in the southbound STOP-controlled approach along Turnberry Road. It is assumed that the intersection would be Side-Street STOP-Controlled but the actual traffic control and design has not been prepared nor finalized by City staff, which is planning on this intersection being developed per the City’s Master Street Plan. Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 53% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #17: Timberline Road / Suniga Drive The intersection would operate at acceptable LOS conditions in Year 2040; however, with implementation of the project, the intersection would degrade to LOS F under both AM and PM peak hours. It is assumed that the intersection would be All-Way STOP-Controlled but the actual traffic control and design has not been prepared nor finalized by City staff, which is planning on this intersection being developed per the City’s Master Street Plan. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 70 Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 47% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. Intersection #18: Giddings Road / Conifer Street The intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS conditions with implementation of the project during the PM peak hour. It is assumed that the intersection would be All-Way STOP- Controlled but the actual traffic control and design has not been prepared nor finalized by City staff, which is planning on this intersection being developed per the City’s Master Street Plan. Based on the projected traffic volumes at this intersection with implementation of the project, the intersection would meet the peak hour volume-based warrant. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed to adequately manage and control multimodal traffic flows and maintain a high level of safety for all roadway users at this intersection. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Project Sponsor be responsible for its proportionate and reasonable share of these recommended mitigation measures in accordance with the formula set forth in the beginning of this Chapter 6. Based on the methodology used in this TIS, the project would contribute approximately 59% to the total peak-hour intersection volumes under Year 2040 conditions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 71 Figure 25 Year 2040 plus Project with Mitigation - Traffic Control and Lane Configurations ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 72 Figure 26 Year 2040 plus Project Weekday Peak Hour LOS Conditions – With Mitigation Measures ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 MONTAVA | MASTER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY City of Fort Collins Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 73 Transit Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required because the project would not affect performance standards to transit vehicles and passengers, including accessibility and safety. It is recommended that further coordination between the Project Sponsor, City of Fort Collins, and Transfort is required to determine future transit service for the project and surrounding environs and such efforts should be aligned with City and Transfort’s goals, polices, and objectives. Pedestrian and Bicycle Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required because the project would not substantially affect existing and future pedestrian and bicycle conditions in the study area. Conversely, the design of the planned roadways would encourage the use of walking, biking, strolling/rolling, and other forms of non-auto modes for future residents, employees, visitors, and customers of the project. It is recommended that the Project Sponsor coordinate with City staff to ensure that the planned roadway network configurations and cross sections align with City standards, maintain/enhance the use of pedestrian, and bicycle travel to/from the project site, including a high level of accessibility to transit facilities. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 amenities, standard curb ramps, unobstructed views 6 or more lanes to cross, clear indications, well marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge area, standard curb ramps, pedestrian amenities, unobstructed view Missing 5 elements of A, 4 elements of B, and 2 elements of C Streets Crossings (No Signal) Well-marked cross walks, good lighting levels, standard curb ramps, street character suggests pedestrian crossing, unobstructed views Missing 1 element of A Missing 2 elements of A Missing 3 or more elements of A Visual Appeal and Pedestrian Amenities Visually appealing and compatible with local architecture and artist themes, wide sidewalks, window shopping, pedestrian lighting, trees and street furniture Wide sidewalks, visual clarity, some street furniture and landscaping Functionally operational with less importance placed on visual appeal Design ignores pedestrian with negative metal image, intimidating Surface Condition Smooth asphalt or concrete with few breaks or cracks Relatively smooth asphalt or concrete with frequent breaks or cracks Rougher, broken surface such as older concrete or cobblestone Difficult, unpaved terrain such as hiking trails Source: Table 4-4, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, 2007. SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY The following describes the methodology to calculate future (year 2040) intersection turning movements within the study area, including both model output volumes and traffic volumes from approved but unbuilt developments; which will represent “Year 2040 Baseline (without the project) Conditions” for the Master TIS. The assessment of potential traffic-related impacts associated with the project and recommended mitigation measures are evaluated under Year 2040 plus Project conditions (described in detail further below). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 0 ft. min. T3.2 Principal Buildings 12 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 12 ft. min. 0 ft. min. T3.2 Outbuildings 2 ft. min. 4 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 0 ft. min. T3.1 Principal Buildings 16 ft. min. 10 ft. min. 10 ft. min. 12 ft. min. 20 ft. min. T3.1 Outbuildings 30 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 6 ft. min. 3 ft. min. T3.2 T3.2 T3.1 S S S S I P MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN PUD DISTRICTS MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN PUD DISTRICTS PUD TRANSECT DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS 86 T3.2 T3.2 T3.1 S S S S I P MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN PUD DISTRICTS MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN PUD DISTRICTS PUD TRANSECT DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS 86 Industrial & Employment Existing Existing Zoning Zoning I - INDUSTRIAL TT44 L-T4M-N LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD T4 E - EMPLOYMENT E - EMPLOYMENT r: 57 MONTAVA OVERALL UTILITY PLAN PUD MASTER PLAN PUD DISTRICTS EXISTINGILLUSTRATIVE - ZONING potential future uses and features within the PUD Master Plan. Detailed information regarding such uses and features will be provided at the time of individual Project Development Plan submittals. The Library, Civic Building Reserve, Fire Station, and Community Park are subject to acquisition and development of such sites by the City or other entities. The Elementary, Middle, and High School sites are subject to acquisition and development of such sites by the Poudre School District. 0’ 200’800’ 400’ 600’ 1,600’ 3 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 7 13 8 10 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 8 8 14 9 12 12 11 14 14 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 14 14 14 14 14 161616 16 18 19 19 19 19 INTERSTATE 25 POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK POTENTIAL FUTURE PSD HIGH SCHOOL POTENTIAL FUTURE PSD MIDDLE SCHOOL POTENTIAL FUTURE PSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4 150' MODIFIED BUFFER, SEE CHAPTER 11 OF THE MONTAVA USES, DENSITIES AND DEVELOPMENT STDS 500' BUFFER ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 EXISTING OIL WELL, DRILLED AND ABANDONED 150' MODIFIED BUFFER, SEE CHAPTER 11 OF THE MONTAVA USES, DENSITIES AND DEVELOPMENT STDS 500' BUFFER ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 EXISTING TREES, TYP. EXISTING OFF-SITE OIL WELL, CAPPED AND ABANDONED (NOT A PART) 150' MIN REDUCED BUFFER AVAILABLE BY ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 (NOT A PART) 500' BUFFER ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 (NOT A PART) EXISTING OFF-SITE OIL WELL, CAPPED AND ABANDONED (NOT A PART) 150' MIN REDUCED BUFFER AVAILABLE BY ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 (NOT A PART) 500' BUFFER ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 (NOT A PART) PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT TURNBERRY RD (CR 11) PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT NO. 8 DITCH / WETLAND 4 PUD BOUNDARY PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT BNSF RAILWAY PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS BNSF RAILWAY PUD BOUNDARY / LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT PUD BOUNDARY LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT NO. 8 DITCH / WETLAND 4 NO. 8 DITCH NORTH TIMBERLINE ROAD L&W CANAL 1000' BUFFER FROM HIGH-OCCUPANCY BUILDING UNITS ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 1000' BUFFER FROM HIGH-OCCUPANCY BUILDING UNITS ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 1000' BUFFER FROM HIGH-OCCUPANCY BUILDING UNITS ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 (NOT A PART) 1000' BUFFER FROM HIGH-OCCUPANCY BUILDING UNITS ACCORDING TO L.U.C. SEC. 3.8.26 (NOT A PART) Sheet Number: Project Number: Project: Client: 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 p. (970) 223-7577 www.BHADesign.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Master Planning L:\PROJECTS\MONTAVA\DWGS\ACAD\PUD\DWG\PUD_EX-COND-PLAN.DWG Plot Date:11/8/2019 11:31 AM Plotted By: Angie Milewski Date Created:9/18/2018 Produced by: Date: Revision & Date: BHA DESIGN 11/7/2019 1734 HF2M MONTAVA MONTAVA EX CONDITIONS AND NATURAL FEATURES PUD MASTER PLAN 1. THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS PUD MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PUD PROCESS." 2. A SITE VISIT MAY BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHICH FEATURES REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION AND BUFFERING ON THE PUD. 3. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES. 4. STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION - THE DIRECTOR SHALL ESTABLISH A "LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT" ("LOD") LINE(S) TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 5. SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. 6. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ORGANIZED AND TIMED TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE OF SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCUPYING OR USING ON-SITE AND ADJACENT NATURAL HABITATS OR FEATURES. 7. CONSTRUCTION OF BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION. 8. BY PDP PROJECT HEARING: CONFIRMATION UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PROCESS HAS BEGUN; ESSENTIALLY THAT USACE HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND DATA SUBMITTED. 9. BY PDP FINAL PLAN AND NO LATER THAN DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (DCP): DOCUMENTATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION LETTER FROM USACE AND SIGN_OFF THAT PROJECT MEETS CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS. 10. BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA): WEED MANAGEMENT AND NHBZ ANNUAL MONITORING PLANS 11. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DCP: COPY OF NATIONWIDE 404 PERMIT DOCUMENTATION. 12. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DCP: 1) ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING APPROVED SECURITY BASED ON 125% COST OF ITEMIZED LIST OF NHBZ INSTALLATION COSTS (MATERIAL AND LABOR); 2) SECURITY BASED ON 125% COST OF WEED MANAGEMENT AND ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT. 13. A FULL TREE INVENTORY FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE TIME OF PDP FOR EACH PHASE 14. THE PUD BOUNDARY AND LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED ARE NOT INTENDED TO DELINEATE STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT LIMITS. ABUTTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER CITY REQUIREMENTS NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES NOTES NATURAL FEATURES SQ. FT. TABLE APPROX. SQUARE FOOTAGES OF NATURAL FEATURES WITHIN PUD AREA (AS DETERMINED BY ERO: ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY, JUNE 27, 2018) NON-JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES NAME SIZE: AC (SF) 1 IRRIGATION DITCH 1 0.011 AC (479.16 SF) 2 IRRIGATION DITCH 2 0.031 AC (1,350.36 SF) 3 IRRIGATION DITCH 3 0.042 AC (1,829.52 SF) 4 IRRIGATION DITCH 4 0.038 AC (1,655.28 SF) 5 IRRIGATION DITCH 5 0.047 AC (2,047.32 SF) 6 WETLAND 1 0.42 AC (18,295.2 SF) 7 WETLAND 2 0.72 AC (31,363.2 SF) TOTAL 1.309 AC (57,020.04 SF) JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES 8 WETLAND 3 0.30 AC (13,068.0 SF) 9 WETLAND 4/NO 8 DITCH 0.813 AC (35,414.28 SF) TOTAL 1.113 AC (48,482.28 SF) 2 0 225' 450' 675' 900' 1800' AND EVALUATION. PARKS DIAGRAM BICYCLE PLAN BLOCK LEVEL DETAIL STUDIES ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS DIAGRAM PEDESTRIAN SHEDS GRADING AND UTILITY PLANS STREET SECTIONS BOOKLET INFORMATION REGARDING TCEF PERCENTAGES INFORMATION REGARDING STORMWATER DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS INFORMATION REGARDING UTILITY LOCATION AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS INFORMATION REGARDING NATURAL AREAS DESIGN AND PARTNERSHIP INFORMATION REGARDING PARK, TRAIL, GRADE-SEPARATED CROSSINGS COGCC WELL SITE DOCUMENTATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN, TRC, JUNE 21, 2018 PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT - NATURAL AREAS - MONTAVA PARTNERSHIP 4. PUBLIC STREETS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE "LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS" OR APPROVED VARIANCES THERETO. THE ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. FINAL LOCATIONS OF ACCESS POINTS WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 5. PER LUC SECTION 3.7.3(E)(1), ALL TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND WASTEWATER, STORM DRAINAGE, EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND ELECTRIC POWER FACILITIES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 6. THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONE AS IDENTIFIED AND REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUP BMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONES SHOWN ON THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN MAY BE REDUCED OR ENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAND USE CODE SECTION (E)(1). 7. THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF A POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK (APPROX 80 ACRES). UNDERLYING ZONING OF THE POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK IS L-M-N LOW DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. USE OF SUCH SITE FOR A FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK IS SUBJECT TO PURCHASE OF THE SITE BY THE CITY AS THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATION FOR DEDICATION OF PROPERTY FOR A COMMUNITY PARK. 8. THIS MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL SITES. UNDERLYING ZONING OF SUCH SITES IS E-EMPLOYMENT. USE OF SUCH SITES FOR FUTURE SCHOOLS IS SUBJECT TO ACQUISITION THEREOF BY THE POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATION FOR DEDICATE OF PROPERTY FOR SCHOOL SITES. 9. AT THE TIME OF EACH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY (ECS) WILL BE PERFORMED TO MATCH THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. EACH SUCH ECS WILL DOCUMENT EXISTING SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF THE SITE, AND PROPOSE MITIGATION FOR THE IMPACTS THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TO THE ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF THE SITE AS REQUIRED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1. NOTES OWNER'S CERTIFICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT the Poudre R-1 School District, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, certifies that it is a lawful owner of property within the Montava - PUD Master Plan and consents to the inclusion of its property therein, but acknowledges that development of its property is not subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Fort Collins or the requirements of the Montava – PUD Master Plan. [Note: This certification is under discussion with the City Attorney.] POUDRE R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ____________________________ Printed Name: ___________________ Title: __________________________ APPROVED: This Planned Unit Development to be known as the Montava - PUD Master Plan is approved by Ordinance No. _______, 2019, passed and adopted on final reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of Fort Collins, Colorado, held on April 16, 2019. ______________________ City Clerk SHEET INDEX SHEET 1 COVER SHEET SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NATURAL FEATURES SHEET 3 ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN SHEET 4 ANNOTATED ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN SHEET 5 EXISTING ZONING SHEET 6 PUD TRANSECT DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS SHEET 7 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN VICINITY MAP NTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: BHA DESIGN, INC. 1603 OAKRIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PHONE: 970.223.7577 CONTACT: ANGELA MILEWSKI EMAIL: AMILEWSKI@BHADESIGN.COM CIVIL ENGINEER: MARTIN/MARTIN, INC. 12499 W COLFAX AVE LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 PHONE: 303.431.6100 CONTACT: PETER BUCKLEY EMAIL: PBUCKLEY@MARTINMARTIN.COM TEAM DIRECTORY SITE N O R T H OWNER/DEVELOPER: HF2M 430 N COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 410 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 PHONE: 512.507.5570 CONTACT: MAX MOSS EMAIL: MAX@HF2M.COM 1 PLANNER: DPZ CODESIGN 7435 NE HALSEY ST PORTLAND, OR 97213 PHONE: 305.799.3892 CONTACT: MATT LAMBERT EMAIL: MATT@DPZ.COM TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: RUTH ROLLINS CONSULT, INC. PHONE: 970.213.2393 CONTACT: RUTH ROLLINS EMAIL: RUTHIE.ROLLINS@GMAIL.COM TRAFFIC ENGINEER: NELSON\NYGAARD 77 FRANKLIN STREET, 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 PHONE: 857.305.8005 CONTACT: MICHAEL RIEBE EMAIL: MRIEBE@NELSONNYGAARD.COM MONTAVA - PUD MASTER PLAN A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 32, A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER 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; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 32 WHENCE THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER BEARS S00°29'18"E A DISTANCE OF 5289.91 FEET AND CONSIDERING ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE S89°35'02"E A DISTANCE OF 2638.10 FEET; THENCE S89°53'24"E A DISTANCE OF 1773.90 FEET; THENCE S00°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 472.51 FEET; THENCE S89°53'24"E A DISTANCE OF 864.73 FEET; THENCE S00°16'21"E A DISTANCE OF 1513.06 FEET; THENCE S89°59'54"E A DISTANCE OF 397.54 FEET; THENCE S00°20'11"E A DISTANCE OF 380.10 FEET; THENCE S89°59'31"E A DISTANCE OF 397.12 FEET; THENCE S00°16'21"E A DISTANCE OF 2906.93 FEET; THENCE S00°06'47"E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE S89°47'00"E A DISTANCE OF 945.36 FEET; THENCE S00°00'50"E A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE N89°59'10"E A DISTANCE OF 1022.26 FEET; THENCE S84°33'41"E A DISTANCE OF 150.45 FEET; THENCE S00°31'28"E A DISTANCE OF 220.49 FEET; THENCE S19°10'52"E A DISTANCE OF 716.33 FEET; THENCE S06°01'40"E A DISTANCE OF 296.08 FEET; THENCE S00°30'00"W A DISTANCE OF 783.98 FEET; THENCE N88°21'45"W A DISTANCE OF 92.96 FEET; THENCE S86°38'10"W A DISTANCE OF 1900.01 FEET; THENCE S68°38'10"W A DISTANCE OF 99.99 FEET; THENCE S55°58'15" W A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE S36°58'15"W A DISTANCE OF 199.96 FEET; THENCE S89°38'15"W A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE S00°06'47"W A DISTANCE OF 139.93 FEET; THENCE N89°11'06"W A DISTANCE OF 2627.63 FEET; THENCE N00°23'56"E A DISTANCE OF 2580.05 FEET; THENCE N89°53'45W A DISTANCE OF 2639.82 FEET; THENCE S89°44'44"W A DISTANCE OF 1339.28 FEET; THENCE N01°15'55"W A DISTANCE OF 1062.88 FEET; THENCE S89°50'10"W A DISTANCE OF 721.52 FEET; THENCE N01°15'28"W A DISTANCE OF 1589.29 FEET; THENCE N89°50'10"E A DISTANCE OF 2060.57 FEET; THENCE N00°29'18"W A DISTANCE OF 2644.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 999.25 ACRES (43,527,318.65 SQUARE FEET) MORE OR LESS AND IS SUBJECT TO ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS NOW IN USE OR OF RECORD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 24, ARTICLE 68, C.R.S. AND FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE 2.2.11(C), THIS MONTAVA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - MASTER PLAN IS A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE APPROVAL OF WHICH CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT, VALID FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ADOPTING ORDINANCE STATE OF COLORADO) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by My commission expires: ____________________________ __________________________ Notary Public KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT the Anheuser-Busch Foundation, being an owner of property within the Montava - PUD Master Plan, does certify that it accepts the conditions and restrictions set forth on said plan and in the conditions of approval by the City of Fort Collins, dated _______________, 2019 and consents to the recordation of any information pertaining thereto. ANHEUSER-BUSCH FOUNDATION, a Missouri charitable trust By: ____________________________ Printed Name: ___________________ Title: __________________________ STATE OF COLORADO) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by My commission expires: ____________________________ __________________________ Notary Public Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accom- modate fire access. Montava | ©2018 DPZ CoDESIGn DRAFT 01/01/19 19 STREET TYPES 8 | PaIRED onE-WaY LoCaL, t5 8B | PAIRED ONE-WAY LOCAL (T5) Right-of-Way 53 ft Roadway Width 20 ft Transect Zones T5 Parking Lanes 1 Sidewalk 8 ft Parking Width 8 Parkway Type Long tree well Travel Lanes 1 Parkway Width 10 ft Lane Width 12 ft Curb & Gutter Type Vertical Curb Width 0.5 ft Specifications are for each side of the Gutter Width 1.5 ft private median. Bike Facility Type Shared lane Bike Lane Width - Bike Buffer Width - TYPICAL ADJACENT PRIVATE ALLEY EASEMENT Where buildings exceed 30 ft, additional alley width is required to accommodate fire access. sign, site sign, or swing sign; (e) any common line of pennants must be stretched tightly to avoid movement in windy conditions. (Ord. No. 228, 1998 §§28, 29, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §30, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 59, 2000 §25, 6/6/00; Ord. No. 183, 2000 §§14, 16, 12/19/00; Ord. No. 107, 2001 §§32, 33, 6/19/01; Ord. No. 177, 2002 §16, 12/17/02; Ord. No. 173, 2003 §18, 12/16/03; Ord. No. 091, 2004 §§18—20, 6/15/04; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §§14—16, 12/21/04; Ord. No. 139, 2006 §1, 10/3/06; Ord. No. 192, 2006 §§11—13, 12/19/06; Ord. 081, 2007 §6, 7/17/07; Ord. No. 028, 2009 §2, 3/24/09; Ord. No. Height 7 ft. 7 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. Other Standards None If more than one None None N/A N/A 5 sf., including riders 5 sf., including riders Max. Sign Height N/A N/A 5 ft. 5 ft. Allowed Lighting N/A N/A None None Setbacks and Spacing N/A N/A 2 ft. from all property lines 2 ft. from all property lines Other Standards N/A N/A Swing signs shall be installed in permeable landscaped areas that are at least 4 ft. in every horizontal dimension and at least 20 sf. in area Swing signs shall be installed in permeable landscaped areas that are at least 4 ft. in every horizontal dimension and at least 20 sf. in area Feather Flags Max. # 1 per 100 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof; may be clustered 1 per 100 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof; may 1 per 100 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof; may be clustered Not allowed Max. Sign Area 16 sf. 32 sf. 32 sf. 32 sf. Max. Sign Height 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. Allowed Lighting External, down directional and concealed light source External, down directional and concealed light source External, down directional and concealed light source External, down directional and concealed light source Setbacks and Spacing 2 ft. from front property lines 2 ft. from front property lines 2 ft. from front property lines 2 ft. from front property lines 10 ft. from all other property lines 10 ft. from all other property lines 10 ft. from all other property lines 10 ft. from all other property lines 10 ft. from all other signs 10 ft. from all other signs 10 ft. from all other signs 10 ft. from all other signs 12 ft. from building walls 12 ft. from building walls 12 ft. from building walls 12 ft. from building walls Other Where allowed, site Where allowed, site Where allowed, site Where allowed, Buildings: 1 per 80 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof Nonresidential and Residential Mixed Use Buildings: 1 per 80 ft. of property frontage or fraction thereof Max. Sign Area (per sign) 6 sf. 8 sf. 8 sf. 6 sf. Max. Sign Height 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. Allowed Lighting None None None None Setbacks and Spacing 2 ft. from property lines; 2 ft. from all other signs 2 ft. from property lines; 2 ft. from all other signs 2 ft. from property lines; 2 ft. from all other signs 2 ft. from property lines; 2 ft. from all other signs Other Must be installed in Must be installed in Must be installed in Must be installed Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) - Full Tree Stocking The purpose of this standard is to screen low-interest, highly visible portions of buildings on large lots with green space surrounding the building. This standard results in buildings that make a positive aesthetic and 2. Vine Drive is not detailed in the technical report but is included in this request, final alignment is to be determined The PUD properly indicates either the widening or construction of these roadways, in compliance with the proposed Master Street Plan amendments. The Montava PUD demonstrates compliance with the concept of a network of public streets serving development that provides internal and external connectivity. On January 16, 2019, the Transportation Board considered the proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan as part of the Montava project. The Transportation Board voted to recommend that City Council approve all of the proposed changes to the Master Street Plan. City Council will consider these changes to the Master Street Plan in conjunction with the Montava PUD Master Plan. Staff recommends a condition of approval making approval of the PUD Overlay contingent upon Council adopting these proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Master Transportation Impact Study (TIS) accompanies the PUD Master Plan. A Master TIS is required to review the overall impact of the proposal upon buildout and identify the overall road improvements needed for the area. Staff notes the following conclusions: • The study area for this site is one of the largest for a single proposed development in Fort Collins history and reflects the project’s large scale. The review included more than a half dozen arterials and 14 intersections. • The project will develop in multiple phases over the course of more than 20 years. Each phase must submit a detailed traffic review that includes current conditions at the time to determine infrastructure n/a Two-Lane Arterial