HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERSTONE APARTMENTS - 7-97A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - (7)Oec-02-07 o0_iap
. _. . _,
P_io
DMsinn 2.12. Vestcd Rights and Takings Determinatians
Secrio t 212.11(A)
shall not be sufficient to support a determination of denial of
economically beneficial use.
(9) Current State of Lmv. The current state of law established by the
United States Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court and other controlling
Colorado courts, and controlling statutory law, shall be
considered.
(13) Reasonable Nexa"ough Proportionality. With regard to the takings
doctrines of"reasonable nexus" and "rough proportionality," an applicant
shall be entitled to the minimum revision of any required dedication or
reduction of its property, or the minimum revision of any payment of
money to ensure "rough proportionality," or the reevaluation of the
offending condition or action, including invalidation if necessary, to
ensure that the "reasonable nexus" and "rough proportionality" doctrines
are satisfied.
(1) In evaluating an applicant's "reasonable nexus/rough
proportionality" takings claim, a determination shall first be made
as to whether a "reasonable nexus" exists between a "legitimate
state interest" and the condition imposed by the city.
(2) The second part of the "reasonable nexus/rough proportionality"
takings analysis requires that a determination then be made as to
whether the exaction or condition is reasonably related to the
needs created by the development or the impacts of such
development.
(3) Finally, a determination shall be made as to whether the degree
of the exaction demanded by the city's condition is reasonably
related to the projected impacts of the applicant's proposed
development. No precise mathematical calculation is required,
but the city must make some sort of individualized determination
that the required exaction or condition is related both in nature
and extent to the impact of the proposed development-
(4) The current state of law established by the United States Supreme
Court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado
Supreme Court and other controlling Colorado courts, and
controlling statutory law, shall be considered in making each of
these determinations.
Article 2, Page 65
Dec-02-97 06:13P
f * a
Division 2.12. tested Righu and Takings tkterminarions
Sctnnn 2.12.1 /(A)
(.3) No Government Subsidy. A minimum economically beneficial
use of the land is one that does not have any governmental
subsidy attached to the long-term safe occupation or use of the
land. If such a subsidy is needed, then that must be reflected by
lowering the use intensity. that is considered a minimum
economically beneficial use on a market valuation basis, or by
deducting the cost of such a subsidy from the otherwise
established minimum economically beneficial use.
(4) Potential for Damages. The potential for damages to either
residents or property shall be assessed in determining
economically beneficial use. Such damage potential shall be
calculated and must be reflected by deducting the damage
potential from the otherwise established minimtun economically
beneficial use, or otherwise taking account of such damage.
(5) Nolnve.stment-Backed Expectations. Speculative expectations of
land value and development potential shall not be considered.
Reasonable development expectations backed by investments
shall not be considered, unless required by the current state of the
law.
(6) Conservative Financial Investment. The opportunity to make a
return on the use of the land equivalent to that which would have
been received from a conservative financial investment shall be
indicative of an economically beneficial use. However, general
downturns in the real estate market or the economy shall not be
attributed to the regulations applied to the land.
(7) No Diminution in Value. The market value of the land, as
established by the comparable sales approach, one (1) day prior
to the adoption of this Land Use Code, shall be compared to the
market value of the land, as established by the comparable sales
approach, with the regulations as applied. Market value of the
land one (1) day prior to the adoption of this Land Use Code shall
constitute its highest and best use on the day prior to the adoption
of this Land Use Code or the date of the purchase of the land by
the applicant, whichever is later. All appraisals or other land
value information, if any, shall be proposed by qualified licensed
appraisers, and shall follow the best professional practices
established by the profession. Mere diminution in market value
Arlide 2, Pane 64
Dec-02-97 06:13P
Division 1. 12. Vested Rights and Takings Delernrinarinns
Section 2,12.11
Land Use Code to as much development and property in the city as is legally
possible without violating; takings law.
The criteria herein provided shall be considered in rendering a Takings
Determination hereunder. It is intended that each case be decided on a case -by -
case factual analysis. While the criteria for takings established in this section are
intended to provide fair standards in a pre -litigation forum and to reflect the
current state of the law for Colorado, the city's adoption or use of these criteria
for takings shall not in any way be deemed an admission, concession or statement
by the city that such criteria apply or are controlling in a court of law, and the city
hereby unconditionally reserves all defenses and claims which would otherwise
be available to it under the law. For example, but without limitation, the city
does not concede for litigation purposes that the "reasonable nexus/rough
proportionality" doctrines apply to monetary exactions or to legislative acts,
although the city chooses to apply such criteria to the Takings Determination
process described herein.
(A) Economically Beneficial Use. With regard to the takings doctrine of
"economically beneficial use," an applicant shall be entitled to the
minimum increase in use, density, intensity or other possible concessions
from this Land Use Code necessary to permit an economically beneficial
use of the land or a use that is determined to be required by law. The
highest use, or even an average or generally reasonable expectation, is not
required or intended as the appropriate remedy.
The following factors shall be used to determine whether an economically
beneficial use of such property is available: ,
(1) Actual Condition ojLand The actual condition of the land shall
be considered. The reality of limited development potential,
given the natural condition of the land. shall not be attributed to
the regulations applied to the land. If the land is such that it
cannot safely or properly accommodate development with normal
grading and clearing practices, this fact shall lower the intensity
of use that is considereda minimum economicallybeneticial use.
(2) Common Land Use. A land use commonly found in the city,
although it may not involve further development of the land, is
considered an economically beneficial use. Furthermore, a land
use that is considered to be the lowest intensity in the city, but
which use still provides for residence within the city, is
considered an economically beneficial use.
Article 2, Page 63
DIC-02-97 06:12P
P_07
Division 2.12. Vested Rights and Takings Determinations Section 2.12.10(c)
(C) such a substantial change in position or expenditure by the applicant that
it would be highly inequitable or unjust to destroy the rights acquired.
In evaluating whether an applicant (property owner, developer or the successor
in interest of either) has met the requirements as set forth in (C) above, the
Hearing Officer shall consider and give weight to the following factual matters:
(D) the total investment made in the project, including all costs incurred
subsequent to the act of the city relied upon by the applicant, which costs
may include,, without limitation, the costs of land acquisition,
architectural and engineering fees and the costs of on -site and off -site
infrastructure improvements to service the project;
(F) any dedication of property made to public entities in accordance with the
approved overall development plan for the project or the approved
preliminary plan or plat for the project;
(F) whether infrastructure improvements which have been installed have been
sized to accommodate uses approved in the approved overall
development plan or the approved preliminary plan or plat for the project;
(G) the acreage of the approved overall development plan or the approved
preliminary plan or plat for the project and the number of phases within
the overall development plan or the preliminary plat or plan and their
respective acreages which have received final approval;
(H) whether the completion of the project has been timely and diligently
pursued; and
(I) the effect of the applicant's existing development loans on the application
of this Land Use Code to the project.
2.12-11 Criteria for Takings
This section is intended to strictly adhere to and implement existing case law and
statutory law controlling in the State of Colorado as they relate to the takings
doctrine as applied to a home rule municipality exercising its authority and
powers in land use planning, zoning, the provision of adequate public facilities
concurrent with development (APF), subdivision, site development_ land
development regulations and related matters addressed in this Land Use Code.
It is the express intent of the city to require application of the provisions of this
Article 2, Page Q
Dec-02-97 06:11p
P_06
DPoisian :.12. Vested Rights and Takings Determinations
Sectinn 2.12.8)
attorney or agent, or any resident of the city who appeared at the public hearing
before the Hearing Officer may appeal the Determination of the Hearing Officer
to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk. A fee
of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) shall be paid for the application and
processing of any such appeal except an appeal filed by the City Attorney or the
Director. The appeal shall be determined by the City Council at a hearing based
solely upon the record of the proceedings before the I -fearing Officer. The City
Council shall adopt the Hearing Officer's Determination, with or without
modifications or conditions, or reject the Hearing Officer's Determination. Such
appeal shall be based upon the criteria established in Section 2.12.10 or Section
2.12.11, whichever is applicable.
2.12.9 Waiver of Time Limits
Any time limit specified in the Determination Procedure may be waived upon
receipt by the City Clerk of a written stipulation requesting such waiver and
signed by the applicant and the Director.
2.12.10 Criteria for Vested Rights
This section is intended to strictly adhere to and implement existing case law and
statutory law controlling in the Stale of Colorado as they relate to the doctrine of
vested rights and equitable estoppel as applied to a home rule municipality
exercising its authority and powers in land vise planning, zoning, the provisions
of adequate public facilities concurrent with development (APF), subdivision,
site development, land development regulations, and related matters addressed
in this Land Use Code. It is the express intent of the city to require application
of the provisions of this Division 2.12 to as much development and property in
the city as is legally possible without violating the legally vested rights of an
owner developer under case law or statutory law. The criteria herein provided
shall be considered in rendering a Vested Rights Determination hereunder. It is
intended that each case be decided on a case -by -case factual analysis. An
applicant shall be entitled to a positive Vested Rights Determination only if such
applicant demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, entitlement to
complete his or her development without regard to the otherwise applicable
provisions of this Land Use Code by reason of: (A) the provisions of Title 24,
Article 68, C.R.S.; (B) Section 2.2.11 (Lapse) of this Land Use Code; or (C) the
existence of all three (3) of the following requirements:
(A) some authorized act of the city;
(B) reasonable good faith reliance upon such act by the applicant; and
Article 2, Page 61
Dec-02-97 06:11P
P.05
Divisinn 2, 12, Vested fthu and Trkings Determinations .Section 2.12.6 .
2.12.6 Review and Determination by Hearing Officer
No later than thirty (30) days after receipt by the Hearing Officer of the
Application for Determination and the written recommendation of the Director
and the City Attorney, the Hearing Officer shall hold a public hearing on the
application. Written notice of the hearing shall be mailed by the city to the
applicant at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduled hearing. At the
hearing, the Hearing Officer shall take evidence and sworn testimony in regard
to the criteria set forth in Section 2.12.10 or Section 2.12.11, whichever is
applicable, and shall follow such rules of procedure as maybe established by the
Director. The parties before the Hearing Officer shall include the city, the
applicant and any person to whom or organization to which the city mailed notice
of the hearing. Testimony shall be limited to the matters directly relating to the
standards set forth in Section 2.12.10 or Section 2.12.11, whichever is applicable.
The City Attorney shall represent the city, shall attend the public hearing and
shall offer such evidence as is relevant to the proceedings. The other parties to
the proceedings, or their authorized agents, may otfer such evidence at the public
hearing as is relevant to the proceedings and criteria. The order of presentation
before the Hearing Officer at the public hearing shall be as follows: (1) the city's
summary of the application, written recommendation, witnesses and other
evidence; (2) the applicant's witnesses and evidence; (3) other parties' witnesses
and evidence; and (4) city rebuttal, if any.
2.12.7 Issuance of Determination By Hearing Officer
Within thirty (30) working days after the completion of the public hearing tinder
Section 2.12.6, the Hearing Officer shall consider the Application for
Determination, the recommendation of the Director and the City Attorney, and
the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, in light of all of the
criteria set forth in Section 2.12.10 or Section 2.12.11, whichever is applicable,
and shall deny, grant, grant with conditions, or grant in part and deny in part, the
Application for Determination for the property or properties at issue. The
Determination shall be in writing and shall include Findings of fact for each of the
applicable criteria established in Section 2,12.10 or Section 2.12.11, whichever
is applicable, conclusions of law for each of such criteria, and a determination
denying, granting, or granting with conditions, in whole or in part, the vested
rights.
2.12.8 Appeal to the City Council
Within. twenty (20) days after issuance of the Hearing Officer's written
Determination, the City Attornev, the Director, the applicant, its authorized
Article 2. Page 60
Dec-02-97 06.11P P_04
Division 2.12. Yested Rights and Takings Determinations Section 2.12. J
2.12.4 Determination of Completeness
Within five(5) working days after receipt of an Application for Vested Rights or
Takings Determination, the Director shall determine whether the application
submitted is complete. If he or she determines that the application is not
complete, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiencies.
The Director shall take no further steps to process the application until the
deficiencies have been remedied.
2.12.5 Review and Determination or Recommendation by Director and City Attorney
After receipt of a completed Application for Vested Rights Determination or
Takings Determination, the Director and the City Attorney shall review and
evaluate the application in light of all of the criteria in Section 2.12.10 or Section
2.12.11, whichever is applicable. Within twenty (20) days of such receipt and
based on the review and evaluation, the Director and the City Attorney shall
prepare a written recommendation to the Hearing Office that the application
should be denied, granted or granted with conditions by the Hearing Officer.
Such recommendations shall include findings of fact for each of the criteria
established in Section 2.12.10 or 2.12_11, whichever is applicable, to the extent
that the information is presented or obtained or inclusion is leasible or applicable.
If the Director and the City Attorney agree, based on the review and evaluation,
that the Application for Determination clearly should be granted or granted with
conditions, then they may enter into a written Stipulated Determination with the
applicant, in lieu of the written recommendation to the Hearing Officer and the
provisions in Sections 2.12.6, 2.12.7, and 2.12.8. Any such Stipulated
Determination shall be in writing, signed by the City Manager, the City Attomey
and the applicant, and shall be approved by the City Council by resolution at its
next regularly -scheduled meeting which is at least fourteen (14) days from the
date such Stipulated Determination is signed. Said Stipulated Determination
shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the criteria
established in Section 2.12.10 or Section 2.12.11, whichever is applicable, and
the determination granting or granting with conditions, in whole or in part, the
application. In the event that a proposed Stipulated Determination is rejected by
the City Council, it shall be referred to the Hearing Officer for a hearing and
Determination in accordance with the procedures described in Sections 2.12.6
through 2.12.9 below.
Article 2, Page 59
Dec-02-97 06:10P
P_03
Division 2.12. Vested Kighis and Takings Determination, Section 2.12.3(D)
established in Section 2.12.11, including, without limitation, the
following:
(1) ✓documentation of the date of purchase and the purchase price of
such property, and any and all offers to purchase such property
made by any person within the last three (d) years;
(2) `✓l a description of the physical features present on such property, the
present use of such property, the use of such property at the time
it was purchased, the use of such property on the day prior to the
time of the adoption of this Land Use Code, the uses permitted on
such property at the time of application pursuant to this section,
and a detailed description of the regulations which are alleged to
result in an elimination of economically beneficial use of the
land;
(3),/ evidence of any investments made by the owner to improve such
property, the date the improvements were made, and the costs of
the improvements;
(4) ✓ all appraisals, studies and any other supporting evidence related
to such property;
(5) V'any actions taken by the city related to such property;
(6) a description of the use which the owner believes represents the
minimum legally required economically beneficial use ol'such
property, and all documentation, studies and other supporting
evidence thereof.
The application_ fee shall be applied to all out-of-pocket _expenses actually
n icurred by the city to connection with the hearing process, including without
n
limitation fees for, and expenses incurred by, the Hearing Officer; costs of
reporting and transcribing the proceedings before the Hearing Officer; and costs
of producing of exhibits. The applicationfee shall not be applied to any in-house
costs incurred by the city, such as compensation for city staff time. Any portion
of the application fee not used by the city to pay the costs referred to above shall
forthwith be returned to the applicant upon completion of the hearing and appeal
process.
Article 2, Page 58
Dec-02-97 06:10P
N
P_02
Division 2.12. Vested Rights and Takings Determinations
Section 2.12.2
compensation or who claims a deprivation of due process may seek a Takings
Determination in accordance with the procedures described in this Division.
With regard to a Takings Determination, the owner or developer may assert any
legally recognized takings claim, including, but not limited to, a claim that he or
she has been deprived of "all economically beneficial use" of his or her property,
that a condition imposed by the city does not have a `reasonable nexus' -to the
potential impacts of his or her development, that such a condition is not "roughly
proportional" to the potential impacts of his or her development, or that actions
taken by the city under this Land Use Code have resulted in a deprivation of due
process. Such persons will be provided an opportunity for a public hearing, the
right to present and rebut evidence, a formal record and an impartial Hearing
Officer in accordance with the following procedures. Such Hearing Officer shall
be selected and appointed by the City Manager and shall be an attorney licensed
to practice law in the State of Colorado with experience in land use matters.
Subject to the procedures hereinafter provided. the Hearing Officer shall issue
formal findings of fact, conclusions of law and a Vested Rights Determination
and/or Takings Determination, depending on the nature of the claim asserted by
the applicant. The claims shall be reviewed according to the following
procedure:
2.12.3 Application
An Application for Vested Rights Determination or Takings Determination shall
be submitted to the Director of Community Planning and Environmenud Serviccs
(the "Director") in the form established by the Director. An application fee in the
amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per application (i.e.,
$2,500.00 for vested rights, $2,500.00 for takings, whichever is applied for) shall
accompany and be part of the application. The application shall, at a minimum,
include:
(A) the name, address and telephone number of the property owner and
authorized applicant if other than the owner;
(B) : the street address, legal description and acreage of the property; and
(C) for Vested Rights Determinations, all factual information and knowledge
reasonably available to the owner and applicant to address the criteria
established in Section 2.12.10.
(D) for Takings Determination, all factual information and knowledge
reasonably available to the owner and applicant to address the criteria
Article 2. Page 57
DOC-02-97 06:10P
.s
P_01
Division 2.12. Vested Rivlas and Takings Determinations
DIVISION 2.12 VESTED RIGHTS AND TAKING
Sections:
Post -it' Fax Noto 7671
DAte
o c> 1
To .
From'
'S
Co./Dept. r
Cu.
Pnum; n
phune per,
7�0
2.12.1 Purpose
2.12.2 Administrative Process/Hearing Officer
2.12.3 Application
2.12A Determination of Completeness
2.12.5 Review and Determ i nation or Recommendation by Directorand City Attorney
2.12.6 Review and Determination by Hearing Officer
2.12.7 Issuance of Determination by Hearing Officer
2.12.8 Appeal to the City Council
2.12.9 Waiver of Time Limits
2.12.10 Criteria for Vested Rights
112.11 Criteria for Takings
2.12.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Division is to provide a procedure for relief, where
appropriate, to persons who claim that the adoption of this Land Use Code has
interfered with their vested rights to develop, or who claim that their property has
been taken by reason of the application of this Land Use Code.
The provisions and procedures of this Division shall be followed to conclusion
prior to seeking relief from the courts based upon any claim of vested rights, or
any alleged denial of economically beneficial use of land, any alleged lack of
reasonable nexus of a condition imposed by the city to potential impacts of
development, any lack ofrough proportionality of a condition imposed by the
city to potential impacts of development, any deprivation of due process which
causes a taking, or any other taking of real property.
2.12.2 Administrative Process/Hearing Officer
There is hereby established the following Vested Rights Determination and
Takings Determination Procedures for the purpose of identifying certain parcels
of real property in the city that should be made exempt, or partially exempt, from
the application of any portion of this Land Use Code. An owner or developer of
real property in the city who claims that certain development rights have vested
with regard to such property prior to the effective date of this Land Use Code
may seek a Vested Rights Determination in accordance with the procedures
described in this Division. Furthermore, an owner or developer of real property
in the city who claims that such property has been taken without just
Article 2, Page 56
LOS Thresholds
The following defines the minimum
acceptable standards by Pedestrian Fa-
cilities Plan Area. It should be noted
that numerous locations within a city
will not achieve the minimum LOS.
Because of limited funding, improve-
ments should be prioritized toward
activity areas, routes to schools, parks,
and transit. To cap the current prob-
lem, new developments, both public
and private, as well as major street im-
provements and redevelopment,
should adhere to the pedestrian LOS
standards.
Applications
Vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
LOS analysis is required for all pro-
posed public and private developments
and arterial improvements. Street im-
provements may require pedestrian
Street
Visual Interest
Directness
Continuity
Crossings
and Amenity
Security
Pedestrian
A
A
B
A
A
Districts
B
B
C
B
B
Activity Corridors
and Centers
B
B
B
C
B
School
Walking Areas
B
C
C
C
B
Transit
Corridors
C
C
C
C
C
Other Areas
within City
improvements to facilitate acceptable
pedestrian street crossings. Street im-
provements are unacceptable if they
reduce pedestrian LOS below accept-
able levels. Private developments may
BALLOFFETb
& Associates, Inc.
2000 Vermont Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA
Phone 970 223-2239
FAX 970 223-2320
E-mail: banda@webaccess.net
be required to construct off -site pedestrian
improvements to achieve acceptable
pedestrian LOS, similar to the request
to provide off -site mitigations to achieve
acceptable automobile LOS.
YN4rr'41:�.
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522 USA
Phone 970 221-6608
FAX 970 221-6239
E-mail: kreavis@ci.fort-collins.co.us
In association with: Shapins Associates and Zimmer-Gunsul-Frasca
-..
standards for a downtown area which is
highly pedestrian -dependent, is signifi-
cantly different in character and need
than an outlying residential area not
proximate to schools or transit. There-
fore a pedestrian facilities plan should
be developed to identify the existing
and/or anticipated pedestrian activity
areas from which to assign LOS stan-
dards. There are five designations
defined in this plan:
LEGEND
Growth Aroa i.....
Sicyclo Trail .r••^•--•^•••
Existing Future
Podostrian District
Activity Corridor -_
Activity Contor O O
Pedestrian Districts
This area reflects the highest pedestrian
environment desired, a location where
all LOS standards are A or B. This area
would be appropriate for downtown
and university areas, which typically
have the highest pedestrian activity in a
city. This pedestrian district would also
reflect proposed activity areas as de-
fined by the city's comprehensive plan.
Activity Corridor/Centers
This area is defined by the primarily
commercial corridors. Other areas have
e4r�1 w
City of Fort Collins
r�wc.w
w.rwr
Nat la Sulu
a very high automobile dependency.
By providing pedestrians linear connec-
tions between retail uses and the
adjacent residential areas, pedestrian
activity along these corridors could be
significantly improved. Pedestrians are
more likely to walk to areas within one -
quarter mile of neighborhoods and
retail areas with higher pedestrian LOS.
School Walking Areas
These include all routes within a one -
mile walking radius of an existing
public school and around sites desig-
nated for future public schools.
Transit Corridors
Areas within one -quarter mile of exist-
ing transit and routes identified in the
Transit 20 Year Plan.
Other
This category includes all locations not
falling within one of the four previous
areas.
SALLOFFET AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
difficulty seeing around the opposing
left -turning vehicle.
Corner Ramps
Directional corner ramps are preferred
because they notify drivers of intended
pedestrian walking direction.
Street Crossing Types
There are four types of street crossings.
Each has inherent differences.
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections pose major
pedestrian crossing problems due to
high volumes, turning vehicles, vehicles
that stop in the crosswalk, a significant
number of lanes to cross, signal indica-
tion that is difficult to read or
understand, lack of visual connection
with automobiles, lack of vehicle driver
respect, lack of raised median protec-
tion, no corner ramps, and no or
inconvenient pedestrian buttons.
Unsignalized Intersection
Crossing the Major Street
Problems are similar to signalized inter-
sections with even greater concern for
the number of lanes to cross, speed of
vehicles, and lack of adequately marked
crosswalks with good lighting, raised
median, visibility, and corner ramps.
Unsignalized Intersection
Crossing the Minor Street
The problem at these locations is the
vehicle traveling along the arterial turn-
ing right or left onto the minor street,
while being urged along by a following
vehicle.
Mid -Block Crossing
Similar to unsignalized major street
crossing, including number of lanes to
cross, lack of crosswalk presence, light-
ing, raised median, and corner ramps.
Street Crossing
LOS Measurements
For each street crossing type, the ideal
condition as defined in the Pedestrian
LOS Chart assigns the highest LOS to
the crossing with the greatest number of
design elements with the minimum
number of lanes. As pedestrian design
elements are added, the LOS improves.
As lanes are added, the LOS is lowered.
Visual Interest and
Amenity
Measurement of the pedestrian systems at-
tractiveness and features.
The attractiveness of the pedestrian net-
work can range from visually appealing
to appalling. Compatibility with local
architecture and enhancements, such as
fountains, benches, and lighting improve
visual interest of the area for pedestrians.
Security
Measurement of the pedestrians'senw of
security.
Pedestrians require a sense of sccurily,
both through visual line of sight wilh
vehicle drivers and separation from ve-
hicles. Major portions of the city's
sidewalks along arterials are narrow
and adjacent to high -volume, high-
speed travel lanes. Other sidewalks are
intimidating because they are not visible
to the motorist and surrounding activi-
ties. Pedestrian sidewalks and corridors
should also be examined based on
lighting levels and sight distance.
Pedestrian Facilities Ilan
While there is one set of LOS measure-
ment for all pedestrian facilities,
acceptable LOS thresholds vary by type
of activity area. It would not be logical
to require the same LOS standard every-
where. As an example, the needs and
Street Trees — Visual Interest
Pedestrian F
Scale Lighting _ _ �f \ • �X —
ti
Street Furniture
---
�= -- Considerable Walking Widths'{
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
Fort Collins Pedestrian Levels of Service
Directness
Continuity
Signals**
Unsignalized,
crossinT the major
street*
Unsignalized,
crossin, the minor
street*
Mid -block major
street crossing***
IVisual Interest and
Amenity
Security
A
B
C
D
E
F
Excellent and direra
connectivity through full
Excellent and direct
connectivity with clear
Minimum acceptable
directness connectivity
Increasing lack of
directness, connectivity
four directness and
connectivity. Pedeslri;ms
No directness or
utilization of urban
space, sireels, transit,
linear ;and visual
standard. Urban space
and linearity with
perception ofa linear
connectivity. 1bG11
pedestrian disorientation,
actively centers with
dear linear
connection to transit
facilities, streets and
become less coherent
with the beginnings of
incoherent and
confusing direction and
connection lu desired
destination falters and
no linearity and
confusing.
visual
statements.
activities.
discomfort with visual
clarity and lack
visual connection to
serves only, the person
of
linearity.
pedestrian destinations.
with no other choice.
(A/M Ratio <1 .2)'
(A/M Ratio 1.2 to 1.4)-
(A/M Ratio IA to 1.6)'
(A/M Ratio 1.6 to 1.8)'
(A/M Ratio 1.11 Io 2.0),
(A/M Ratio >2.0)'
appears as a single entity
with a major achvily
area or public open
space.
3 or fewer lanes to cross,
signal has clear
vehicular and pedestrian
indications;
well marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
standard curb ramps;
automatic pedestrian
signal phase;
amenilacs, signing,
sidewalk, anc) roadway
character strongly
suggest the presence ofa
pedestrian crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each other.
3 or fewer lanes to cross;
hell -marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
standard curl) ramps
signing, sidewalk, acid
roachvay character
strongly sumest the
presence oI a pedestrian
crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each of her.
Well -marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
standard curb ramps;
signing, sidewalk, and
roadway character
strongly su},gest file
presence ofa pedestrian
crossin;;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
Of each other.
3 or fewer lanes to cross;
signing;, sidewalk and
oadway character
strongly suhgesl the
presence o a pedestrian
crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each other:
well marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
standard curb ramps.
Visually I pealing and
conapailb c with local
architecture. Generous
sidewalk width, active
building frontal"es,
pedestrian lighlnag, street
bees on(I quality street
furniture.
Sense of security
enhanced by presence of
other people usin�
sidewalks and visibility
from adjacent buildings.
Good liyhling and clear
sight lilies.
�onunuous stretches of
sidewalks which are
lahysically separated by a
andscaped parkway.
4 or 5 lanes to cross;
si mat has clear
veicular and pedestrian
indications;
well marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
pedestrian refuge area:
raised medians at least 6'
wide wilh'low plantings'
or features;
standard curb ramps;
automatic pedestrian
signal phase;
amenities, `si�ning,
sir)cwalk, and roadway
character strongly
sughg,esl the presence ofa
palcstrian crossing;
(Iivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each other.
Missing 2 elements of A
4 or 5 lanes to cross;
well -marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
pedestrian refuge area:
raised median at least 6'
wide with low plantings
or features;
standard curl) ramps;
signing, sidewalk, and
oadway character
strongly su}gest the
presence oI a pedestrian
-Crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each other.
Missing 1 elcrncnl of A
Missing 1 element of A
4 or 5 lanes to cross;
raised median at lead 6'
wide with low plantings
or features;
signing, sidewalk and
roadway character
strongly sug gcst the
presence of a pedestrian
crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have tihobstructed views
of each other:
well marked crosswalks
good lighting levels;
standar 1 curl) ramps.
Missing 1 element of A
Generous sidewalks,
visual clarity, sonic street
furniture and
landscaping, no blank
street walls.
Good lighting,, levels and
unobstructed lines of
sight.
Continuous stretches of
sidewalks which may
have variable widths,
with and without
landscaped parkways.
6 or more lanes to cross;
Si mat has dear
vehicular and pedestrian
indications;
well -marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
pedestrian refuge area:
raised median at least 6'
wide with low plantings'
or features;
standard curb ramps;
automatic pedestrian
signal phase;
amenities, si .ning,
sidewalk, an� roadway
character strongly
sug�esl the presence ofa
pedestrian crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each other.
Missing 4 elements of A
Missing 2 elements of 13
6 or more lanes to cross;
well -marked crosswalks;
good lighling levels;
pedestrian refuge area:
raised median at least 6'
wide with low plantings
or features;
standard curb ramps;
signing, sidewalk, and
roadway character
strongly sur,gest the
presence- ora pedestrian
crossing;
drivers and pedestrians
have unobstructed views
of each other.
Missing 2 elements of A
Missing I element of 13
pedestrian corridors are
not well connected with
several breaches in the
pedestrian network.
Missing 5 elements of A
Missing 4 elements of f3
Missing 2 clemcnls of C
Missing 3 elements of A
Missing 2 elernenis of 13
Missing 1 elcrncnl of C
Significant breaks in
continuity.
Missing 6 elements of A
Missing 5 elements of li
Missing 4 clen enis of C
Missing 4 elements of A
Missing 3 elernenls of 13
Missing 2 elements of C
Missing 2 elements of A I Missing 3 elements of A I Missing 4 elements of A
6 or more lanes to cross;
raised median at least 6'
wide with low plantings
or features;
signing, sidewalk and
roadway character
strongly suggest the
presence of a pedestrian
crossing;
drivers and pedestrians.. .
have uriolistructed views
of each other;
well marked crosswalks;
good lighting levels;
standard curb ramps.
Missing 2 elements of A
Missing 1 clement of t3
Functionally operational
with less importance to
visual interest or
amenity.
UnobsIrUcled lines of
sight.
Missing 3 clemenls of A
Missing 2 elements of 13
Missing 1 element of C
Design ignores
pedestrian with negative
mental image.
Sidewalk configuration
and parked cars may
inhibit vigilance from
the street.
Missing, 4 elements of A
Missing 3 elements of f3
Missing 2 elements of C
Comfort and convenience
non-existent, design has
overlooked needs of
users.
Ma or breaches in
pedestrian visibility from
street, adjacent land uses
and activities.
Complete breakdown in
pedestrian traffic flow as
each pedestrian selects a
different route as no
network exists.
Missing 7 elements of A
Missing 6 elements of U
Missing 5 elements of C
,Missing 5 elements of A
Missing 4 elements of t3
Missing 3 elements of C
Missing 5 elements of A
Missing 5 elements of A
Missing 4 elements of 13
Missing 3 elements of C
total discomfort and
intimidation.
Slrce(scape is pedestrian
intolerant.
* A/M Ratio: Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum distance defined by a right angle grid street system.
** A signalized intersection LOS will go u44) one level of service with a dedicated pedestrian signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk.
*** Unsignalized crossing at intersection of major street (minor arterial to major arterial) and minor street (local, connector and collector).
OA
.
Street crossing LOS
was correlated to the
77
pedestrian exposure
to the automobile
Lj
EOO
and design elements
.�
which positively re-
flectthe pedestrian
presence. The follow-
ing are key street
crossing elements
�t
that need to be exam-
OI
° m
ined when measuring
a street crossings
a
LOS.
U J u e
street or there are breaches in the system.
LOS E reflects areas where there are
significant breaks in the system.
LOS F is a complete breakdown in the
pedestrian flow where each pedestrian
selects a different route because no
pedestrian network exists.
Street Crossings
Measurement of the pedestrian safety in
crossing a street.
If one cannot safely cross a street to get
to one's destination, there is little likeli-
hood that a change in mode from the
automobile will take place. Because
street crossings place the pedestrian in
the middle of the street involving both
the pedestrian and automobile driver,
the measurement of a street crossing
becomes very complex. Achieving a
high LOS for street crossings requires
significant investment.
Number of Lanes
o The greater the number
of lanes to cross, the
greater the exposure of
the pedestrian to vehicles. In addition,
wider streets tend to carry higher vol-
umes of traffic and higher speeds.
Median Refuge Areas
Painted medians offer little refuge,
other than getting out of a lane of traf-
fic. Substantive raised medians of
significant width increase a sense of
safety for the crossing pedestrian.
Crosswalks
Crosswalks are present and well
marked.
Reruge
Island
Number of
Travel lanes
Signal Indication
Signal heads are easily visible to the
pedestrian and the motorist.
Lighting Levels
Intersection and crosswalks are well lit
so that the pedestrian is visible at night.
Pedestrian Signal Indication
Some signals have the walk phase
automatically set for each cycle. This
is desirable for all activity areas, as it
states the importance of the pedes-
trian. An alternative is the pedestrian
button, where the pedestrian presses
the button, waits for the cycle to re-
peat, and gets the walk phase. The
third type of signal does not have any
walk phase. For an actuated signal this
type of pedestrian indication is unac-
ceptable, since the only way a
pedestrian gets a green light is when
an automobile on the side street acti-
vates the cycle.
Pedestrian Character
Signing, striping, and roadway charac-
ter strongly suggest the presence of a
pedestrian crossing.
Sight Distance
Unobstructed view between the motor-
ist and the pedestrian. This can be a
particular problem when a vehicle
driver intends to make a left turn under
the permissive left turn phase and has
Pedestrian Signal Indication
RALLOFFET AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Directness
Measurement of the walking trip length.
The measure of directness is simply
how well an environment provides direct
pedestrian connections to destinations
such as transit stops, schools, parks,
commercial areas, or activity areas. The
grid street pattern typifies the ideal sys-
tem where one can go north or south,
or east or west to easily get to one's
destination. The common curvilinear
residential subdivision which may have
cul-de-sacs that back onto a commer-
cial center, transit stop, school, or park
might be physically proximate to a po-
tential pedestrian destination, however,
often require a circuitous route which
deters pedestrians trips.
The directness LOS measure is based
on a ratio of the actual distance from a
a
a
0
O
LOS Excellent
A =1111111111110111113MM = I= ME
am vIon
I IN 1� M
LV "' : t1: d 0
LOS Minimum
k' Iz.rie-'I—.J
7
LOS Poor
L
A = Actual distance to walk
M= Measured minimum distance
X= Destination
trip origin to trip destination divided by
the minimum distance (as the crow
flies) between those two points. Actual
destination is further defined by either
existing conditions or the proposed
publiciprivate development.
To measure the directness LOS requires
selecting one or two trip origin locations
in a smaller development and up to five
or six representative trip origin loca-
tions in a larger development. Trip
destinations are then identified.
Trip destinations are those locations to
which pedestrians may walk, such as
transit stops, schools, parks, trails, and
commercial areas. These destinations
should be within approximately one -
quarter mile, but could be greater (e.g.,
junior high schools and high schools
have.a one -mile and one and one half -
mile walking distance, respectively). If
no pedestrian destinations are within
the immediate study area, the direct-
ness LOS is not applicable. Connections
to arterials that could eventually sup-
port transit should be evaluated.
If the directness LOS is defined by the
grid system, the minimum distance is
the measurement from a representative
trip origin to destination by the north/
south axis.
The actual distance is either the existing
distance to walk from an origin to desti-
nation, or the distance if the development
was constructed.
The actual/minimum ratio and level of
service table is as follows:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
LEVEL OF ACTUAL DISTANCE/
SERVICE MEASURED DISTANCE RATIO
A
< 1.2
8
1.2 - 1.4
C
1.4- 1.6
D
1.6 - 1.8
E
1.8 - 2.0
F
> 2.0
An actual/minimum (A/M) ratio of less
than 1.2 is considered an A, whereas an
A/M ratio of 2.0+ would be considered
a F. An A/M ratio of below 1.0 could be
achieved with the introduction of a
diagonal street. Ideally, development
proposals should be self -mitigated to
achieve acceptable LOS standards prior
to submittal to the City.
Continuity
Measurement of the completeness of the
Sidewalk system.
A continuous pedestrian system from
origin to destination is critical for
pedestrian mobility. Continuity is a
measure of both the physical consis-
tency and type of pedestrian sidewalk,
and the visual connection from one
block to the next.
LOS A is achieved when the pedestrian
sidewalk appears as a single entity with
a major activity area or public open space.
LOS B provides a quality continuous
stretch of pedestrian networks which
are physically separated with land-
scaped parkways.
LOS C provides for a continuous pedes-
trian network on both sides of the
streets; however, these sidewalks may
not be built to current standards.
LOS D reflects areas where there may
not be sidewalks on both sides of the
PEDESTMAN
Le
S
LEVEL Of SERVICE
Ray A. Moe
Director of Transportation Services
Balloffet and Associates, Inc.
Kathleen Reavis
Transportation Planner
City of Fort Collins
Tihe City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan provides level of service
LOS) standards for each travel mode including motor vehicle, public tran-
t, bicycle, and pedestrian. The objectives of these LOS standards guide
public and private planning for mobility and accessibility in all transportation modes.
In preparing the Pedestrian LOS standards and methodology, it became evident
that pedestrian measures such as pedestrian density and flow rate as defined by the
Highway Capacity Manual were inappropriate for Fort Collins, Colorado, a medium -
size urban area. Therefore a planning LOS set of procedures was developed to
evaluate existing conditions and proposed public and private projects.
It should be further noted that the determination of the methodologies is but half
of the LOS analysis procedure. LOS targets or standards were also defined for dif-
ferent areas within the City.
Level of Service Measurements
As an outgrowth of the pedestrian problem definition, a pedestrian facility -specific
LOS measurement procedure was established for each of five problem areas.
These definitions are presented in the Pedestrian Level of Service Chart. The five
problem areas for which LOS procedures were developed are as follows:
• Directness
• Continuity
• Street Crossings
• Visual Interest and Amenity
• Security
UALLOFFET AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attachment "C"
City of Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual,
including map showing activity areas, pedestrian districts, transit corridors, bike facilities, various vehicular LOS areas, etc.
Attachment "B"
PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Pedestrian Destinations
(within % mile of project site)
Origin
(Project Site)
Rec.
Res.
Inst.
Ofc/Bus.
Com.
Ind.
Other
(Specify)
Recreation
Residential
Institution
(school, church, civic)
Office/
Business
Commercial
Industrial
Other
(Specify)
Based upon the project's land use classification, the pedestrian Level of Service analysis for directness, continuity, street crossings, visual
interest/amenity, and security should consider the applicable destinations which are located within one quarter mile of the project site.
DATE:
TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
Attachment "A"
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
BASE ASSUMPTIONS
UA I t:
TRAFFIC ENGINE
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 12
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
procedures as described earlier, including other projects and areawide growth if
applicable.
Determine if the proposed project would create significant impacts to the residential
streets utilizing the conditions stated earlier.
If necessary, develop measures, including but not limited to traffic calming
techniques, to mitigate any significant impacts.
The neighborhood TIS should also discuss how pedestrians and bicyclists would access the
proposed project to/from the adjacent neigh borhood(s), and the need for special facilities to enhance
direct pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the Transportation Impact Study should be provided in summary format, including
the identification of any areas of significant impacts and recommended improvements/mitigation
measures to achieve the LOS standards for all modes.
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 11
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
Transit shuttles provided by applicant (e.g., bus, taxicab, van, etc.);
Contributions toward transit stations or centers;
Traffic Signal Operational Improvements
Traffic Signal Operational improvements would include upgrading signal to include additional signal
phases and/or, signalization of an unsignalized intersection. Signalization of project access drives
would not be considered as a mitigation measure. Signal improvements and/or installations must be
approved by the Traffic Engineer.
Street Widening and Other Physical Improvements
Mitigation measures which include street widening and other physical improvements must be
demonstrated to be physically feasible and must meet minimum City standards and codes for both
on -site and off -site improvements.
Street Restriping and Parking Regulations
Proposed striping and parking regulation mitigation(s) must be approved by the City Traffic
Engineer. Generally, street restriping is not a preferred mitigation measure because it often requires
parking regulations which may cause secondary impacts in certain commercial and residential areas.
Therefore, any parking impacts should be clearly identified and proposed for mitigation to the extent
feasible.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
The TIS should include a focused analysis of the potential project related impacts on adjacent
residential areas. The need for this Study will be identified as part of the base assumptions. If it is
determined that a neighborhood transportation impact Study is required the following procedure
should be followed:
Examine existing transportation conditions within the neighborhood. This should
follow the same procedure as set forth earlier for the transportation impact analysis.
Daily and peak hour traffic volumes should be collected for the local streets to be
included in the analysis .
Determine project generated traffic for all modes within the neighborhood and show
on a figure.
- Determine total traffic projections for the local streets. This should follow the same
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 10
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
Street Widening and Other Physical Improvements
Street Restriping and Parking Regulations
The.intersection LOS should be recalculated to reflect the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation
measures and show that the project -related impacts have been reduced to an acceptable LOS for
all transportation modes (vehicle, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit). The LOS findings should
be shown in tabular form.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures
Transportation Demand Management measures are designed to facilitate the use of alternate
transportation modes in an effort to decrease demand on the roadway system by single occupant
vehicles. Example of TDM measures include the following:
Vehicle trip reduction incentives and services offered by employers to encourage
employees to utilize alternative. modes of travel such as carpooling vanpooling, riding
public transit, bicycling, walking, telecommuting, etc..
- Vehicle trip reduction incentives and services affecting visitors to the project, such
as shoppers, clients, patrons, etc.
- Financial support for the capital and/or operating costs of enhanced_ transit or
vanpool service to the project.
- Provision of a mix of land uses in close proximity, facilitating trip making by walking,
bicycling, or local shuttles.
- Provision of on -site facilities which encourage use of alternate forms of transportation
such as bicycle lanes and amenities, enhanced pedestrian connections,
telecommuting facilities, etc.
Site trip cap and/or parking cap including trip monitoring agreements
A detailed description of the proposed TDM measures and implementation plan must be included
in the TIS for any project seeking TDM-related trip reductions. If the TDM program is acceptable
to the City of Fort Collins Transportation Services, the applicant will be allowed to reduce total project
vehicle trips by an amount commensurate with applicable trip reduction policies.
Transit Capacity and Access Improvements
Suggested elements of a transit program should include:
Contributions of equipment or funds to increase the capacity of existing transit
systems;
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 9
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
for public transit must consider mitigation measures such as those indicated on pages 9-11.
Significant Impacts
This section applies primarily to vehicular related impacts associated with the proposed project. A
project is defined as significantly impacting a study intersection when one of the following conditions
are satisfied:
For Signalized Intersections
when the added project traffic causes an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level
of service standard: 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 traffic causes more
than a 2 percent increase in the intersection delay.
For Unsignalized Intersections
when backstacking to adjacent intersections would create impeded traffic flows and/or
excessive congestion; or
when added project traffic is determined to create potential safety problems
For Local Residential Streets
Projected Average Daily
Traffic with Project
(Total ADT)
up to 2,000
2,000 or more
MITIGATION MEASURES
Project -Related
Increase In ADT
12 percent or more of Total ADT
10 percent or more of Total ADT
When a project's vehicular impacts are determined to not meet the minimum acceptable level of
service standard, the TIS shall include feasible measures which would mitigate the project's impacts.
The mitigation measures are intended to be in addition to the required improvements necessary to
meet the City's standards and codes. The goal of the mitigation measure(s) should be to minimize
the demand for trips by single occupant vehicles and to increase the use of alternative modes.
Therefore, the following mitigation categories are listed in order of priority:
Transportation Demand Management Measures
Transit Capacity and Access Improvements
Traffic Signal Operation Improvements
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 8
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
The TIS will determine if the project will create any significant impacts at the study intersections and
surrounding the project site. In order to determine this, the peak hour levels of service at each of
the study intersections will be evaluated for each of the following scenarios:
Future Background Traffic Conditions for each Study Year
Total Existing Traffic Conditions
Future Total Traffic Conditions for each Study Year
The level of service analysis for each of the traffic scenarios and study years need to include mode
split assumptions. The level of service findings should be shown in the TIS in tabular form.
Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service
Minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standards vary by area within the City of Fort Collins.
To determine which LOS standards apply based upon a project's location, refer to the maps
included in the City of Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual.
Vehicular
The vehicular LOS analysis should be conducted for intersections identified in the base assumption
form. The City of Fort Collins has established Level of Service D as the minimum acceptable
vehicular LOS with the exception of arterial intersections along commercial corridors and
intersections within activity centers. The minimum acceptable LOS at arterial intersections within
these areas is Level of Service E. Arterial intersections are defined as the intersection of either
arterial/arterial or arterial/collector roadways. The City Traffic Engineer should be consulted to
determine the applicable minimum Level of Service standard based upon the location of the study
intersections.
Bicycle. Pedestrian. and Public Transit
The City of Fort Collins has established minimum acceptable LOS standards for bicycles,
pedestrians, and public transit which vary by land use area/districts within the community. The LOS
analysis for pedestrians should be performed based upon adjacent land use(s) and destinations
within one -quarter mile surrounding the project site (See Attachment "B"). Analysis of destinations
which are farther than one quarter mile may be necessary given particular site circumstances, such
as a residential site and the schools serving the development. Refer to the City of Fort Collins
Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual for detailed descriptions of the LOS standards.
The LOS analysis for bicycles should be performed based upon connectivity with the existing
bikeway network.
All projects are expected to achieve the minimum acceptable LOS standard for bicycles and for
pedestrians within one -quarter mile (or greater if applicable to pedestrian oriented destinations)
surrounding the project site. Projects which do not achieve the minimum acceptable LOS standard
City of Fort Collins - Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
March 28, 1997
Page 7
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution for the proposed project will. be identified in the TIS. The distribution pattern will
be based upon: the project's location within the City of Fort Collins, standard gravity model, existing
traffic volume data, project marketing data, and engineering judgement.
Trip Assignment
The project traffic will be assigned to the roadway system according to the trip distribution
established above. The resulting project site generated traffic will be depicted on figures for build -
out conditions and any project phases. These figures will include daily and peak hour traffic volume
information.
TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The total traffic projections will be determined for existing conditions and for each of the study years
identified earlier in the base assumptions. For existing conditions the project related traffic will be
added to the existing peak hour traffic. The resulting total traffic projections for existing conditions
will be depicted on a figure. For each of the study years, the total traffic projections will include the
future background traffic plus the project generated traffic. The future total traffic projections will be
depicted on figures for each study year. Based upon the total traffic projections and the City's street
standards, provide roadway functional classification recommendations. For example, a roadway
projected to carry between 3,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day would be recommended as a Collector
without parking where as if the projected traffic was between 1,000 and 2,500 vehicles per day, it
would be recommended as a Connector.
SITE DESIGN AND CIRCULATION EVALUATION
The project's site design should be analyzed to determine if the proposed circulation system serves
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles. The site design should be evaluated to determine
if facilities for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit meet the City's on -site design standards
and codes.
The project's site design should be evaluated to determine if traffic flows are adequately designed.
The on -site traffic flows should be evaluated to minimize areas where motorists would tend to speed,
minimize potential conflict areas between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists, and to determine if
circulation patterns are designed to avoid unnecessary traffic congestion and conflict points.
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 6
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
A description of any planned transportation system improvements should be provided. This should
include such improvements as: signalization, intersection improvements, roadway widening,
bicycle/pedestrian projects, and transit capital and operating/service improvements.
The future background traffic projections should include any individual development projects which
are within the study area and would impact the study intersections. Any larger projects outside the
study area should also be considered. Each of the cumulative projects should be listed in the TIS
and include location, size, and proposed land use.
The overall growth in traffic within the study area should also be accounted for when determining
future background traffic projections. The growth factors which should be applied to the existing
traffic will be provided by the City Traffic Engineer.
The resulting future peak hour traffic projections at the study intersections should be depicted on a
figure.
PROJECT TRAFFIC
The potential transportation impacts of the proposed development project will be determined based
upon the following three step process:
Determination of Trip Generation
Determination of Trip Distribution
Assignment of Project Traffic
Trip Generation
The trip generation of the proposed project will be determined and provided in tabular form. The trip
generation needs to be determined for total build -out conditions and for any development phases.
The trip generation table should indicate the average daily trips and peak hour trips. This section
of the TIS should also include a description of the mode split data which was assumed for the trip
generation estimates.
The development of trip generation estimates for the project should be based upon data from the
latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual. However, other
data sources or trip generation rate studies may be utilized if the manual does not contain data for
the proposed project or additional data is available which better reflects the trip generation
characteristics of the project. The use of other trip generation rate sources will be discussed with
the City Traffic Engineer.
Adjustments to the standard trip -generation of the proposed project may be made to account for
internal site trips, passby trips, or other unique characteristics of the proposed project. The
allowance for these reductions will be discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and in most cases
should follow guidelines set forth in documents such as the ITE Dip Generation Manual referenced
above_ The adjusted trip generation for the proposed project should be provided in tabular form.
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 5
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
Per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, bicycle facilities are defined as:
Bike Lane: A portion of roadway or shoulder which has been designated [by paint stripe,
pavement markings, and signage] for use by bicyclists.
Bike Route/
Shared Roadway: A roadway which is officially designated and marked [by signage] as a bicycle
route, but which is open to motor vehicle travel and upon which no bicycle
lane is designated.
Bike Path: A separate trail or path from which motor vehicles are prohibited and which
is for the exclusive use of bicycles or the shared use of bicycles and
pedestrians.
Special attention should be given to the bicycle and pedestrian connections to specific uses such
as: schools, parks, transit stops, employment centers, commercial areas, shopping, and adjacent
land uses.
Existing Levels of Service
The existing Levels of Service (LOS) of the transportation system adjacent to the project site should
be determined. The existing LOS will be determined for the following: vehicular (at the study
intersections), pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit. The peak hour vehicular LOS at the
study intersections will be determined based upon the procedures set forth in the latest edition of
the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS for pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit will
be determined based upon the standards set forth in the Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level
of Service Manual.
All level of service worksheets should be included in the appendices to the Transportation_ Impact
Study roport.
FUTURL. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The future background traffic projections should be determined for each of the study years identified
eaHlar A part of the base assumptions. The future background projections should account for the
following:
Transportation System Improvements
Cumulative Projects
Overall Traffic Growth
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 4
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A description of the proposed project will be prepared and include the type of land use and size of
the proposed project (number of dwelling units or building square footage). Any proposed phasing
will be discussed and the anticipated completion date established. A figure depicting the proposed
site plan will also be included and the proposed vehicular access locations will be described. This
section will also include a description of how pedestrian and bicycle travel will be accommodated
within the proposed site plan. This will include a discussion of types of sidewalks
(attached/detached), pathways, and connections to local and perimeter destinations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Transportation Impact Study will establish the existing transportation system conditions. The
assessment of existing conditions will include: a description of the surrounding roadway network,
bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and transit service; an evaluation of the peak hour level of
service at the study intersections, determination of the bicycle and pedestrian level of service, and
an evaluation of the existing transit level of service. The level of service for pedestrian facilities,
bicycle facilities, and transit will be determined based upon the standards set forth in the Fort Collins
Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual.
Description of Existing Transportation System
The description of the roadway network will include: number of travel lanes, presence or not of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, posted speed limits, and adjacent land use. Traffic data at the
roadway network and study intersections should be obtained through counts and the City's Traffic
Engineering Department. Any recent (within the last two years) average daily traffic data which is
available for the roadway network should be shown on a figure. Peak hour traffic data at the study
intersections should be no older than six months, and if new counts are necessary this is the
responsibility of the applicant. All traffic count data should be included in an appendix to the TIS.
The existing transit facilities within one -quarter mile of the project should be described. This
description should include: location of existing transit routes, hours of service, weekday frequency
of service, and location of transit stops.
The description of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities should include any facilities directly
adjacent to the project site and within one -quarter mile. Analysis of pedestrian destinations which
are farther than one quarter mile may be necessary given particular site circumstances, such as a
residential site and the schools serving the development. If there are bicycle facilities, the type of
facility (bike route, bike lane, bike path) should be described and it should be mentioned if the facility
is substandard (does not meet City's street design standards).
City of Fort Collins - Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
March 28, 1997
Page 3
PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS
After the initial scoping meeting is held, the City Traffic Engineer will complete the Pedestrian
Analysis Worksheet, included as Attachment "B", which identifies origin and destination pairs which
should be utilized for analysis of pedestrian Level of Service measurements for directness,
continuity, street crossings, visual interest/amenity, and security. Based upon the project's land use
classification, consideration should be given to the noted destinations which are located within one
quarter mile of the project site. Analysis of destinations which are farther than one quarter mile may
be necessary given particular site circumstances, such as a residential site located within a school
walking area boundary.
SUBMITTAL
Four copies of the Transportation Impact Study should be delivered to the Development Review
Center, to be submitted as part of the required planning information. Revisions to the TIS shall be
provided as required by the City, if considered necessary to complete the TIS or where changes to
the site's access necessitate additional revisions to the study.
CITY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Transportation Services Team will evaluate the Transportation Impact Study. After this
evaluation, comments regarding the TIS will be forwarded to the Project Planner. All City comments
regarding the project will be provided to the applicant. After the evaluation, subsequent analysis
may be requested of the applicant regarding specific transportation issues.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
A Transportation Impact Study will be prepared for each development proposal submitted to the City
except as exempted above. The intent of this Study is to determine the potential impacts of the
proposed development upon the transportation system. Each transportation impact Study should
address the following areas:
- Project Description
- Existing Conditions
- Future Background Traffic Projections
- Project Traffic
- Total Traffic Projections
Site Circulation and Design Evaluation
- Transportation Impact Analysis
Mitigation Measures
- Neighborhood Transportation Impact Analysis
- Conclusions
City of Fort Collins -
March 28, 1997
Page 2
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
of representatives from Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning.
As a general rule a TIS will be required for all new developments. However, the requirement to
prepare a TIS may be waived if the daily trip generation of the proposed project is less than 50 trips.
If this condition is satisfied and the Transportation Services Team does not have any other concerns
with the transportation aspects of the proposed project, a memo shall be prepared by the traffic
consultant showing the trip generation of the project and concluding that no transportation impacts
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
At the scoping meeting the applicant will provide information regarding:
Project description including type of land use (single family, townhomes, multi -family,
office, retail, etc.) and size (number of dwelling units, square footage, etc.).
- Preliminary project site plan showing all proposed access locations and proposed.
land uses.
- Anticipated project completion date and project phasing.
The Transportation Services Team will review the applicant's project information and provide
feedback as to any anticipated concerns regarding transportation issues such as access
locations/type, potential impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and initial identification of study area.
This initial scoping meeting will assist the City and the applicant in determining the base assumptions
and pedestrian analysis to be utilized in the TIS.
DETERMINATION OF BASE ASSUMPTIONS
After the initial scoping meeting is held, the City Traffic Engineer will complete the Transportation
Impact Study - Base Assumptions form. This form, included as Attachment "A", outlines the base
parameters and assumptions to be utilized by the traffic consultant in preparation of the TIS.
The Base Assumptions Form will specify for the applicant what the City will require in regards to the
following:
- Study Area Boundaries
- Years for Study
- Growth Rates
- Study Intersections
- Time Periods for Study
- Trip Generation Rates
- Trip Adjustment Factors
- Overall Trip Distribution
- Mode Split Assumptions
- Committed Roadway Improvements
- Other Relevant Transportation Impact Study
Areas Requiring Special Study
March 28, 1997
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
The importance of comprehensive and coordinated transportation planning is critical to the City of
Fort Collins in order to provide a balanced transportation system. The application of sound design
principles for new streets, preserving street capacities in existing areas, ensuring smooth traffic flow,
accommodating all transportation modes, and increased safety are goals the City must attain. In
order for the City to evaluate the impacts of development proposals on the City's transportation
system, a professionally prepared Transportation Impact Study (TIS) shall be required for all
development proposals. This section provides guidelines for the preparation of a Transportation
Impact Study. In addition, the following City documents should be referenced for more detailed
information:
Master Street Plan
- Street Standards
Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual
Bicycle Program Plan
Pedestrian Plan
Transit Development Plan
North Front Range Transportation Demand Management Program
Transit Design Standards & Guidelines
PROCEDURE
The following steps outline the procedure the City requires for the preparation and submittal of a
Transportation Impact Study:
- Scoping Meeting
- Determination of Base Assumptions
- Submittal
- City Comments and Recommendations
SCOPING MEETING
A scoping meeting shall be held in order to determine if a Transportation Impact Study will be
required and to initiate the determination of the base assumptions and pedestrian destinations to be
utilized in -the analysis. This meeting shall include a representative of the development, preferably
the transportation consultant for the project, and the City's Transportation Services Team consisting
IPA '�j QL4N,; IN ,77-IE:. CJY'Y OF FORT
-GO ;L�. ZIfME44g S, T:6; ''c0. ORa'nn .
I •x
Tit A
JLLIS / 15.0a R CAP, 5
TRACT B
. sr
'r AI I
• I I • , I I•u
�FiSS ICWE APARY1IE.Y%S'
�LSS} f ...
4
jisAP�
• ��c 1 FACT. C
p I 1• z�z ,4nz sr
IIN>i5 Sr
i
RA TAR AS
1nACT'A s $,00,,
(e-e) fv.ww,,l.TyunKe,cu..� v»?�uu7
\� 7fAe' •A PLIBWc u5G
�W TiucT G ;
L-o-r es&
�„ ofE�,v c.i�D-k•✓aBc�top�D
IJ
o `�'•�kLT!•fA.MlL7 DWE�N(s5
Ls�+n�.R.unL�R�7�+L ln�b
I LOT �F67a_I&
f�T4+L STRiP CENT&L
w,aN ✓q,vtTY 6F STo,c�S .
M 6. yr P/.r,jr,,j& p6f7- (15�„
Ir-i8 -77
Medium Density Neighborhood Blocks
These examples contrast ways to orient attached dwellings.
"A' orients buildings to connecting streetfronts in a block
pattern. "B" orients to parking lots. City Plan may be a shift
in approach for both the public and private sectors.
A. Dwellings have a front and a back, a marked transition
from public to private space, a handy street address, and a
logical place for parking and service functions. This type of
development has the elements of the block standards.
A. Offices next to side -yard
attached dwellings. B. This type of development
does not have fronts or backs,
or a connected sidewalk system.
Note the convenience store
(right behind the garages) with
no connections other than the
parking lot and a driveway.
6�1 0
tia
Examples of Block Standard Designs
Shopping Center on One Block
OFFICE OVER RETAIL
�� t1j:1-MiR
0
GROCERY
STORE
n
U
—0
OFFICE OVER RETAIL
Apartment Blocks
FF--
Ir
Townhouses and Small Lot Houses
Block Standards --
Fort Collins General Overview
These two areas of Fort Collins show the differences
between an older area with a block structure
shaped largely by pedestrian streetfronts, and a newer
area shaped largely by the traffic access and parking
program of each individual development. The proposed
block standards require development to balance the
benefits of both approaches to urban development.
The Older Area
The scale of development has
limits and structure -- with a
variety of uses and more ways to
move around. Parking lots are
reduced by on -street parking
and do not dominate the
landscape. Uses are accessible
by pedestrian streetfronts with
lots of different connections.
The Newer Area
The scale of development has
no limits or structure -- except
those provided by the major
traffic arteries. Generous parking
lots and large streets dominate
the landscape. Building uses are
separated and are less convenient
to each other.
Block Standards
for New Development
Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods,
Neighborhood Commercial and Community
Commercial Districts require any new devel-
opment to form "blocks." The block standards
get directly to the heart of City goals for
human scale and choices of personal mobility.
Requiring full blocks of limited size ensures
a connected and human scale street system
and prevents huge complexes dominated by
parking lots.
'Nov-12-97 05:19P
• e
P.14
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FEE SCHEDULE
Effective March 28, 1997
Development review fees must be paid at the time of submittal of any development review
application according to the following schedule:
Annexation Petition and Map
Rezoning Petition
Overall Development Plan (ODP)
Project Development Plan (PDP)
without a Subdivision Plat
Project Development Plan (PDP)
with Subdivision Plat
Final Plan without a Subdivision Plat
Final Plan with a Subdivision Plat
Minor Amendment to PDP
Extension of Final Approval
Vacation of ROW or Easement
Street Name Change ,
Non -conforming Use Review
$1,040.00
856.00
1,400.00
(plus .50 for each APO label)
1,472.00
(plus .50 for each APO label)
2,128.00
(plus .50 for each APO label)
2,808.00
3,896.00
168.00
496.00
5.00 per sheet of filing document
5.00 per sheet of filing document
1,216.00
Those projects that are eligible to submit preliminary and final Planned Unit Developments
and/or preliminary and final subdivision plats per Ordinance 161, 1996 will submit
development review fees according to the following schedule:
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Final Subdivision Plat
Minor Amendment to PUD
Extension of Final Approval
$1,472.00
(plus %of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat
fee and .50 for each APO label)
2,808.00
(plus '% of the Final Subdivision Plat fee)
1,312.00
2,176.00
168.00
496.00
'Preliminary and Final PDP's and PUD's may be submitted as a combined application
subject to the Final Plan or Final PUD fee.
`Small project fees are in effect according to the attached fee schedule
`Rezoning fees are waived for those properties with unresolved zoning districts as of the
adoption of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map on March 18, 1997
Nov-12-97 O5:1aP
P.13
Submittal Checklist
Overall Development Plan
21
..City of Fart G16n.
The following information is required to be submitted, unless waived, with all applications.
Any item waived must be dated and initialed by a planner with the City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department.
❑ Application form and filing fee (plus .50 cents for each APO label).
❑ Three (3) lists of names and addresses of all owners of record of real property within
at least 500' of the property lines for the parcel of land for which the ODP is proposed,
exclusive of public right-of-way. (Two (2) lists typed on mailing lables (33 names per
sheet) and the other list on a reproducible copy of those labels.)
❑ An overall development plan (30 copies) composed of one or more sheets with an
outer dimension of twenty four by thirty six inches (24"X36") shall be submitted
containing information outlined in the submittal requirements. (folded)
❑ Statement of planning objectives (26 copies).
❑ Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (6 copies).
❑ Master Utility and Overall Drainage Plan (12 copies). (unfolded)
(.1 Overall Drainage Report (4 copies).
❑ Copy of applicable conceptual review letter and explanation on how issues have
been addressed.
❑ Legal description of the site. (1 copy on 8 1/2" x I sheet)
❑ Name and address of each owner of property of the ODP area.
O List of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers involved as either
applicants or owners.
❑ Development phasing schedule.
❑ Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance responsibility of public
and private open space areas.
LI Other information Director may require.
Revised 5/6197
Nov-12-97 05:17P
P.12
explanation of how issues have been addressed.
(f) A legal description of the site.
(g) A statement of proposed ownership and maintenance
responsibility of public and private open space areas.
(h) A development phasing schedule including the sequence for
each phase, approximate size in areas of each phase, and
proposed phasing of construction of public improvements,
recreation, and common open space areas.
(i) Master Utility and Overall Drainage Plan (12 copies)
(unfolded) for water, sewer and stormwater.
(j) Overall Drainage report (4 copies), which complies with the
appropriate City Basin Master Plans in the Storm Drainage
Design Criteria and Construction Standards.
(k) One rendered set (not folded) of the overall development
plan to be submitted prior to the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing.
(I) One 8-1/24 x 11" (Photo Mechanical Transfer) PMT for each
sheet of the Overall Development Plan to be submitted prior
to the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
(m) Signed reproducible mylar of the overall development plan to
be submitted after Planning and Zoning Board approval.
(n) A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (6 copies) prepared
in accordance with the Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines.
(o) Other information and data as the Director may require for
full and complete consideration of the development.
Rcvised May 15, 1997 4
Nov-12-97 05:17P P.11
(a) The name and address of each owner of property in the
Overall Development Plan area.
(b) A list of names of all general and limited partners (if a
partnership), all managers and directors (if a limited liability
company) and/or officers and directors (if a corporation)
involved as either applicants or owners of the planned unit
development.
(c) Three lists of names and addresses of all owners of record
of real property within at least five hundred (500') feet (see
Supplemental Notice Requirements of Section 2.2.6 of the
Land Use Code) of the property lines of the parcel of land for
which the overall development plan is proposed, exclusive of
public right-of-way. Two lists shall be typed on mailing
labels (33 names per sheet) the other list shall be a
reproducible copy of those labels.
(d) A statement of planning objectives (26 copies), including:
(i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and
Policies achieved by the proposed Overall
Development Plan,
(ii) Description of proposed open space, buffering,
landscaping, circulation, transition areas, wetlands
and natural areas.
(iii) Estimate of number of employees for commercial and
industrial uses.
(iv) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and
choices made by the applicant.
(v) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue
raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting
was held.
(vi) Name of the project as well as any previous name(s)
the project may have been known by.
(vii) A narrative description of how conflicts between land
uses are being avoided or mitigated,
(e) A copy of the applicable conceptual review letter and an
Revised May 15, 1997 3
Nov-12-97 05:16P
P-10
(j) Approximate location and size in acres of any public use
proposed such as parks, school sites, and similar public or
semi-public uses.
(k) Area shown on the overall development plan shall extend
beyond the property lines of the proposal to include a survey
of the area within at least one -hundred fifty (150') feet of the
proposal, exclusive of public right-of-way, at the same scale
as the proposal and include the following (except if natural
areas are in the vicinity, then any natural areas within five
hundred (500') feet are to be shown):
(i) Land uses, location of principal structures and major
existing landscape features.
(ii) Densities of residential uses.
(iii) Traffic circulation system.
(iv) Natural features of the landscape.
(v) General topographical mapping at same scale as the
overall development plan.
(I) A vicinity map of the area surrounding the site within a
distance of at least one (1) mile showing at least the
following:
(i) Zoning districts.
(ii) Traffic circulation system with street names labeled.
(iii) Major public facilities.
(iv) Location of existing municipal boundary lines and, if
applicable, the urban growth area boundary.
(m) A notarized signature block of Owner's certification of
acceptance of conditions'and restrictions as set forth
on the overall development plan (to be signed after final
approval of the overall development plan).
(3) The overall development plan shall be accompanied by:
Revised May 15. 1997 2
Nov-12-97 05:16P
P.09
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
(1) Application form and filing fee.
(2) An overall development -plan (30 copies) (folded) composed of one
or more sheets with an outer dimension of twenty four by thirty six
inches (24"x 36") shall be submitted containing the following
information:
(a) Parcel size.
(b) Existing topographical character of the land at a contour
appropriate with the scale of the project; all water courses;
flood plains; floodways; natural features; and existing
vegetation (including all trees and shrubs having a diameter
greater than two and one-half (2-1/2") inches by species),
wetlands, natural areas and wildlife movement corridors.
(c) An estimate of the limits of development. (reference Section
3.3.7(C)(1) of the Land Use Code).
(d) Existing zoning.
(e) Approximate acreage and density (gross) of each area;
number, height, and type of residential units; floor area,
height, and types of business, commercial, and industrial
uses.
(f) Location and general nature of each land use.
(g) Total land area and approximate location and amount of
open space included in the residential, business,
commercial, and industrial areas.
(h) Approximate location of proposed and existing arterial
collector and connector streets and major pedestrian and
bicycle routes, including major points of access.
(i) Location of all major utilities.
Revised May 15. 1997
NOV-12-97 05:15P
P_08
Division 2.3. Overall Development flan
Section 2.3.1(H)
pedestrian and bicycle movement, as required pursuant to Section
3.6.3(F) and Section 3.2.2(C)(6).
(6) The overall development plan shall show the location and size of
all natural areas and features within its boundaries and shall
indicate the applicant's proposed rough estimate of the limits of
development and natural area buffer zones as required pursuant
to Section 3.4.1(C).
(7) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the
appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan.
(8) Any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will he
applied over the entire overall development plant, not on each
individual project development plan review.
(I) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(J) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(K) Slep 11 (Lapse): Applicable.
(L) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable.
,irticle 1, hwe 34
Nov-12-97 05:15P
P-07
Division 2.3, Overall Development Nun
.Seciim, 2.3. 1(c,)
Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of Public IIearing, Order of Proceedings at
Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record
of Proceedings, Recording ol'Decisions and Plats): Applicable.
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, An overall development plan shall
comply with the following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the
permitted uses and applicable zone.distriet standards (Article 4)
of all zone districts contained within the'boundarics of the overall
e,
f
development plan and shall also be consistent with any applicable
e`(
general development standards (Article 3). If the overall
Y_ a„ �C.
Y tC t {/
development plan contains any land within the M-M-N C_C
j
IY�,
and/or N-C Districts the plan shall be consistent with the land use
requirements, block pertitted
l� �>
size requirements and uses of the
1 Y1
block standards for those districts.
C'. C. t/�ln'1 1C� k 1 �� .
(2) The overall developmentplan shall be consistent with the required
�i
density range of residential uses (including lot sizes and housing
types) with regard to any land which is pan of the overall
development plan and which is included in the lollowing districts:
(a) The Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (I.-
M-N). See Section 4.4(D),
(b) The Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District
(M-M-N). See Section 4.5(D).
(3) The overall development plan shall conform to the contiguity
requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards as required
Pursuant to Section 3.7.2.
(4) The overall development plan shall eontilrm to the Master Street
Plan requirements and the street patierri/connectivity standards
both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan as required
Pursuant to Sections 3.6.I and 3.6.3(A) through (F).
(5) The overall development plan shall provide for the location of
transportation connections to adjoining properties in such manner
as to ensure connectivity into and through the overall
development plan site from neighboring properties for vehicular,
Article 2. Ynge .31
Nov-12-97 05:14P
P.06
Division 2. 3, (,•era(! Development Platt Sertiort 2.3.1
DlvisioN2.3 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Sections:
2_3.1 Purpose and Applicability
2.3.2 Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
2.3.1 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose and applicability of an overall development plan is contained in
Section 2.1.3(B).
2.3.2 Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
An overall development plan shall he processed according to, in compliance Aith
and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12
of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12,
inclusive) as follows:
(A) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Applicable
(B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(C) Slep 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents
"uf,tA I (1—/{ . Y��1"j��, required for overall development plans as described in the development
AT-t;Ac application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may
waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts
and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement
would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise
unnecessary for the full and complete reviewiof the application.
(D) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable.
(F.) Step S (Staff Report): Applicable.
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(0) Step 7(A) (Decision Makcr): All overall development plans will be
processed as Type 2 reviews.
Article 2. Page 32
Nov-12-97 05:14P
t;aGIW�
Division 2.1. rienciid Procedural Requirements Section 2J.3(8)
(2) Applicability. An overall development plan shall be required for
any property which is intended to be developed over time in two
(2) or more separate project development plan submittals. Refer
to Division 2.3 for specific requirements for overall development
plans.
(C) Project Development Plait and Preluninary Plat.
(I) Purpose and effect. The project development plan shall generally
specify the uses of land, the layout of landscaping, eirculation,
architectural elevations and buildings, and it shall include the
project development plan and preliminary plat_ Approval of a
project development plan does not establish any vested right to
develop property in accordance with the plan.
(2) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review meeting
and after the Director has made written comments and after a
neighborhood meeting has been held (if necessary), an application
for project development plan review may be filed with the
Director. If the project is to be developed over time in two (2) or
more separate project development plan submittals, an overall
development plan shall also be required. Refer to Division 2.4 for
speci fic requirements for project development plans.
(D) Final Plan and Plat.
(1) Put -pose and y ffect. The final plan is the site specific
development plan which describes and establishes the type and
intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. The
final plan shall include the final subdivision plat, development
agreement and utility plan and shall require detailed engineering
and design review and approval. Building permits may be issued
by the Building and Zoning Director only pursuant to an
approved final plan or other site specific development plan,
subject to the provisions of Division 2.6.
(2) Applicability. Application for a final plan may be made only after
approval by the appropriate decision maker (Director for Type 1
review, or Planning and Zoning Board for Type 2 review) of a
project development plan, unless the project development and
final .plans have been consolidated pursuant to Section 2,2.3(B).
An approved final plan shall be required for any property which
Article 2, Rage I()
Nov-12-97 OS:14P
P.04
Division 2J, General Prucedural Requirements
.1'xtion 2.1.3(4)
applications: first through a project development plan (Division 2.4), and
then through a final plan (Division 2.5). IF the applicant desires to
develop in two (2) or more separate project developmentplan submittals,
an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required prior to
or concurrently with the project development plan, Each successive
development application fora development proposal must build upon the
previously approved development application by providing additional
details (through the developmentapplicationsubmittal requirements) and
by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General
Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article
4).
Only permitted uses subject to administrative review or permitted uses
subject to Planning and Zoning Board review listed in the applicable zone
district set forth in Article 4, District Standards, shall he processed
through an overall development plan, a project development plan or a
final plan. if any use not listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone
districtis included in a development application, it shall not be processed
as an overall development plan, project development plan or final plan,
but rather shall be submitted by the applicant in accordance with the
requirements for an amendment to the text of this Land Use Code and/or
the Zoning Map, Division 2.8. Development applications for permitted
uses which seek to modify any standards contained in the General
Development Standards in Article 3, or the District Standards in Article
4, shall be submitted by the applicant and processed as a modification of
standards under Division 2.7. Hardship variances tostandards contained
in Article 3, General Development Standards, or Article 4, District
Standards, shall be processed as hardship variances by the Zoning Board
of Appeals pursuant to Division 2.9. Appeals of administrative/staff
decisions shall be according to Division 2.10.
(B) Overall Development flan.
(1) Purpose and effect. The purpose of the overall development plat
is to establish general planning and development control
parameters for proiects that will be developed in phases with
multiple submittals while allowing sufficient.lexihility to permit
detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an
overall development plan does not establish any vested right to
develop property in accordance with the plan.
ilrlide 2, Page 9
Nov-12-97 05:13P
P-03
Division 2.1. General Procedural Requirements
.Sernon 2.11rAJ
zone district in which the proposed project is located. The city'.,; staff is
available to assist applicants in this regard.
(R) What uses are proposed? Next, an applicant must identify which uses
will be included in the proposed project. If all ofthe applicant's proposed
uses are listed as pennitted uses in the applicable zone district for the
project, then the applicant is ready to proceed with a development
application for a permitted use. if any of the applicant's proposed uses
are not listed as permitted uses in the applicable zone district for the
project, then the applicant Hurst either eliminate the nonpermitted uses
from his or her proposal, seek the addition of a new permitted use
pursuant to Section 1.3.4, or seek a text amendment to this Land Use
Code or a rezoning amendment to the Zoning Map pursuant to Division
2.8. Any use not listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone district
is deemed a prohibited use in that zone district, unless it has been
permitted pursuant to Section 1.3.4 for a particular development applica-
tion. Again, the city's staff will be available to assist applicants with their
understanding of the zone districts and permitted uses.
(C) Which type of development application should be suhmitted? To
proceed with a development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant
must determine what type of development application should be selected
and submitted. All development proposals which include only permitted
uses must be processed and approved through the following development
applications: first through a project development plan (Division 2.4), and
then through a Final plan (Division 2.5). if the applicant desires to
develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals,
an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required prior to
or concurrently with the project development plan Overall development
plans, project development plans and final plans are the three (3) types of
development applications for permitted uses. Each successive
development application for a development proposal must build upon the
previously approved development application by providing additional
details (through the development application submittal requirements) and
by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General
Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article
4). The different types of developmentapplications maybe consolidated
into one (1) application for concurrent processing and review when
appropriate under the provisions of Section 2.2.3. The purpose,
applicability and interrelationship of these tvpcs of development
applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3).
,article Z Pqt�r 6
Nov-12-97 05:13P
P_02
schedule that hearing on December 17`h or near that date. Therefore, the time
schedule is tight and to even get in one round of review by staff, we would need
the submittals by next Tuesday.
If ou have any additional questions, please give me a call!
Leanne A. Harter, AICP
City Planner
2
Nov-12-97 05:13P
P.Ol
CCTY OF PORT .COLLINS
CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
281 NORTH COLLEGE AVFNLJF,
PHONE: 970.221.67f0 F-11X: 970-416-2020
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO. F4<01,1:
Tom Vickery Leanne Harter
COpIP,ANYe
Wag=Architecraral Tcam, LTD November 12, 1997
MX NURIRRR: 'i01'AL NO. OP PAMI.S INCIAII)IN(; COwtlt:
303.337.4330
PIIUN P: NUnfBEK; .,FNUIUV% R I'VERENCE NUMBER:
303.337,4144 N/A
R4 YOLK KEFERENCE NCMIMR:
Watcrstune Apartments N/A
❑ URGENT ❑ FOR RRvirw ❑ PLL.ISE COAtE,1t:NT ❑ PLEASL RL•:PLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE
Tom -
The determination has been made by Bob Blanchard, the Director of the Current
Planning Department, that an Overall Development Plan will be required for all
the property identified on the final subdivision plat that was submitted with the
Waterstone project development plan.
As all the property is currently under one ownership, an overall development plan
must be submitted. The Land Use Code clearly states that if "the applicant
desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan
submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will be required to or
concurrently with the project development plan.
I have photocopied all relevant sections of the Land Use Code concerning the
overall development plan as well as the submittal requirements for the ODP, and
all are included in this fax. It will be necessary to pay the filing fee of $1,400 for
the ODP as well as the cost for additional mailing labels for notification of the
Planning and Zoning Board hearing on the ODP, Please read over the attache_ d
materials, and if you would like to discuss any of it, or perhaps schedule a
meeting, please contact me. If you would like me to reproduce copies of other
ODPs completed in Fort Collins, please let me know. I could have these Fed Ex
if you give me a number,
Something to be aware of, given the time constraints, there is only one meeting
in January of the Planning and Zoning Board (January 15, 1998) and we will
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1(h) Page 5
Waterstone Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado
W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Date: November 11, 1997
Commercial Districts, continued:
Policy CD-3.3 Linkage to Neighborhoods Adjacent to Commercial Districts:
Not applicable to this project.
Policy CD-3.4 Parking Improvements:
Not applicable to this project.
Item (h).(ii) North of project site is approximately 5 acres of undeveloped land which is
'land -locked' between this project site and Redtail Grove Natural Area, zoned
Public Open Area. West of the project site is the Colorado Southern Railroad
zoned.Outside City Limits. Cast of the project site is U.S. Highway 287 zoned
Outside City Limits. South of the project site is undeveloped zoned
Community Commercial. Fossil Creek runs along both the North side and
South side of the project site. Landscaping will border the perimeter of the
project site. Natural rock outcroppings in the Southwest vicinity of the project
will remain undisturbed.
Item (h).(iii) All open space areas within project site will be private for the use of the
tenant's and guests. All areas, including the private drives and sidewalks, will
be maintained by the Owner of the project, Silverthorne LLC.
Item (h).(iv) There will be approximately six (6) employees for Silverthorne LLC overseeing
the responsibiltics of Waterstone Apartment project.
Item (h).(v) Not Applicable: no assumptions or choices where made by the applicant.
Item (h).(vi) Not Applicable: there will be only one use for this project, Multi -family
Residential, and no variances from the criteria.
Item (h).(vii) Not Applicable: there are no conflicts between land uses or disturbances to
wetlands or natural areas.
Item (h).(viii) A copy of the narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the
neighborhood meeting can be obtained from the January 16, 1997, submittal
information file in the Current Planning Department of Fort Collins.
Item (h).(ix) The name of the project is Waterstone Apartments; no other names have been
used during previous submittals and reviews.
This completes the written responses to the submittal requirements, item (h) for
the 26 copies required in the submittal package.
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1(h) Page 4
Waterstone Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado
W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Date: November 11, 1997
All New Neighborhoods, continued:
Principle AN-5: 'Ail new residential buildings should be designed to emphasize the
visually interesting features of the buildings, as seen from the public street and
sidewalk. The visual impact of garage doors, driveways, and other off-street
parking will be minimized and mitigated.'
Policy AN-5.1 Garages and Driveways:
We have meet this policy by using the detached garages for this project to
create a more private courtyard feel between the apartment buildings and the
garages. We have widened the drive areas and provided center parking spaces
between 2-way drives on both sides with planting islands.
Policy AN-5.2 Alleys and Shared Driveways:
We have meet this policy by having all detached garages along our private
2-way driveways. The garages,are all treated with the same stone veneer,
horizontal siding and composition roofing materials.
Policy AN-5.3 Street Vistas:
We have meet this policy by having the views down our private drives
terminate to landscaping or open views to landscaped areas beyond.
Commercial Districts:
Principle CD-1: Not applicable to this project.
Principle CD-2: 'The design of.Commercial Districts should provide for convenient
access, effcient and cost effective pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and a
comfortable pedestrian environment in selected nodes.'
Policy CD-2.1: Existing Strip Commercial Corridor Developments:
Not applicable to this project.
Policy CD-2.2:.Pedestrian .Access:
We have meet this policy by having our buildings oriented to internal
drives and continuous sidewalks throughgpt. There is a sidewalk that extends
to a new detached sidewalk along U.S. Highway 287 along the project's
property line. This sidewalk can be tied into future sidewalks along U.S.
Highway 287 during future development of adjacent property.
Principle CD-3: 'Commercial Districts will be accessible by all modes of travel,
including transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and automobiles.'
Policy CD-3.1 Transit Facilities:
We meet this policy by being located along the mass transit line from Fort
Collins and Loveland.
Policy CD-3.2 Arterial Crossings:
Not applicable to this project.
J
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1(h) Page 3
Waterstone Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado
W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Date: November 11, 1997
All New Neighborhoods, continued:
Principle AN-4: 'Desgn policies for residential buildings are intended to emphasize
creativity, diversity, and individuality. The following design policies are based
on the premise that truly creative design is responsive to its context and the
expressed preferences of citizens, and contributes to a comfortable, interesting
community.'
Policy AN-4.1 Multiple -Family Housing Characteristics:
We have meet this policy by designing our apartment entry areas when
enhanced focal points using stone veneer exterior finishes and the use of 4:12
sloped roof systems. We have private outdoor spaces at the majority of the
apartment buildings by creating courtyard areas between the apartment
buildings and the garages. We have provided the required parking, including
handicap and detached/private garages. Our site lighting plan reflects the
security provided in the open areas at night, which are operated.on photocell
controls.
Policy AN-4.2 Multiple -Family Building Variation:
We have meet this policy by providing four different apartment building
types with different footprints, pitched roof layouts and undulating facades on
all sides of each building to create greater interest and shadowing effects. Our
exterior building materials of stone veneer, horizontal siding, trimwork details
and composite roofingmaterials coordinate the overall design theme of using
natural materials and colors.
Policy AN-4.3 Single -Family Housing Characteristics:
Does not apply to this project.
Policy AN-4.4 Lot Variation:
We meet this policy by providing five (5) block configurations which vary
clue to building mass and placement.
Policy AN-4.5 Home Occupations:
We meet this policy since the only home -generated occupations that would
be permitted would meet with Owners approval and all required business
permits issued through the city.
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1(h) Page 2
Waterstone Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado
W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Date: November 11, 1997
All New Neighborhoods, continued:
Policy AN-1.4 Street Lighting:
We have meet this policy by providing drive and parking perimeter light
poles with premium cutoff feature to avoid spillover glare or sky glow. We
have used both building mounted light fixtures at all entries and garage
buildings, as well as lampost area light fixtures along sidewalks for both safety
and aesthetics.
Policy AN-1.5 Gated -Street Entries:
Not Applicable to this project.
Policy AN-1.6 Pedestrian Network:
We have meet this policy by providing continuous sidewalks throughout the
site which tie into the active open recreation areas and clubhouse facilities.
Principle AN-2: 'Awide range of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens,
play fields, natural areas, orchards and gardens, greenways,and other outdoor
spaces should be integrated into neighborhoods.'
Policy AN-2.1 Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces:
We have meet this policy by having the Redtail Grove Natural Area, zoned
Public Opens Lands, to the north of our project site, as well as active open
recreation areas,adjacent to the clubhouse and between apartment buildings.
Policy AN-2.2 Ownership of Outdoor Spaces:
We have meet this policy since the Redtail Grove is publicly owned and the
internal open areas are owned and maintained by the Owner.
Policy AN-2.3 Untreated Irrigation Water.
We will address this issue during the design of the irrigation system which
will be approved prior to any building permits being issued.
Principle AN-3: 'The City will require and assist coordinated neighborhood design
e
efforts among separate development parce'Is.'
Policy AN-3.1 and Policy AN-3.2 are not applicable to this project.
Policy AN-3.3 Neighborhood Edges:
We have meet this policy by using the erosion buffer limits information from
the Fossil Creek Study from Highway 287 to Lemay Avenue done by Lidstone
& Anderson, 1996, and from meeting information held with Stormwater and
Natural Resource Departments. Our own buffer and stabilization report is
being done by Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. for Fossil Creek adjacent to our
properly to the north. Upon completion;any impact to our site will be
addressed. Our landscape plans indicate the treatment along our property line
to tie into the natural conditions and create view portals to the Public Opens
Land zone areas.
Rill I5 f\
STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
RE: Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1(h) Page 1
Waterstone Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado
W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Date: November 11, 1997
Item (h).(i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies:
V
Land Use Principles:
Principle LU-2: 'The cily.will maintain and enhance its character and sense of place
as defined by.its neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.'
Policy_LU-2.2 Urban Design:
We have meet this Land Use Code Standard; therefore, this project is
applicable to this policy for Urban Design.
Principle LU-3: 'The City Structure Plan will be used to provide a geographic
depiction of how these City Plan Principles and Policies are applied throughout
the city.'
Policy LU-3.1 General Area Designations and Policy LU-3.3 Development
Regulations Established:
We have meet these Land Use Code Standards. The project is within the
Community Commercial District (C-C), which permits Multi -family dwellings.
All New Neighborhoods:
Principle AN-1: 'New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community
structure.'
Policy AN-1.1 Relationships to Residential Districts:
We have meet.this policy by being adjacent to mass transit facilities along
U.S. Highway 287, which serves public to both Fort Collins and Loveland.
Policy AN-1.2 Street Networks:
We have meet this policy by creating a private drive loop which connects
with U.S. Highway 287 for right -in and right -out turning functions, and the
extended public roadway of Crestridge, which ties into the existing Crestridge
and Venus intersection. We have sidewalks which are tied together
continuously, throughout our project. Bicycle racks are provided in front of
each apartment.building.
Policy AN-1.3 Traffic Calming:
We have meet this policy by providing only a right -in and right -out at the
project's main entrance off U.S. Highway 287. We have provided landscape
islands along the drives and at the center parking to create visual interest and to
slow down and channel traffic throughout our private drives and parking.
10730 E. BETHANY DR. N1 13 - AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 • FAX (303) 337-4330
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 961.23
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1
Page 3
1.(k) A special natural area report is being done by Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. for the Fossil
Creek Stability Study. The study is being done for the area north of our project site.
Upon completion of their results, any impact to our site will be addressed. Submittal
plans are based on erosion buffer limits information from the Fossil Creek Study from
Highway 287 to Lemay Avenue done by Lidstone & Anderson, 1996, and from
meeting information held with Stormwater and Natural Resource Departments.
In response to theSubmittal Requirements, Item 13, "a Context Diagram that graphically
depicts how this development plan relates to its surrounding neighborhood or community
context including the pedestrian, bike and street network within a minimum of 1,320' of the
proposal on all sides":
This is not applicable to our project. The only direct tie into our property is U.S.
Highway 287 (College Avenue). This area has not been developed to have our
project tie into any existing pedestrian or bike networks.
This constitutes our written responses to.the submittal requirements. If there are any
clarifications or additional information required, please contact Wagner Architectural Team,
Ltd. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. V" cry
cc: Rod Hubbard, Roderick Management Company
Bernie Shomberg, Paramount Concepts, Inc.
Jamie Pesicka, The Lund Partnership Inc.
Michael Owens, Owens Landscape Design & Management
Bradley Anderson, Lidstone & Anderson, Inc.
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1
Page 2
1.(b) Legal Description, continued:
1290.57 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of the Colorado and Southern Railroad,
as described in book 62 at page 560, Larimer County Records; said Easterly right-of-
way lying 50.00 feet East of, measured at right angles, from the centerline of the tracks
as constructed; thence N24 16'12"E, along said Easterly right-of-way, a distance of
1426.00 feet to the North line of said Section 11; thence N88 39'01 "E, along said
North line, a distance of 1207.33 feet to the true point of beginning.
Containing 40.675 Acres.
1.(c) Current Planning Department, City of Fort Collins, will supply Director's certificate of
approval of the development plan for Type I administrative review based on the
Conceptual Review comments.
1.(d) Pending are the list of Adjacent Property Owners, two sets of labels and one set of
labels copied for your file, with the fee of fifty -cents per label for both sets. A.P.O.
provider was given authorization from Leanne Harter, City Planner, to submit lists by
Tuesday, November 18, 1997.
1.(e) and 1.(f) Owner of the planned unit development:
Silverthorne LLC
1530 jamboree Drive
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920
Attn: Roderick Hubbard
(719) 262-9337 fax: (719) 262-9773
Land Owner:
Skyview Ltd.
1355 So. Colorado Blvd., Suite 318
Denver, Colorado 80222
Attn.: James P. Ryan
(303) 753-0753
1.(g) A copy of the applicable conceptual review letter, dated December 161 1997, and an
explanation of how issues have been addressed can be obtained from the January 16,
1997, submittal information file in the Current Planning Department of Fort Collins.
1.(h) Attached are 26 copies of planning objectives pertaining to this project.
1.(i) This project will be constructed entirely in one phase. The approximate date of
construction is expected to begin in the Spring of 1998, April, with a six month
completion time of September, 1998.
1.(j) There are no potential on -site and/or off -site hazardous materials to impact this
project.
ISM L� E C).
November 11, 1997
Leanne Harter, City Planner
City of Fort Collins
Current. Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-6002
RE: Walerstone Apartments, W.A.T._ Project No. 96123
Submittal Requirement, Written Documents, Item 1
Dear Leanne,
The following are the written responses to the Submittal Requirements for Water -stone
Apartment project zoned. Community Commercial District (C-C), under the new Land Use
Code, dated March 28, 1997.
1.(a) Attached is the Application form. The filing fee has been waived, per your directions,
since the fees will carry over from. the first submittal on January 16, 1997. -
1.(b) Legal Description:
A parcel of land located in the northeast one -quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 11, Township
6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of
Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 11; thence S88°39' 00"W, along
the North line of said Northeast one -quarter of said Section 11, a distance of 75.00
feet to the true point of beginning, said point being on the westerly right-of-way line
of U.S. Highway 287; thence S00'52'00"W, along said westerly right-of-way line a
distance of 979.35 feet to the North right-of-way line of Crestridge Street as described
in deed recorded in book 1578 at page 541, Larimer County Records; thence along
said North right-of-way line, a distance of 363.53°feet; thence along the arc of a curve
to the left, having a central angle of 15"31'30", a radius of 338.27 feet, and an arc .
length of 91.66 feet; thence S75°20'30"W, a distance of 73.99 feet, to the West right-
of-way line of Venus Avenue as described in deed recorded in book 2298 at page
1134, Larimer County Records; thence along said West right-of-way line and along
the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, having a central angle of 1 E°31'13", a
radius of 665.00 feet, an arc length of 214.95 feet, and whose chord bears S09°
54'35"E, a distance of 214.02 feet; thence S00039'00"E, a distance of 100.75 feet, to
the North line of Skyview Subdivision; thence S89°24'19"W along said North line and
continuing along theNorth line of Skyview First Addition Subdivision, a distance of
10730 E. BETHANY DR. # 1 13 • AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 • FAX (303) 337-4330
Minor Amendment
Description of the change and reason(s) for the request:
Approvals
Planning
Action:
Date: By:
Building Inspections
Action:
Bate: By:
Erigineering
Action:
Date: By:
Othcr (if applicable)
CERTIFICATION
I certify the information. and exhibits submitted ate true and correct to the best of my knoudcdge and that in (ding dtis application 1 un actutg uitit the knouicdge, consn4 and
Authority of the owner3 of the property (including ill ownc" ha%ing a Itg ! nr equitable inte:tst in the real propern; as defined in Scction 1-2 of the city Code; and including
common areas leg-ily connected to or associated with the paiperty which is the subject of this appliation) uithrut whose consent and authorir; the requcired acrion could not
lawfully be accomplished. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officals to enter upon the properh. for the purpose cf inspection and, if ncceisan•, for pxt ng a public
notice on the proper-h.
Name (PRINT): Thomas A. Vickery, Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd.
j
Address: 10730 E. Bethany Driv --Aurora, colora o
Tr]cphorc
Signature:
Today's Date November 11 , 1997
Project Name: Waterston Apartments
Project Location (Street Address): of Harmony" Road
Project Description Eleven apartment buildings, R-13
automatic fire sprinkled, with clubhouse, pool
mail & storage kiosk, open recreation. areas,
enclosed garages, fenced playground and court
Geand e s.
neraormatiotu List all owners having a
legal/equitable interest in the property. (Attach separate
sheets if necessary) .
Oavner'sName(s): Silverthorne, L.L.C.
Street Address: 1530 Jamboree Drive
City/State/zip: Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Telephone:(719) 262-9337 l = (719) 262-9773
Current Planning Department
Application Form
Land Use Information
Gross Acreage/Square Footagc: 13.37 acres/582.583 s f
Existing Zoning:_ Community Commerical District (C-C)
Proposed Use: Residential Use: multi -family a�x-�
Total Ntunber of Dwelling Units: 220
Toul Commercial Floor Area: None
Applicant's/Consultant's Name: Thomas A. Vickery
Name of firm: Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd.
Who is to be the lead contact? Thomas A. Vickery
Street Address: 10730 E. Bethany Dr., Ste. 113
City/State/Zip: Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 337-4144 pax:(303) 337-4330
Type of Request
Pkase indicate the type of application submitted by checking the box preceding appropriate request(s). Additional handouts art: avagable explaining
submittal requirements for each of the following review processes.
O Annexatio,n Petition with Ioi"Zoning REQUESTED ZONE:
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
FF-E $1,040.0D
FEE 31,31200
Rmoning Petition REQUESTED ZONF-
El Final Subdivision Plat
FEE: "56.0U
FEE $:,176.00
Overall Develapmcnt Plan (ODP)
j Minor Amendment
FEE $IAW.00 + 1.50 for each APO Label
FEE 3168.00
Project Development Plan (PDP)witbout Subdivision Plat
bfajor Am mdmrnt
FEE 31,472.00 + S.50 for each APO land
FEE: 32,808.00
Project Development Ptah (PDP)with Sub, : isioa Plat
Nan -Conforming Use Review
FEE: 12,128.W + $ 50 for each APO I"
FEE. 11,216.W
❑ Final Plan without Subdivision Plat
Ej Vacation of ROW or Easement
FEE: V2 808.W
ITEE: 15.W per sheet of Ling document
Final Plan with Subdivision Plat
Small Project Fees
FEE: $3,896.00
FEE: Varics-Check with the Current Planning Dcpa-tment
Preliminmy Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Street Name Cha_lge
FEE: $1,472.00 + 1/2 of the Palaninary Subvfvisico Pint fee and .50 foe act APO label
TEE: $5.00
Final Planned Unit Developmmt (PUD)
Extensioa of Final Approval
FEE: S2,808.0D 41/2 of the Final Sub& -ion Plat fce
FEE: $496,00
NOTE: PDP's and Final (Fred rrunary and Final PUD's) nay be submitted
as a combined application subject to the Final Plan fee.
Certification on reverse side must be sib ed.
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Comment 16.w.
Refer to Landscape Plans for clarifications of all landscape materials and quantities.
This constitutes our understanding of all City comments and our responses. If there are any
questions or additional clarifications needed, please contact Wagner Architectural Team,
Ltd. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas A.-7V?�ery
cc: Rod Hubbard, Roderick Management Company
Bernie Shomberg, Paramount Concepts, Inc.
Jamie Pesicka, The Lund Partnership Inc.
Michael Owens, Owens Landscape Design & Management, Inc.
Bradley Anderson, Lidstone & Anderson, Inc.
1p
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Comment 16.a. and 16.b.
We are addressing the first January 16, 1997 submittal and plan check comments received
from the City of Fort Collins on the Waterstone project, dated February 14, 1997. We are
now submitting this project under the new Land Use Code, effective date of March 28,
1997. We are addressing the previous comments that have effected the changes to our
current project submittal.
Comment 16.c. through 16.j.
Refer to Civil Engineering Plat for added information, signature blocks, and data.
Comment 16.k.
Refer to Plat, Site Plan and Landscape Plan to show added watercourses.
Comment 16.1. through.16.o.
Refer to Plat to show added data and information on easements, contours, zoning and
abutting subdivisions.
Comment 16.p.
Refer to Architectural Site Plan for clarification of density information.
Comment 1 G.q. and 16.r.
Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Plans for revised sidewalk locations. Sidewalk
along entire edge of southern property line not included due to barrier along new retaining
wall location.
Comment 1 G.s.
Refer to added Lighting Plan drawing.
Comment 1 G.t.
Building heights have reduced to meet will the 40 foot building height requirement.
Additional apartment building added to same drive and parking configuration to provide the
same required density from original submittal. Refer tc Architectural Building Elevations
drawings.
Comment 16.u. and 16.v.
Refer to Architectural Building Elevations for revised and clarified materials.
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Comment 10.a. and 10.b.
Refer to Civil Engineering Utility and Plat Plans for designated easements.
Comment 10.c.
Refer to Civil Engineering Utility Plan for water stops, pits, vaults,•sewer laterals for Public
Service to design around them.
Comment 11.a. and 11.b.
Refer to Landscape Plans and notes.
Comment 12
Final Plat will be reviewed by the Mapping Department.
Cornment 13
Refer to more recent Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon, dated April 23, 1997.
Comment 14
Refer to the Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon, dated April 23, 1997, for depth
of bedrock and perched groundwater. The rock outcroppings in the southwest corner of
our project site will remain undistrubed. Additional rock outcropping within our project
site are low profile and will only be displaced as required by the new development. The
rock that needs to be moved will be used to construct low -height retaining walls, or as
landscape features where such features will enhance the landscaping plans. The view of
this project from the Redtail Grove Natural Area looking south is planned to blend in with
the natural surroundings. The apartment buildings have been reduced in height by one-
story, and the lower portion the the structures will receive a stonework veneer instead of
brick or horizontal siding. The colors being used will be a natural gray, beige, or other
complimentary color. The current high point of the site is being graded lower for drainage
issues, which will also permit better views west and southwest from College Avenue to the
mountain ranges beyond.
Comment 15
Refer to both Architectural Site Plan and current Civil Engineering Grading Plans for
location of site circulation and pedestrian sidewalk locations.
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Comment 8, continued:
C. Refer to the new Geotechnical Engineering.Report done by Terracon, dated April 23,
1997.
D. Refer to Civil Engineering Drawing for Utility Easements, access issues and street
improvements.
E. The Application for State Highway Access that will go through the city after agreement
between the City, State and Developer has been reached.
F. The trail/pedestrian connections at the north edge of the site will not occur.
Comment 9, Storrnwater Comments
A. Refer to Civil Engineering Plan and Report for drainage and discharge issues into Fossil
Creek, north of project site. A stabilization report is currently being done by Lidstone &
Anderson for impact of erosion along Fossil Creek. Results from Lidstone & Anderson
will be submitted upon completion. Details. on discharges into Fossil Creek are shown
on Civil Engineering Drainage Plan.
B. The Architectural and Civil Engineering layouts and calculations are presently based
upon the Master Drainage and 100-year Flood Plain data of Fossil Creek. A 100 foot
setback from Fossil Creek has been added based on meetings held with both
Stormwater and Natural Resource Departments. Lidstone & Anderson stabilization
report will be incorporated if their findings impact our submitted layouts and designs.
C. Refer to Civil Engineering Drainage Plan and Report for changes in the discharge points
to avoid the unstable gully at previous design point 13.
D. Refer to Civil Engineering Plan for the addition of water quality pond layout and design
to address the water quality measures.
E. Any drainage and grading easements required from Natural Resources Department for
property between the project site and Fossil Creek will be obtained.
F. According to Terry Farrill of the Loveland Water District, the Loveland Water District is
currently redesigning the sanitary sewer system north of Fossil Creek. The existing 10-
inch line will be abandoned and a new system will be constructed in the spring of
1998. It is not possible to gravity -drain the sewer under Fossil Creek to the existing or
proposed sewer. Therefore, there are two options for sewering the project site. The
sanitary sewer line. can go over Fossil Creek (above the 100-year flood plain) connected
to a pedestrian footbridge or it can go under Fossil Creek and be lifted to the existing
sewer. Lund Partnership, Civil Engineer, spoke with Basil Hamden at the Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility Department concerning the aerial crossing and he didn't mind the
crossing with the pedestrian bridge, but said that Natural Resources would need to
approve it. Basil said the City does not like the idea of the lift station, but we would still
need to speak to the Water District. A pedestrian bridge location will need to be
coordinated'with Natural Resources. At this time, we propose the design of an aerial
crossing with a premanufactured pedestrian bridge. The bridge,would be manufactured
by Steadfast Bridges in Fort Payne, Alabama. The "Connector" style bridge has a clear
span of 120 feet, and is constructed with Pratt Truss'.
November 11, 1997
Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Comment 4.a.
Water, San. and Stormdrain shown on Utility Plan. Water will be in meter rooms within
building breezeway entries.
Comment 4.b.
Refer to Civil Engineering for wet utilities locations for P.S.C. planning of main electric and
gas lines. Refer to Architectural Building Elevations for gas and electric meter locations.
Comment 4.c.
Refer to Architectural Site Plan and Civil Engineering Utility Plan for electric transformer
locations.
Comment 5.a.
Refer to Landscape Plan for added note regarding irrigation system design being approved
prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Comment 5.1).
Refer to the Landscape Plan for each landscape category calculated in square feet. Water
requirements will be addressed with automatic sprinkler system design which will be
completed prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape will be maintained by the
Owner.
Comment G
Refer to the Civil Engineering Drawing for overall utility easement blanket on the plat.
Comment 7.a.
Refer to the Civil Engineering Drawing and Architectural Site Plan for the R.O.W.
information along.State Highway 287. Project will only have a right -in and right -out access
function at the project's entrance
Comment 7.6.
Crestridge Street has now been extended to connect with the existing Crestridge Street for
additional access and exiling functions. Refer to the updated traffic study for additional
information. .r
Comment 7.c.
Refer to responses to 7.a. and 7.b.
Comment 8, Engineering Comments
A. This submittal will follow the new Land Use Code requirements for Community
Commercial District (C-C).
B. Refer to Site Plan, Civil Engineering Plan and updated Traffic Study for access functions
to the project from South College Avenue. A raised curb island "pork chop" in the entry
to prevent left turns has been incorporated in the drive entry design. The addendum to
the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated January 7, 1997, does not call for additional street
widening for turn lanes or raised medians in College Avenue.
(Comment 8 continues on next page)
WAGNER L (. ARCHITECTURAL TEAM., , L T D.
November 11, 1997
Leanne Harter, City Planner
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-6002
RE Waterstone Apartments, W.A.T. Project No. 96123
Response to City of Fort Collins Comments, dated February 14, 1997
V
Submittal Cover to new. Land Use Code process for Community Commercial District (C-C)
Dear Leanne,
The following is in regards to the first January 16; 1997 submittal plan check comments
received from the City of Fort Collins on the Waterstone project, dated February 14, 1997.
We are submitting this project under the new Land Use Code, effective date of March 28,
1997. We are addressing the previous comments that have effected the changes to our
project previously.
Comment 1.a.
Refer to Civil Engineering Drawings for corrected General Note #2.
Comment 1.b.
Refer to Civil Engineering Utility Drawing for 30 foot easement for sewer locations and all
water casements. .
Comment 1.c.
Refer to Civil Engineering Drawing for corrected water sizing and looping.
Comment 1.d.
Refer to Civil Engineering Drainage Drawings and Report regarding drainage swales.
Comment 2
Refer to Architectural Site Plan for added note regarding automatic fire sprinkler system
information.
Comment 3
Refer to Civil Engineering Drawings for benchmark information. The waterline will need to
be looped: The existing waterline on the east side of South College Avenue is the water
supply for the project site. This will require South College to be cut in two locations.
10730 E. BETHANY DR. #1 13 • AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 • FAX (303) 337-4330
RODERICK R. HUBBARD
1530 Jamboree Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Tel. (719) 262-9337
Fax (719) 262-9773
September 15, 1997
Mr. Doug Wagner By fax (303) 337-4330
Wagner Architectural Team
10730 E. Bethany Drive, Suite 113
Aurora, CO 80014
Re: waterStone Apartments
Ft. Collins, CO
Dear Doug:
I appears that we are now 43 days behind our timeline set forth in
Tom Vickery's letter dated July 28, 1997. I paid $14,000 to apply
for a new SAMA on August 26, 1997. If we fail to close by December
31, 1997, we will not be able to get any further extensions.
Several other developers have projects to submit if we fail to
close.
It is absolutely imperative that you work diligently now so that we
are able to close no later than December 31, 1997. I still need
the revised elevations which I requested over a month ago.
I assume that the engineer has started his work as of this date.
Has the Environmental Report been completed? Please advise.
Please send me an updated project schedule.
Very truly yours,
Roderick R. Hubbard
RRH:ml
cc: Bernie Shomberg fax (303) 471-2368
iandstar Surveying, Inc.
August 19, '1997
Wagner Architectural Team
Attn: Tom Vickery
10730 Crest Bethany Drive
Suite#113
Aurora, Co 80014
Dear Tom:
This' letter is to follow up our phone conversation regarding scheduling for the
Waterston topography project.
The field work remaining will take approximately 1 week and we are scheduled
to begin Tuesday, August 26th. This puts field completion on Wednesday,
September 3rd. From field work, drafting, contouring, and symbols for utilities
will takQ:approximately 1 week also. This puts delivery to you on September
aoth.
Occasionally we have a schedule change and there is potential for me to move
these dates up. I will, of course, try to do that at any chance I get.
1 hope this clarifies our schedule for you, please feel free to contact me to further
discuss these dates.
Respectfully sub mi d�
LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC.
LEVEL OF EFFORT/COST ESTIMATE
FOSSIL STABILITY STUDY
WATERSTONE APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT, FORT COLLINS
TASK DESCRIPTION
,COST
Data Collection/Review and Field Investigation
$
2,785
Pas
.
Quantitative Geomorphic Analysis
$
2,090
Task III.
Hydrologic Evaluation
$
0.00
Task IV.
Hydraulic Analysis
$
2,140
Task V.
Sediment Transport/Channel Stability Analysis
$
4,265
Task VI.
Stabilization Alternatives
$
1,270
Task VII.
Reporting
$
3,360
Additional Costs
$
1,000
TOTAL
$
16,910
analyses will specifically evaluate the long term response of the channel to low flows and the short
term response related to a high flow event.
VI. Stabilization Alternatives
Based on the results of the previous tasks, alternatives will be identified to stabilize the existing or
potential locations of bed and/or bank instability. The alternatives may include both structural and
nonstructural measures and may also involve a realignment of the channel. Minimum setback limits
for future developments will be identified and will be based on the erosion buffer limits established
during the geomorphic evaluation, future 100-year floodplain and any identified wetlands or critical
habitat areas. A qualitative discussion of the implementation of selective stabilization'tecluliques
on channel stability will be included in this task.
VIL Reporting and Technical Documentation
The results of the geomorphic, hydraulic and sediment -transport analyses will be summarized in a
detailed report. This report will also include a decision matrix for all suggested stabilization
alternatives along with a recommended stabilization plan. Documentation will be provided for all
technical analysis to allow replication of the study results.
III. Hydrologic Evaluation
No effort is anticipated to generate existing or future development hydrologic information.
Hydrologic information utilized for this study will be obtained from the Fossil Creek Master
Drainageway Planning Study.
IV. Hydraulic Analysis
Based on the future development hydrologic information, hydraulic characteristics for the study
reach will be analyzed using the HEC-2 water surface profile computer program. Channel cross
sections and invert elevations will be taken from previous reports and available topographic mapping
and supplemented by field surveys, as necessary. The HEC-2 simulation will provide the hydraulic
data necessary to conduct the sediment transport analysis and evaluate stabilization alternatives. The
HEC-2 analysis will also verify the magnitude and limits of the 100-year floodplain within the study
reach. This will be accomplished for both existing and developed conditions. In addition, the
hydraulic capacity of all existing structures within the study reach will be verified.
The floodplain limits will be delineated on topographic mapping either presently available from the
City of Fort Collins or prepared in support of the Waterstone Apartments Development. This
mapping will also be utilized to illustrate the erosion buffer limits.- A delineation of the floodway
boundaries will not be prepared as part of this work since, in accordance with the Fossil Creek
Drainage Basin Master Drainageway Planning Study (SLA, August 1982), "the floodplain is narrow
and the flow is generally confined to a valley channel."
V. Sediment Transport Analysis
Results of the hydraulic computations will be utilized to determine the bed -material transport
capacities through the study reach. The actual sediment transport rate along the stream shall be
determined considering the sediment supply, effect of geologic and manmade controls, armoring
potential, and effect of hydraulic structures along the creek. Aggradation and degradation trends
along the study reach shall be estimated based upon sediment -continuity principles. Previous work
completed in the Fossil Creek Drainageway Planning Study, Mail Creek Stability Study, Fossil
Creek Stability Study -Trilby Road to Lemay Avenue, and Fossil Creek Stability Study-Lemay
Avenue to Highway 287 will be reviewed; pertinent information and data from these reports will be
integrated into the sediment transport analysis. Threshold bank heights will be established by the
strength characteristics of the bank material and an evaluation of the forces acting on the bank. An
evaluation of local scour will also be conducted at each hydraulic structure within the study reach.
The results of the geomorphic, hydraulic and sediment -transport investigations will provide the basis_
for determining the mechanics, causes and locations of bed and bank erosion within the study reach.
Historic bank erosion locations will be identified and the potential for further instability at each
location qualitatively evaluated. In addition, the effect of physical features such as channel bends,
flow obstructions, and hydraulic structures upon the stability of the channel will be evaluated. The
• identification of geologic and\or manmade features controlling the erosion of the bed
or bank;
• identification of all existing headcuts or changes in baselevel in the channel; these
changes will be quantified by field measurements and located on the topographic
mapping utilized for the project;
• collection of not more than six (6) bed and bank material samples for use in assessing
the hydraulic and geomorphic stability of the bed and banks; the locations of the
samples will be indicated on the topographic mapping utilized for the project;
• estimation of channel roughness and identification of high water lines to be utilized
during the hydraulic modeling;
• identification of surveying requirements, as necessary, for the hydraulic and
geomorphic evaluation of the channel;
• assessment of the erosional stability, condition and configuration of all hydraulic
structures location within the channel; and
• a photographic log of the erosional features, headcuts and hydraulic structures will
be prepared to document the nature of the existing channel reach.
II. Geomorphic Evaluation
This task will define the characteristics of the Fossil Creek system based upon -available data and
information. Historical data will be evaluated to identify and characterize any trends related to
erosion and sedimentation. A morphometric analysis of Fossil Creek within the study reach will
be conducted and pre -development geomorphic trends will be established. Channel response to
historical and modem activities will be evaluated on a qualitative basis. The purpose of the
geomorphic analysis will be to identify changes in plan form (sinuosity, meander wavelength of
amplitude) or changes in channel geometry. The results of this analysis will provide the information
necessary to establish erosion buffer limits for Fossil Creek within the study reach. Part of this
analysis will also include an evaluation of bank stability and the identification of critical bank height
within the study reach.
Once the existing and historical trends have been characterized, the channel's response to past
development activities can be evaluated. Potential changes in the morphology of the system can be
qualitatively described based upon the natural conditions of the watershed, the character of the
channel bed and banks and the expected future development conditions. This analysis will also
include an assessment of the impact of implementing stabilization alternatives on the potential
changes in the stability and morphology of the channel reach.
LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC.
SCOPE OF WORK
CHANNEL STABILITY ANALYSES
FOSSIL CREEK WITHIN
WATERSTONE APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT, FORT COLLINS
I. Data Collection and Review
This task involves the collection and review of all available data. Proper completion of this task will
enable Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. (LA) to tailor our activities and avoid unnecessary duplication
of previous efforts. This task will include collection and review of available reports\data\plans\maps
and completion of a detailed field investigation of the study reach. For the purposes of this scope
of work, the downstream study limit is the crossing of Fossil Creek and Highway 287\College
,Avenue. The upstream study limit is the confluence of Fossil Creek and Lang Gulch. Data to be
collected and reviewed will include:
• Hydrologic information including flood history, Flooding limits, future flow
conditions, drainage reports and master plans;
• Hydraulic information including pertinent data related to previous H> C-2
simulations and cross section data from previous reports;
• Hydraulic structures including data related to design details, rehabilitation
information, invert elevations, and design capacity;
• Topographic mapping information;
• Geologic data and soils reports available for the Waterstone Apartments
Development and adjacent properties;
• Aerial photography pertinent to the study reach; and
• Pertinent environmental management plans, utilities plans and other zoning
information impacting the potential alignment of alternative improvements.
After this information has been reviewed, a detailed field investigation of the study reach will be
conducted. The field work will be tailored to ensure that field activities supplement the information
previously collected and reviewed. Specific activities include:
identification of areas, including the source and type, of historic or existing bed or
bank stabilization problems;
LI� STONE & ANDERSON, IN
Water Resources and Environmental Consultants
760 Whalers Way, Suite B-200
Fort Collins, CO 80525
July 22, 1997
Mr. Rod Hubbard
Roderick Management Company
1530 Jamboree Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Re: Fossil Creek Stability Study-Waterstone Apartments P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Hubbard:
At the request of Mr. Tom Vickery with Wagner Architectural Team, I am submitting a scope of
work and budget for the services required to complete the Fossil Creek Stability Study in support
of the Waterstone Apartment P.U.D. It is my understanding that this work is required as part of the
submittal package for the proposed development. Please note that I have not included a project
schedule with the enclosed materials. The project schedule will be largely dictated by the
availability of existing data and mapping as well as the acquisition of survey data.
Per my conversation with Mr. Vickery, Mr. Mike Lang of Landstar Surveying is to coordinate with
me to determine the additional surveying requirements necessary to support the work effort
associated with the stability study. I have not included the costs associated with this additional
surveying in our budget. Following coordination with Mr. Lang, I will prepare and submit a
schedule for completion of the project.
Please review this information at your convenience: Should you have any questions related to our
proposed work effort, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC.
( Bradley A. Anderson, P.E.
President
BAA/tlt
Enclosure
cc Mr. Tom Vickery, Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd.
Mr. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility
(970) 226-0120 FAX: (970) 226-0121 E-MAIL: LAWater@FortNet.org
Branch Office: Box 27, Savery, Wyoming 82332
PAL MS }A ID_UNI IN . 7HE
f-- '<•'- JAIJUAR,Y,'
Y �4
jRA_U AREAS
iRAC1 A — 5.00oc
WR
^� JB
i
:r.
r
I
TABLE A
OPTIONAL SURVEY RESrrONSIBILiTiES ADD SPECIFICATIONS
NOTE; The items of Table A muat be negotiated between
the surveyor and client. It may be necessary for the sur-
veyor to qualify or expand upon the description of these
Items, e.g., In reference to Item 6, there may be a need for
an interpretation of a restriction. The surveyor cannot
make a certif9c3tlon on the basis of an Interpretatlon.
If checked, the following optional items are to be In-
cluded in the kUkACSM LAND TITLE SURVty:
1. Monumeots placed (or a reference monument or
witness to the corner) at all major corners of the
boundary of the property, unless already marked or
referenced by an existing monument or witness to
the corner.
2. ❑ Vicinity map showing the property survey-d in ref-
erence to nearby highway(s) or major street Inter.
sectlort(s).
3. Flood zone deslgnatton (with proper annotation
based on Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps or the
state or local equivalent, by scaled snap location
and graphic plotting only).
4. t Land area as specified by the client.
5. Contours and the datum of the elevations.
6. ❑ Identify, and show If possible, setback, height and
bulk restrictions of record or disclosed by applica.
ble zoning or building codes (in addition to those
recorded in subdivision maps). If none, so state,
7. ❑ (a) Exterior dimensions of all -buildings at ground
level
(b) Square footage of:
❑ (1) exterior footprint of all buildings, or gross
(toot area of all buildings, at ground level.
❑ (2) other areas to be dcfintd by the client
C
❑ (;)Height of all buildings above grade at a defined
location,
8. ❑ Substantial, visible Improven'tents (in addition to
buildings) such as signs, parking areas or struc.
tures, swimming pools, etc.
°. ❑ Parking areas and, If striped, the striping and the
type (e.g., handicapped, motorcycle, regular, etc.)
and number of parking spaces.
10. jD6 Indication of access to a public way such as curb
cuts, driveways marked.
11. X Locat!on of utl?itles serving or existing on the prop-
erty as evidenced by on•sitt observation or as de-
termined by records proAded by client, utility com.
Panic; and other appropriate sources (with
reference as to the source of information) (for ex -
Ample):
(a) railroad tracks and sidings;
(b) manholes, catch basins, valve vaults or other
surface Indications of subterranean uses;
(c)Wires and cables (including their function)
croaaing the surveyed premises, all poles on or
within ten feet of the surveyed premises, and
the dimensions of all crosswirey or overhangs at,
fecting the surveyed premises�and
(d) utility company Installations on the surveyed
premises.
12. ❑ Governmental Agency survey -related requirements
as specilled by the client.
13. ❑ Sigutfieanl observations not otherwise disclosed.
l4. ❑
14
c
LfiIIK,TAR C0IIFTINIES TEL:1-:iO3-667-7151 Jun 2-,1 7 10�'11 1'l�.0CIf:, P.O1
JUN-2 -97 FPI 7n: r.19 P-ill
LRNDSTRR COMPRNIES
TEL:1-303-667-7151
Lanildstar Surveying, Inc,
4,un0,28; 1097
Rod Hubbard
Rodebrick Management Company
Jun 20,97 15:02 N0.012 P.07
RE. PROPOSAL FOR SURVEYING AND MAPPING SERVICES
WATERSTONE APARTMENTS
FORT COLLINS,,CO
Dear Rod;
Landstar Surveying, Inc, Is pleased to provide you with the following proposal for
the above referenced surveying work.
Prepare a boundary survey and design survey to include the following;
topography, location of all physical features (i.e., trees, ditches, buildings, roads,
etc.), location of all utilities, setting of monuments and preparation of A, L.T.A.
map {see attached sheet) which Will Include topography at 1' contours; The
topography will extend beyond the boundaries of the project as shown on
atfached.sheet.
Curront Wile commitment to be provided by Client.
TOTAL COST $7360.00
The 00t1mated cost for preparing Final Plat including the apartment tract is
�zzoo.00.
Reupeotfully submitted
Michael Lang
manager•of Operations
9780Agt
t have read and uryd ers nd this proposal. My signature is acceptanceof .this
proposal as contrac 4autoftation to begin contract services.
Sl nature
J�
TIt e
�0 ; NGv ue e lovelond, Colo. odo 8OS37 .a(970) 667-3494: a 970)
667 7) Sl
I
\�;' \C �1 E fZ •\ f' C I I - CE \ K \ E _E E �\ �\il . _E [�.
February 24, 1997
Michael Ludwig, Project Manager
City of Fort Collins, Community Planning and Environmental Services
281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
RE: Waterstone Apartments, Fort Collins, CO.
W.A.T. Project No.: 96123
Upon receiving the comments from the City of Fort Collins staff and referral agencies on
Tuesday, February 18, 1997, and the Zoning Departments comments on Wednesday,
February 19, 1997, we want to exercise our option to continue the item to the month of
April P&Z agenda. The March 5, 1997, 12 noon deadline for revisions does not permit
enough time to address the comments and resolve all the issues. Please advise our office
regarding the next due date for our resubmittal of the revised 'Preliminary Plat of the
Waterstone Subdivision'.
Please contact our office if there are any questions or additional information that is required.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. V' kery
cc: Gary Odehnal, Parsons & Associates
Bernie Shomberg, Paramount Concepts
Rod Hubbard, Roderick Management Co.
Steve Pfister, Realtec
10730 E. BETHANY DR # 113 AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 - FAX (303) 337-4330
.A►
2. Erosion buffer limits need to be established for the reach of Fossil Creek adjacent to the
proposed site. The lateral instability of the creek should be considered in determining the
erosion buffer limits. The Fossil Creek Stability Study from Highway 287 to Lemay Ave
(Lidstone and Anderson, 1996) could be used for reference. The buffer limits will
establish the minimum setback from the creek for any development activities, including
grading and landscaping. The point of discharge will be the only location within the buffer
limits where construction will be acceptable. The erosion buffer limits and 100-year
floodplain should be delineated on the drainage plans and the plat. '
RESPONSE:
3. The gully at design point 13 is very unstable with steep banks. The discharge from the
proposed site should avoid this unstable area. The more stable portion of the creek to the
east should be considered for the primary outfall for the development.
RESPONSE:
4. Water quality measures should be included for the site. Measures can be implemented
by many different forms of Best Management Practices. Routing runoff to a water quality
pond before discharging into the creek is recommended.
RESPONSE:
5. Drainage and grading easements will be needed from the Natural Resources Dept. for
any proposed drainage and grading within the property between the proposed site and
Fossil Creek.
RESPONSE:
6. More details are needed for the proposed sanitary sewer crossing under Fossil Creek.
The crossing should be located at a point along the creek to minimize disturbance to the
creek. The crossing should be perpendicular to the creek. The crossing must be an
underground crossing with sufficient clearance for vertical creek movement. The crossing
must not be an aerial crossing. The preliminary submittal should show a profile of the
sanitary sewer with the creek cross-section and the existing sanitary sewer.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional comments.
,T%
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: January 22, 1997 DEPT: Stormwater Utility
PROJECT: #7-97 Waterstone Apartments PUD
Minor Subdivision
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received by: Monday, February 10, 1997
A written response for each of the following comments must be submitted, with the
redlined plans and report, at time of project resubn- ttal. The responses must note any
revisions or clarifications completed in result of these comments. If responses are not
submitted with the resubmittal, the project will be returned to the applicant without further
review. This procedure will help the review process become more efficient and effective.
Thank you.
1. The major issue related to this project is regarding the concentrated discharges into
Fossil Creek. There are several locations of concentrated discharge into the creek. These
locations will increase erosion.of the steep banks of Fossil Creek. An approach to
minimize the discharge points into Fossil Creek should be taken. The location of the
discharge points should consider channel stability so that erosion is not increased.
Grading of the creek banks should be minimized. Permanent measures to decrease
velocities and control erosion should be taken.
RESPONSE:
Date: �-- / 3 — 47 Signature
CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE
COPIES OF REVISIONS
❑ PLAT AMC LtbI49
❑ SITE P9(-Sons'-i .50cgi5
❑ LANDSCAPE 11ay00(-A /641 hyXy4l
❑ UTILITY
ATTACHMENT D
Pressure Calculation Worksheet
Complete this form for the most pressure -demanding lateral, and submit
it to the City with the
irrigation plan. You might want to make copies of this form so you have
an adequate supply.
a.
Pressure available at point -of -connection
psi
b.
Pressure loss through the meter -
psi
c.
Pressure loss through backflow prevention device -
psi
d.
Pressure loss in mainline pipe from backflow prevention
device to remote control valve -
psi
e.
Pressure loss through remote control valve -
psi
f.
Pressure loss in lateral pipe from remote control valve
to most remote sprinkler -
psi
g.
Elevation change from point -of -connection to most remote
sprinkler (0.43 psi per foot of elevation):
pressure loss -
psi
or
pressure gain +
psi
h.
Miscellaneous losses through other valves, strainers, etc.
(in some cases this will not be applicable) -
psi
i..
Total possible pressure loss (add b through h)
- psi
I.
Remaining pressure (subtract i from a)
psi
j.
Minimum pressure required at sprinkler
psi
k.
Difference (Subtract j from i. If the value is negative,
a booster pump may be needed. If the value is more than
+15 psi, pressure reduction may be necessary for this
zone, and/or other zones.)
psi
ATTACHMENT B
1.
2.
3.
4.
Instructions for completing an Annual Water Use Chart
Use the Water Use Chart below, including notes, as an example of what the City of Port Collins requires to be
included on an irrigation plan.
The discharge figures for each lateral can be calculated by summing the appropriate discharge values in the
manufacturer's catalogs for the specified sprinklers, bubblers or drip emitters.
Irrigated areas for each lateral can be calculated using a scale and/or planimeter. This should be' a "best
estimate," splitting areas between zones as necessary. For drip irrigation, the irrigated area should approximate
the area actually wetted by the emitters.'As a general guideline, youcan use one square foot for. each perennial,
four square feet for each shrub and twelve square feet for each tree.
To calculate precipitation rate (inches per hour), multiply the discharge (gallons per minute) times the
conversion factor of 96.26, and then divide by the irrigated area (square feet). .
5. The average annual depth of irrigation can be determined by referring to Attachment A.
6. The annual volume of water (gallons) can be determined by multiplying the irrigated area (square feet) by the
average annual depth of irrigation (inches), and then dividing by the conversion factor 1.6.
7. The annual cost for the water is determined by multiplying the volume of water by the applicable water rate. It
is the responsibility of the irrigation designer to find out which water district serves the project, and to make
sure the current water rate is used in the calculation. The water districts are: City of Fort Collins, 221-6681;
ELCO, 493-2044; and Fort Collins -Loveland, 226-3104.
ANNUAL WATER USE CHART (an example)
.:
Average Annual Irrt.gattott
Irrigated
Preapitattdn Rate
L uterall b
Discharge ,
Arcs
(tn /tr )
Depth Ein)
vninme
Opsi (a)'
hp"t)
Es f)
Efia1)
Al
40.0
12,100
0.32
16
120,700
$130
A2
42.0
13,050
0.31
16
130,150
141
A3
48.0
13,300
0.35
16
132,650
143
A4
25.0
1,500
1.60
16
15,000
16
A5
46.0
2,850
1.55
16
28,400
31
A6
5.5
490
1.08
8
2,450
3
TOTAL
I ---
I --- 1
429,350
$464
Notes:
1. This table assumes the City of Fort Collins 1996 water rate of $1.08 per 1,000 gallons.
2. The water use data corresponds with the June 3, 1996 landscape plan by Acme Landscaping.
ATTACHMENT A
A Guide to Landscape Water -requirement Categories
Potential landscape water -requirement categories, including some of the plants.'
Categories are based on inches of supplemental water necessary per watering season.
TURFGRASS
High Water Use: 24"/season Kentucky Bluegrass, Perennial Rycgrass
Moderate Water Use: 16"/season Turf -type Tall Fescue
Low Water Use: 5"/season Buffalograss, Blue Grama
PLANTINGS
High Water Use: 20"/season
Trees Birch, Cottonwood, Fir, nonnative Maple, Willow
Shrubs Hydrangea, Quince, Willow, Yew
Perennials Cardinal Flower, Fern, Foxglove, Hosta, Meadow Rue
Moderate Water Use: 14"/season
Trees Aspen, Austrian Pine, Blue Spruce, Crabapple, Mountain Ash, Honcylocust,
Linden, English or Red or White Oak, Redbud, Tatarian Maple
Shrubs Cranberry Viburnum, Winged Euonymus, Honeysuckle, Lilacs, Potentilla
Perennials Ajuga, Bishop's Weed, Bleeding Heart, Bugleweed, Hardy Chrysanthemum,
Columbine, Coral Bells, Iris, Lupine, Peony, Periwinkle, Shasta Daisy
Low Water Use: 8"/season
Trees Bigtooth or Rocky Mountain Maple, Bristlecone or Ponderosa Pine. Golden
Raintree, Green Ash, Kentucky Coffeetree, Rocky Mountain Juniper, Russian
Hawthorne, Western.Catalpa, Western Hackberry
Shrubs American Plum, Bluemist Spirea, Spreading Cotoneasters, Golden Currant, Grape
Holly, Littleleaf Mockorange, Mugho Pine, Potentilla, Shrub. Rose, Siberian
Peashrub
Pcrcnnials Basket -of -Gold, Corcopsis, Candytuft, Daylilies, Dianthus, Harebell, Himalayan
Border Jewel, Lamb's Ear, Perennial Statice, Primrose, Sweet Woodruff
Very Low Water Use: 4"/season
Trees Amur Chokecherry, Bur Oak, Canyon Maple, Pinyon Pine
Shrubs Apache Plume, Buffaloberry, Junipers, Mexican Cliffrose, Mountain Mahogany,
New Mexican Privet, Rabbitbrush, Russian Sage, Sand Cherry, Saskatoon
Serviceberry, Three -leaf Sumac, Yucca
Perennials Blue Flax, Cacti, Gaillardia, Gayfeather, Hardy Ice Plant, Poppy Mallow, Prairie
or Purple Coneflower, Pussytoes, Penstemon, Scdum, Snow -in -Summer, Sulfur
Flower, Woolly Thyme, Yarrow
NON -PLANT AREAS
Non -irrigated areas without plants; including walks or patios, but not parking lots or driveways.
City of Fort Collins
IRRIGATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
for Water Conservation
Irrigation Plan
10194
If areas of planting are extensive, the installation of an underground irrigation system shall be
required and an irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City, prior to the
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. If no building permit is required, the'plan is due
prior to commencing construction. If the water requirements'of the plants are low enough to be'
met with natural precipitation, and if a means of temporary irrigation is available to establish -
the plants, the City may waive the requirement for an underground irrigation system. When
required, the irrigation plan shall be accurate and clear, drawn to the same scale as the
associated landscape plan, and include the following:
a. an annual Water Use Chart that includes: the square footage of irrigation zones,
lateral precipitation rates (inches/hour), and seasonal water use and cost. The seasonal
water use data shall reflect the water requirements of the plants identified in the
landscape plan associated with the irrigation plan. The irrigation plan shall reference
the specific landscape plan, with its date and the designer's name. (See Attachment B)
b. a general note stating the point -of -connection design pressure and the peak flow. For
example, the system design assumes a minimum dynamic pressure for the irrigation
system of 75 psi at a maximum discharge of 50 gpm at the 1-1/2-inch tap and point -
of -connection. The irrigation contractor shall verify pressure and flow on the site
prior to construction.
c. the design criteria to assist the installer with field adjustments, in a general note or in
the legend. The criteria shall include the sprinkler and nozzle specifications, the
sprinkler discharge at the design operating pressure, and the maximum distance
between sprinklers.
d. a general note stating that, Any field adjustment or redesign of this irrigation system
must conform to the City of Fort Collins Irrigation Standards.
C. in the specifications, or as a general note, a requirement for the contractor installing
the system to provide the owner with as -built drawings after installation is complete.
f. details of the installation method for bubblers or drip emitters, when the irrigation
design includes these components. It must also include the number and discharge rate
of emitters or bubblers per type of plant material.
Irrigation methods and layout
2. Where untreated, raw water is available from a nearby irrigation ditch or lake, it should be
considered as a possible water source.
3. As much as practical, plants with dissimilar water requirements shall not be irrigated on the
same zone. For example, turfgrass areas should be on separate zones from planting beds. (See
Attachment A for water requirements of specific plants)
City of Fort Collins
Water Conservation Standards for
LANDSCAPING and IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
General Information
7196
What are the water conservation standards?
There are two separate standards for water conservation: (1) Landscaping and
(2) Irrigation Systems. The standards for Landscaping promote the installation of
landscapes that require less water. The standards for Irrigation Systems ensure irrigation
systems are designed to apply water efficiently to meet the needs of the landscape.
What projects are subject to the standards?
All projects within the city limits that are required to submit a landscape plan to the City
as part of the development review process. In general, this includes all commercial,
industrial, institutional, and multi -family projects. Duplexes arc also included when they
are part of a planned unit development. The standards apply to common areas of single-
family developments, but do not apply to single-family residential lots.
What do I have to do to comply with the Landscaping standards?
Submit a landscape plan as part of the development review process. The plan must meet
the requirements in the document, Landscaping Standards for Water Conservation before
the development plan is approved.
What do I have to do to comply with the Irrigation System standards?.
Submit an irrigation plan as part of the construction permit review process. The plan must
meet the requirements spelled out in the document, Irrigation System Standards for
Water Conservation. The City will review the plan, and then inspect the system after
installation. The irrigation plan and system inspection must be approved by the City
before a certificate of occupancy is issued. If construction of the irrigation system is
delayed until after construction is completed, a certificate of occupancy can be issued
only with an acceptable bond deposited with the City.
Hnw strict are the standards?
The standards most important to water conservation are mandatory requirements,
identified with the word shall. Other standards are more flexible, they use the phrases
should or to the extent practical. These are enforced on a case -by -case basis.
Where do I get more information?
Call the Water Utilities at 221-6681.
Commr Fy Planning and Environmental
Building Permits and Inspection Division
City of Fort Collins
February 18, 1997
Tom Vickery
Wagoner Architectural Team
10730 E. Bethany Dr., Suite 113
Aurora, CO 80014
Dear Tom:
,rvices
You recently received a letter from Mike Ludwig of the Fort Collins Planning
Department regarding comments for the Waterstone Apartments project. Please add
the following Zoning comments to the list:
A 6' high solid fence is required along the south and east lot lines that are
adjacent to all areas on the site where the parking spaces are fronting to said lot
lines (in other words, where there is not a building between the parking and the
lot line). A landscape visual barrier providing 75% opacity may be substituted
for the fence.
2. The unit mix table on the site plan shows different bedroom counts then the
parking data on the site plan. i.e. the unit mix table indicates 80 one bedroom
units, but the parking data says 24 one bedroom units. The unit mix table
indicates 228 total bedrooms, but the land use data table says 414, and the
parking data shows 352 bedrooms. Which is it? It's difficult to determine the
adequacy of the amount of parking until we have accurate data.
In reviewing Mike Ludwig's letter, it appears that the other items of concern to me have
already been addressed by him or other staff members, so there is no need to duplicate
them here.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter Barnes
Zoning Administator
CC: Mike Ludwig
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760
2. Erosion buffer limits need to be established for the reach of Fossil Creek adjacent to the
proposed site. The lateral instability of the creek should be considered in determining the
erosion buffer limits. The Fossil Creek Stability Study from Highway 287 to Lemay Ave
(Lidstone and Anderson, 1996) could be used for reference. The buffer limits will
establish the minimum setback from the creek for any development activities, including
grading and landscaping. The point of discharge will be the only location within the buffer
limits where construction will be acceptable. The erosion buffer limits and 100-year
floodplain should be delineated on the drainage plans and the plat.
RESPONSE:
I The gully at design point 13 is very unstable with steep banks. The discharge from the
proposed site should avoid this unstable area. The more stable portion of the creek to the
east should be considered for the primary outfall for the development.
RESPONSE:
4. Water quality measures should be included for the site. Measures can be implemented
by many different forms of Best Management, Practices. Routing runoff to a water quality
pond before discharging into the creek is recommended.
RESPONSE:
5. Drainage and grading easements will be needed from the Natural Resources Dept. for
any proposed drainage and grading within the property between the proposed site and
Fossil Creek.
RESPONSE:
6. More details are needed for the proposed sanitary sewer crossing under Fossil Creek.
The crossing should be located at a point along the creek to minimize disturbance to the
creek. The crossing should be perpendicular to the creek. The crossing must be an
underground crossing with sufficient clearance for vertical creek movement. The crossing
must not be an aerial crossing. The preliminary submittal should show a profile of the
sanitary sewer with the creek cross-section and the existing sanitary sewer.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional comments.
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: January 22, 1997 DEPT: Stormwater Utility
PROJECT: #7-97 Waterstone Apartments PUD
Minor Subdivision
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received by: Monday, February 10, 1997
A written response for each of the following comments must be submitted, with the
redlined plans and report, at time of project resubmittal. The responses must note any
revisions or clarifications completed in result of these comments. If responses are not
submitted with the resubmittal, the project will be returned to the applicant without further
review. This procedure will help the review process become more efficient and effective.
Thank you.
1. The major issue related to this project is regarding the concentrated discharges into
Fossil Creek. There are several locations of concentrated discharge into the creek. These
locations will increase erosion.of the steep banks of Fossil Creek. An approach to
minimize the discharge points into Fossil Creek should be taken. The location of the
discharge points should consider channel stability so that erosion is not increased.
Grading of the creek banks should be minimized. Permanent measures to decrease
velocities and control erosion should be taken.
RESPONSE:
Date: Signature
CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE
COPIES OF REVISIONS
C� l%ter 4sAbec k
❑ PLAT 11fJre Z'tb1 a<9
❑ SITE P3r5orz 'J-i4550Cgfo
❑ LANDSCAPE Gvayyle-r,4 4r5; hyA44/
❑ UTILITY
Other:
• The Application for State Highway Access Permit submitted by the Applicant is
being returned. These Applications must come in through the City and are
forwarded by the City to the State for review with the State Highway Access
Permit (which is issued by the City). An Application is only accepted when the
City, the State, and the developer have reached agreement on the access and
other improvements to be done within the highway r.o.w. The City will request
the Application sometime after the final subdivision is approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board and the final plans are nearing completion and City approval.
All negotiations regarding access and improvements in the highway r.o.w. are
part of the development review process.
• Where do the trail/pedestrian connections shown at the north edge of the site
go?
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: January 22, 1997 DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: #7-97 Waterstone Apartments PUD
Minor Subdivision
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received by: Monday, February 10, 1997
This project was submitted as a "Preliminary Minor Subdivision" - there is no
such thing. Minor subdivisions must come in as final since there is not a two-
step hearing process. Otherwise, the project is a Preliminary Subdivision which
goes to the Planning and Zoning Board as such followed by a Final Subdivision
which goes to the Board. Since all the documents submitted were preliminary,
the review of this project was treated as a Preliminary Subdivision.
Traffic/Transportation:
The right-in/right-out access to this property from South College Avenue,
improvements needed to South College for turn lanes, raised medians, re-
alignment of the Smokey Street/Crestridge Drive intersection, and sight distance
problems as well as upgrades and improvements to Crestridge Drive have all
been issues with previous land uses proposed on this site. The City Traffic
Engineer, C.D.O.T., and City Engineering Department need to further discuss
these issues as they relate to this project.
Date: WO 11, V11-7 Signature ���1% .A,�,L,_LL4_
CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE PLAT
COPIES OF REVISIONS SITE
LANDSCAPE
(, UTILITY
Development (PUD). Please revise the building elevations so they do not
exceed 40 feet in height.
U. The building elevations should call for high -profile, heavy dimensional
shingles on all buildings.
V. Please designate all exterior building materials and colors on the elevations.
w. Please provide the proposed quantities of all landscape material on the
Landscape Plan plant list.
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be
forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this
request.
Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on
schedule for the March 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board hearing:
Plan revisions are due by 12:00 noon on March 5, 1997. Please contact me for the
number of folded revisions required for each document.
No revisions will be reviewed after the above deadline. If revisions are not received
by this date, the item will either go to the Planning and Zoning Board with a staff
recommendation based on the originally submitted documents or the applicant will
have the option to continue the item to the next month's P&Z agenda.
PMT's, renderings, and 8 folded copies of final revisions are due by 12:00 noon on
March 17, 1997.
Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these
comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary,
to discuss these comments.
Sincerely,
%4
Michael Ludwig
Project Planner
xc: Parsons and Associates
Peter Barnes, Zoning
Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering
Stormwater Utility
file/Project Planner
g. Please add a certification statement and signature block for the Secretary of
the Planning and Zoning Board.
h. Please add a certification statement and signature block for the City's
Director of Engineering.
Please add a signature block for the City Clerk.
A tie to a second monument is needed.
k. Please shown all watercourses within and adjacent to the property on the
Plat, Site Plan and Landscape Plan.
I. Please indicate the width of all easements (see emergency access and
construction easement).
M. Please provide topographical contours at 2' intervals on the Preliminary Plat.
Please use a line weight that will not distract from boundary lines,
easements, etc.
n. Please indicate the zoning of this property and all adjacent properties on the
Plat.
o. Please label all abutting subdivisions or the owners of all abutting
unsubdivided property to the Plat.
p. The unit density information on the site plan is confusing. Please list the type
of unit, the # of units of each unit type, and the # of bedrooms per each unit
type. Then provide the total number of units, gross acreage, and overall
gross density.
q. A pedestrian walk is needed along the entire southern edge of the
Waterstone Apartments property.
Pedestrian access points along the drive/parking should align. Raised,
patterned pedestrian crossings should be provided rather than just dumping
the pedestrian in the drive/parking.
S. Lighting is a major concern for the City staff and neighborhood. Please
provide a lighting plan for this project which shows the lighting levels
throughout the site and at the property lines. Is outdoor lighting proposed for
the outdoor recreation facilities (pool, volleyball, etc.)?
t. The proposed buildings are greater that 40 feet in height. Buildings of
greater than 40 feet may only be proposed as part of a Planned Unit
12. The Mapping Department will need to review the Final Plat.
13. The Engineering Pavement Department stated: "If any public roadways are
constructed such as a turn lane on College Avenue, the Geotechnical Engineering
Report will need to be resubmitted as a current report as the submitted is dated
1973."
14. The Natural Resources Department stated: " Our main concern is the impact of
this project on the adjacent stream corridors and the Redtail Grove Natural Area to
the north. The plans should depict the locations of Fossil Creek and it's tributaries
as well as the natural area (label as such). In addition, there are rock outcroppings
to the west and their proximity to the site should be depicted on the plan. The
applicant will also need to address issues related to the depth of bedrock and
perched groundwater, as well as views of the project from the natural area. Impacts
to the view of longs peak from South College Avenue should also be addressed.
15. The Advance Planning Department offers the following comment: "228 dwellings
is too large of a development to not have a pedestrian walkway/circulation system.
Please revise the plan to include a circulation system with direct access between
the common facilities and to future development adjacent to this site. The plan only
shows a parking lot and driveways as interconnections."
16. The Current Planning Department offers the following comments:
a. The Director of Planning has determined that due to significant development
issues, this project will be processed as a Preliminary Plat and will be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (not a Minor Subdivision
reviewed administratively). Please title all plans as the Preliminary Plat of
the Waterstone Subdivision. All references to "Minor Subdivision" should be
deleted.
b. Please submit a written response to all comments in this letter with plan
revisions.
C. The Vicinity Map on the Plat must be to scale. This map should include
streets, zoning, etc for a minimum of 1 mile from the property boundary.
d. Please add a certification statement and signature block for the owner to the
Plat.
e. Please add a certification statement and signature block for the engineer or
surveyor who prepared the Plat.
f. Please add a certification statement and signature block for the owner's
attorney to the Plat.
unknown. Additional width to meet any projected need, should be protected
by reservation or preferably, dedication as permitted by City regulations.
b. A direct access to this site is shown on the plan; however, the South College
access Control Plan does not indicate an access at this location. The plans
show an emergency and construction easement to this site by way of
Crestridge Street and a vacant lot. Is there a reason why this easement
cannot be used as a public access?
C. If the easement cannot be used, the Access Control Plan will allow a right-
in/right-out access at the Waterstone Subdivision if the parcel in question has
not other means of access. An amendment in the Access Control Plan will
be necessary.
d. Please submit an additional copy of the Traffic Impact Study for this
proposal, for the State DOT's files.
e. The applicant is reminded that no increase run-off to the state highway ROW
will be allowed as a result of this development.
8. Comments from the Engineering Department are attached.
9. Comments from the Stormwater Utility are attached.
10. Public Service Company offers the following comments:
a. Easements as shown on the preliminary plat do not allow for the installation
of natural gas into the project.
b. Grant all areas outside of building envelopes as utility easements.
C. Please submit a utility plans that show water stops, pits, vaults, sewer
laterals, etc. so that Public Service company might have a chance to design
around them.
11. The City Forester offers the following comments:
a. Please substitute another shade tree species for the Cottonless Cottonwood
used on this project.
b. Please add a note to the landscape plan which states: "All landscaping must
be installed or secured with an irrevocable letter of credit, performance bond,
or escrow account of 125% of the valuation of the materials and installation
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
from the west lot line of Tract B to the west edge of the utility easement that
parallels that lot line, etc.). Additional comments on the Site Plan, Landscape Plan
and Building Elevations are forthcoming.
4. The Light and Power Utility requests the following information be shown on the
Utility Plans before making complete comments:
a. Please submit a Utility Plan that includes the sewer services, water services
and location of all 4' x 4' water meter vaults. Also show location of gas
meters and electric meters on all buildings. If power is required on the mail
kiosks, mark the location on the Utility Plan.
b. The main electric line can be installed between the sewer line and garages
and between the water line and garages. This would place it outside of the
platted easement.
C. The normal location for electric transformers is adjacent to the parking lot
behind the curb or sidewalk. This is required for line truck access to the
transformers. Due to the placement of garages blocking most of the
sidewalks, proper transformer placement is not possible on this project.
5. The Water Conservation Specialist offers the following comments:
a. The landscape plan shall contain a general note calling for the review and
approval by the City of Fort Collins of the required landscape irrigation
system, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
b. The landscape plan shall include the total area (in square feet) for each
landscape category. Landscape categories are distinguished by their water
requirements and intended maintenance level. Examples of possible
categories include, but are not limited to, high water turfgrass, low water
turfgrass, low water planting beds, moderate water planting beds and non -
plant areas (paved areas, etc.). Please refer to the attached Water
Conservation Standards for Landscaping and Irrigation Systems for further
guidance.
6. TCI of Fort Collins would like to see utility easements on the subdivision plat.
7. The State of Colorado Department of Transportation offers the following
comments:
a. The plans indicate 75 feet of right-of-way (ROW) west of the section line.
Projected traffic along this portion of State Highway (SH) 287 indicates the
need for a 150 feet total ROW, 75 feet each side of the highway centerline.
The relationship between the section line and the highway centerline is
Comm•. _ty Planning and Environinental rvices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
February 14, 1997
Tom Vickery
Wagoner Architectural Team
10730 E. Bethany Drive, Suite 113
Aurora, CO 80014
Dear Tom,
Staff has reviewed your documents for the Waterstone Apartments Subdivision that
were submitted on January 16, 1997, and would like to offer the following comments:
The Fort Collins Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation
District offer the following comments:
a. General Note #2 is to be corrected to read "all water and a sanitary sewer
construction shall conform to the most current Fort Collins - Loveland Water
District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District construction specifications.
b. The Districts require easements for all water and sanitary sewer facilities that
are not located within the public ROW on the District's standard easement
form. A minimum 30 feet is required for sanitary sewer easements.
C. The fire flow requirements and hydraulic demand data is to be submitted for
review. Water line sizing and looping appears to be inadequate.
d. District facilities are not to be located in drainage swales.
2. The Poudre Fire Authority stated: "All residential buildings in the complex are to
be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. All alarms must go to the
clubhouse where a fire alarm panel with graphics display will designate the building
in alarm. A suitable graphics sign is to be displayed at the entrance to the complex
to designate the building arrangement.
3. The Zoning Department stated the following comments on the Plat: "In order to
determine where utility easements are, it is necessary to provide benchmark
distances from the property lines to the easements (i.e. a distance should be shown
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 - TDD (970) 224-6002
Community Planning'and Environmental Services.
Current Planning
February 11, 1997
Bernard Shomberg and Rod Hubbard. .
3333-South Wadsworth, Suite 104
Lakewood, CO 80227
RE::. Waterstone Apartments
5600 Block of South Coll®go Avenue.
Fort Collins, Colorado:
DearSltsS .
This letter is sent'as confirmation to.the U S Department of Housing and Urban
Development that the above referenced. project and property is located within the city
limits,of the City of Fort Collins. The property is currently.zoned B-Pr Planned
Busiriess. According to Sections 29-187 and 29-177 of the City Code, multi -family
residential units are permitted. as a use-by=right in the B-P, Planned Business zoning
district: .
The above referenced project and. property must be subdivided in accordance with
Sections 29-643 and 29-644 of the City Code and must comply with. all applicable
development requirements of the City prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Please contact meat (970) 221-6750 if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
%�b++r•r
Michael G. Ludwig
City Planner
cc: Steve. Pfister, Realtec, 244 E Monroe #4, Fort Collins, CO 80525
281 North College Avenue• P.O. Box 580 fort Collins;
FAX.(970) 22T fi37$!;Ti)p (970).
80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750
1110
PARAMOUNT CONCEPTS, INC.
L3 '
3333 S. WADSWORTH, STE. 104 PH. 303-985-5217 10312
LAKEWOOD, CO 80227 DATkJ���/
PAY
TO THE $
ORDER OF
DOLLARS
Colorado National Bank
P.O.M.5168
Denver. CO 80217
FastUne 24-Hour Banking 301,585-85e5
FOR
11100IL100 1:1020000211:191,312�0657,3111
iPUD ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE
Description of the change and reason(s) for the request:
Planning
Action:
Date:
By:
Building Inspection
Action:
Date:
By:
Engineering
Action:
Date:
By:
Other(irapp►lcabie)
CIS RTI F I CATION
( certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge alid that in filing this application (am
acting with the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the properly (inelud lln ' al I owners having a legal or eyuilahfe interest
in the real properly, as defined in Section 1-2 of the City Code; 'and including common areas legally connected to or associated wilt the
property which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and authority the requested action could not lawfully be accom-
plished. Pursuant to said authority, t hereby permit City officials to enter upon the properly for the pir )ose ol'inspection and, if neces-
sary, for posting a public notice on the property. SRy, ER7, LTD
Name: BY:
c
Address: 1355, S. Colorado Blvd r318 Jam s P. Ryan, : anaging arfner
Telephone: Denver, CO _
rA
CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
`i Of turn Collins APPLICATION FORM
IIIIIPI ws
1'rojccl Nartle: Laud Use information:
131-o.Iect Location (Street Address): South College Ave (south o``'fiossi�Ctr'eekF�otagc:_
Project Description- Minor Sudivision Plat of 3 lots Existing Zoning:
being the SKYVIEW, LTD ANNEXATION Proposed Use:
T(id,'Ys Date:_ January 10, 1997 Total Number of Dwelling Units -
Total Commercial Floor Arca•
WMNIZESINUMNIMM
G E i R A L INFORMATION: List nn „incrs hn,•ing a IcpVcquitahic interest in the property:
Onvncrs Skyview, Ltd (c/o James P.Ryan)
Name(s)7 Applicant's/Consuhanl's Namc:Wagner Architectural Team
Sirccl Address: 1355 South Colorado Blvd Suite 318 10730 E. Bethany Dr Suite 113
Street Address: Y
Cily. State, Zip: Denver, CO 80222 (303) 753-0753Cit Aurora, CO 80014 11 1 lcicphonc. y, State, Zip: ATelephone: (303 337— .4
1 _
TYPE OF REgUEST
"lease indicate the type of application submitted by checking the box preceding appropna c request(s). Combined requests require the combined individual fees.
Make checks.payable to the City of Fort Collins. Starred requests (') also require additional payment to Larinner County Clerk and Recorder in the amount noted.
Additional handouts are available explaining information requirements for each of the following review processes.
Annexation with Initial Zoning Requesled 7onc
Fee: $1,040.1 $5.00 • per sheet of annexation petition
Rezoning Requested Zone:
Fee: $856.00 + `
$5.00 per sheet ofrezoning petition
Planricd Unit Development- Overall Development flan
Fee: $ 1400.00
planned Unit Development - Preliminary Plan §
Fee: $1,472.00
Planned Unit Devclopntcnt - Final Plan §
Fee: $2.808.00
Minor Subdivision
X
Fee: $896.00
Prctiminarryy Subdivision plat
Fee: $ I ,312.00
Final Subdivision Plat
Fcc: $2,176.(N)
PUD Administrative Change
[-cc: $168.00
NOTE: Preliminary or Final Subdivision Plats sulanitted cmicurrcntly will) a
r�rcliminary or Final PUD Plan, RF/RC Site flan, No -Conforoinn Use
r\CVIC+v, or 1LAP Site -Plan shall be charged one-half the I'rclimin;uy or Final
ubdivision flat fee.
Extension of Final Approval
Fee: $496.00 .
Multiple -Family Use Reguesls in the R-M and R-I I Zoning District
or Non -Residential Use Requests in the R-H Zoning District
Fee: $976.00 (circle appropriate project tyre) '
Non -Conforming Use Requests §
Fee: $1,216.00
Group I Tome Review
Fee: $920.00
!L!IP Site flan Review §
Fec: $1,640.00 -
Other Special Site Plan Review (RC, RF, ctc.) §
Fee: $2,544.00
vacation of Row or Easement
Fee: $5.00 ` per sheet of filing document
Small Fees Projects
Fee: varies/check with Current Planning Department
Street Name Chan e
Fee: $5.00 s per shcct of filing document
o Cerli/ication on reverse side must be signed e 3195
January 16, 1997
Mr. Michael G. Ludwig, City Planner
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Foil Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
RE: Waterslone Apartments, Fort Collins, CO.
W.A.T. Project Number 96123
Preliminary Minor Subdivision Submittal with
Preliminary Soils Report Data
Dear Michael:
,Enclosed are four sets of Preliminary Soils Report data. Based upon Section 2.08, Subgrade
Investigation and Pavement Design Checklist, the following to be. noted:
1. Vicinity Map: Information is on Sheet 1 of 8 of the Site Development Plan.
2. Drainage Patterns: Are on the Drainage Plan and Report done by Parsons
& Associates.
.3. Site Conditions: Are included in the four copies, of the Soils Report.
4. Preliminary Boring Lobs with Dale: Are included in the four copies of the
Soils Report:
5. Traffic Study: Four copies submi'Red separately.
G. Groundwater L=valuation:'. There are no public streets in this submittal..and
all structures are to he constructed with Post -Tension Slabs. 'There will be
no basements or crawl spaces. Therefore, Groundwater Conditions will have
no effect on this dove lopment.-
7. Evaluation for Hydrologic Study (Subdrains): All structures are to be constructed
with Post -Tension Slabs. There will be no basements. or crawl spaces. Therefore,
Underdrains will not be required for this development-..
We will be proceeding wilh.the Final Soils Report as required while finalizing this Minor:
Subdivision Plat and Site Development Submittal with the City ofForl„Collins. If there are
any questions, please notify our office.. Thank you for working"with us in this submittal.
coordination.
Sincere[
Thomas A. Vickery
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd.
cc: Bernard.Shomberg, Paramount Concepts.
Rod Hubbard, Roderick` Management Company
Sleve.Pfister, Reallec
Gary Odehnal, Parsons.& Associates
Neil Shcrrock, Terracon
10730 E. BETHANY DR. # 113 • AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 • FAX (303) 337-4330
WAGNER ARCHITECTURAL TEAMP LTLa
January 15, 1997
Gary Odehnal, P.E.
Parsons & Associates
432 Link Lane Plaza
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
RE: Walerstone Apartments, Fort Collins, CO.
W.A.T. Project No.: 96123
Preliminary Subdivision Plat Submittal
Dear Gary:
Thanks for all your assistance and professional services regarding the quick time frame for
this submittal deadline. The followingsub.mittal packages have been verified with Mike
Ludwig, City Planner, as to amount and. items to be included:
1. Planning Dept. Package:, (25.blucline sets bound together)
A. Prel. Minor Subdivision Plat
13. Landscape Plans.(2 sliects)30 bluelines enctosed.of each sheet.
2. Zoning Dept. Package: (9.blueline sets bound together)
A. Site Development Plan
B. Landscape Plans..
C. Building Elevation. Plans
Note: One extra blueline set included for your records and files.
3. Engineering Dept. Package: (10 bluclinc sets bound together)
A. Utilities Plan
B. Grading Plan
C. Drainage.Plan and Report
D. Erosion Control Plan and Report
Note: Plans to include Street Cross Sections. .
4. In addition.to these drawing`.sets, the following items to be submitted:
A: Four Soils Reports, wilh.cover letter to Michael Ludwig.
B. Four Traffic Study Reports.
C. List of Property Owners (Mailing Labels)..
D. One Application Form-
E. Check for Application Fee.
F. One State Highway Access Permit Application.
This constitutes our understanding of the submittal items and quantity of each that the City
of Fort Collins requires. Please return four completed sets of each blueline package to our
office, so that we can distributeJo the wncr(s) and developer.' Thanks again for all'your
assistance.
Sincerely
T ma A. Vickery
10730 E. BETHANY DR. # 113 • AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 • FAX (303) 337-4330
January 10, 1997
Waterstone Apts. Submittal: Coord.
Page 3
This is our understanding of the items required for the January 16, 1997 Submittal Deadline.
Please review and comment on any -items that have been overlooked or needs further
clarification. All team members to have their items with the required number of copies for
the City of•Fort Collins and copies to each team members into Wagner Architectural Team
office by Tuesday afternoon, January 14; 1997, for delivery to the City of Fort Collins. Each
team member to verify with Mike Ludwig, City Planner, for the number of copies required
by the'City of Fort Collins. Any questions, please notify our office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. kery
Wagngr rchitectural Tea td.
cc: Design Team Members i
Mike Ludwig, City Planner for Fort Collins
Note: All copies faxed only. If mailed copies are desired, please contact our office.
u
13
January 10, 1997
Waterstone Apts. Submittal Coord.
Page 2
Traffic Engr.:
Geotechnical:
SUBMITTAL PKG. #1
LSC
Alex Ariniello
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333-1105
Terracon
Neil Sherrod
301 North Howes
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 484-0359
ITEM
Minor Subdivision Plat (A 'Stand Alone' Document)
Parsons
SUBMITTAL PKG. #2
ITEM TEAM
Utility Package: Prel. Grading Plan, Prel. Drainage Plan, ProL Utility Plan,
Prel. Drainage Report, and Minor Subdivision Plat Parsons
SUBMITTAL PKG. #3
ITEM TEAM
Traffic Study LSC'
State Highway Access Application LSC &
Paramount
Application Form.. and Fee Paramount
Property Owner List Paramount
Site Plan, Vicinity Map, Project Narrative W.A.T.
Building Elevations W.A.T.
Site Amenities ( Mail Kiosk, Fences„ Project'Sign, Garages,
and Trash Enclosures) W.A.T.
Landscape Plan and Data Owens
Geotechnical Report Terracon &
Paramount
WAGNER ARCHITECT URAL TEAMP LTD.,
January 10, 1997
Bernard Shomberg
Paramount Concepts, Inc.
3333 South Wadsworth Blvd., #104
Lakewood, Colorado 80227
RE: Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Site Plan Submittal Coord.
Waterstone Apartments, Fort.Collins, Colorado.
W.A.T. Project No.: 96123
The following information. is a brief outline of requirements and designated design team
members responsible for the items' required. This 'checklist' is taken from the telephone
clarification made with Mike Ludwig, City Planner with Fort Collins.
Design Team:
Owner:
Roderick Management Company
Rod Hubbard
1530 Jamboree.Drive
Colura_do,Sprinbs;,CO 80920
(719) 262-9337
Developer.
Bernard Shomb,6rg, '
Paramount:Concepts,anc. 'y
.3333 South Wadsworth Blvd., #104
Lakewood, CO 80227 r
Architect:
. Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd.i
Doug Wagner, Tom Vickery, and Don Eggers"
107.30 E. Bethany'Drive, Suite 113
Aurora, CO A0014
(303) 337-4144`.
Civil Engr.:
Parsons &.Associates, Inc.. "
Gary Odehnal
.432 Link Lane Plaza. _
Fort Collins ,'CO ' 80524
(970)`221-2400 g•
'- Landscape-,,
,- "Owens Landscape Design &,,Management ; -..
Michael�Owensa,`"`
9034 _East Easter. Place, Suite 104
Englewood,'CO's'8011g2 s
(303) 843-9679 .
10730 E. BETHANY DR. # 113 • AURORA, CO 80014 • (303) 337-4144 • FAX (303) 337-4330
JAN- 1 3-97 MON 1 0 = 27 _ Par sor^.sB.Assocs
P _ 0 1
Comm. .tyPlanning and Environmental Se. ices
Current Planning
January 6, 1997
Dear Resident:
Post-V brand fax transmittal memo 7671
# of pages . 3
To
l�. r
From
�r
Co. I
Co.
Dept.
Phone# q�r ��00
G
Fax 303,3 -7 -'(330
Fax #
On Wednesday, January 15, 1997 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Werner Elementary
School, 5400 Mail Creek Lane *, the City of Fort Collins Planning Department will conduct
= -a neighborhood - information rrteeiing to discuss a deveiopmerit-proposal in your
neighborhood. The project is referred to as the Waterstone Apartments Subdivision.
The developer proposes approximately 220 dwelling units on 12 acres, a residential
density of approximately 18.3 dwelling units per acre. The property is located on the west
side of South College Avenue at Crestridge Street (north of Tynans Nissan).
The subject property is zoned B-P, Planned Business. Multi -family dwellings are permitted
as a "use -by -right" in this district. Use -by -right review is an administrative process through
the Zoning Department and is not considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The list of affected property owners for this public information meeting is derived from
official records of the Larimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home
occupancy and record keeping, or because of rental situations, a few affected property
owners may have been missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbor of this pending
meeting so all neighbors may have the opportunity to attend. If you are unable to attend
this meeting, written comments are welcome.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call our office at 221-6750.
Sincerely,
Michael Ludwig
City Planner
* The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City
services, programs, and activities and will make special communication
arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6750 for assistance.
281. North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 - TDD (970) 224-6002
Page 14
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
If there are any questions or clarifications required, please contact Wagner Architectural
Team.
Sincer ly,
/Thomas icke ry
Wagner Architectural Team, L
enclosures: Attachment copies of letters and documents in package of Backup Doc.s
Package of Conceptual Plan
Package of'Use-By-Right' Submittal
Package of P.D.P., Administrative Type I, Submittal
Package of Traffic, Soils, Preliminary Drainage & Erosion Control Reports
Page 13 1
Water -stone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover'Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
12-2-97 Continuation of telephone conversation with Bob Blanchard:
Basically, the'Use-By-Right' only pertains to review and approval of the Plat,
which does not necessarily include the Site Development approved at the same
time with layout, engineering, and recordings. If there is any basic disagreement
with the new Land Use Code, then a request for Vested Rights can be submitted
for determination. This will take approximately two months with a fee from the
developer of $2500.00 (Two thousand five hundred dollars), with application
form. Wagner Architectural Team indicated that,all the Site Development
Planning was done based upon direct request from the Current Planning
Department. That in order for the Staff to recommend approval of the Plat under
'Use -By -Rights', the development has to be submitted to the Staff and referral
agencies that said site will work with desired Plat. Copy of Vested Rights and
Taking faxed to Wagner Architectural Team, refer to attached copy.
12-8-97 Telephone conversation between Wagner Architectural Team and Bob
Blanchard, Director of Planning:
This was to verify information needed to be submitted or resubmitted for the
Vested Rights Application. Drawings and Written Documents should include
the following packages: 1) Conceptual Plan
2) First Submittal; dated 1-16-97
3) Second Submittal, dated 11-11-0
.4) All comments from the City and our responses.
5) Copies of all reports and studies (i.e.: Traffic and
Soils).
6) All fees for services from all participants to date.
12-10-97 Telephone conversation between Wagner Architectural Team and Leanne
Harter, City Planner. Wagner Architectural Team responsed to Leanne's
question of whethera written comment letter was desired from the November
11, 1997 submittal. Wagner Architectural Team stated that we do want all
comments from the submittal in writing and are not waiving this process.
12-16-97 To Date: This is the cover letter and schedule of events concerning the
Waterstone Apartment project, for item (H) in Section 2.12.10 of the Vested
Rights and Taking requirements. Included in this package is the plans,
documents, copies, reports and letters to complete the requirements for the
Vested Rights Application.
Page 12
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
11-18-97 ..O.D.P. meeting for requirements, continued:
It was indicated by Clark that the 'Block Standards' are meant to create'
rectangular block patterns by using streets and pulling buildings and parking
inside each of the land blocks created by the street grid. Therefore_, Wagner
Architectural Team was informed that our site plan would have to be entirely
reworked, redesigned, re -engineered, with new, traffic studies, etc. and 'start -
over -from -scratch'. This ended the meeting abruptly.
J 0) Leanne Harter provided Wagner Architectural Team with an example of the
Context Plan previously discussed during telephone conversation dated
1.1/11/97, upon departure.
11-18-97 Wagner Architectural Team received copy of new traffic study proposal required
for the O.D.P. submittal.
11-20-97 Telephone discussion with Glenn Strudder, Stormwater, regarding Stabilization
s Report. Indicated that the written responseshould resolve the issue and that a
full Stabilization Report from. Lidstone & Anderson may.not be necessary after .
all. A quantitative analysis and 'consideration of the safe zone showing where
no development can occur (i.e.: the shown 100 foot setback from Fossil Creek)
may be sufficient. Brad Anderson, Lidstone & Anderson, was asked to hold off
doing the full -study until further notice.
11-21-97 Telephone conversation with Leanne Harter, City Planner, indicating that she
will check into switching'submittal back to the original 'Use -By -Right' second
submittal process. She would have to check with the City's Legal Department
since the final transitions to the new Land Use Code have been completed.
Client, Rod Hubbard, indicated his desire to switch back, especially since
Leanne Harter indicated that a Context Diagram and the Overall Development
Plan submittals would not be required if the switch could be made. Wagner
Architectural Team was told by the Client that a final submit of all -documents
needed to be submitted to H.U.D. as soon as City approvals of the project are
made.
12-2-97 Wagner Architectural Team had telephone conversation with Bob Blanchard,
Director of Planning. To have a Service Level Review, and while a Subdivision
can be processed through the previous submittal process, the project
development must go through the new Land Use Code requirements. Any
modification goes through Planning & Zoning Board with two City Council
Readings.
Page 11
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
11-18-97 Wagner Architectural Team and Lund Partnership meet in Current Planning
Department with Staff and Leanne Harter, City Planner, to discuss O.D.P.
submittal requirements. The. following items were discussed:
1) Wagner.Architectural Team handed out sketch of proposed Tract useage and
acreage for each area of the 40 acres. Refer to attached copy, dated 11-18-97.
2) Ted Sheppard, Planning Department, review the O.D.P. requirements in the
new Land Use Code with architectural and civil engineering firms.
3) Off -site sidewalk and pedestrian/bike trails may need to be implemented.
4) Need to show how the 40 acres join and connect with adjacent land areas
and useages. Add all public streets and existing buildings facing the streets, _
including garages, etc.
5) City Engineering answered Civil Engineer's questions on Overall Drainage
Plan and Report requirements.
6) Leanne Harter discussed how both the O.D.P. and P.D.P. Administrative I
process can be done concurrently. The best case would result in having the
O.D.P. final approval by either March 5 or 19; 1998. The P.D.P approval,
would take place two weeks following on either April 1 or_15, 1998.
7) New Land Use Code 'Block Standards' brought up by Ted Sheppard, City
Planner. Indicated that we had mis-interrupted the standard requirements.
'Block Standards' require more of a grid type street pattern, streets can be either
public of private (but not drives with parking along the sides). Wagner
Architectural,Team given a handout referring to 'Block Stan dards,"refer to
'enclosed copy (not dated).
8) Wagner Architectural Team also received the Transportation Impact Study
Guidelines, dated March 28, 1997, and Pedestrian L.O.S. (Level of Service),'no
date, documents to be used for the O.D.P. traffic impact and report. Refer to
attached copies.
9), Clark Mapes, City Planner and Author of the 'Block Standards', was called
into meeting to discuss'site layout and how the 'Block Standards' might be
addressed. Clark indicated he couldnot see how the Waterstone project got thin
far into the process. Clark stated that all the private drives needed to be public
streets, that all buildings must face the streets, that there were to be no garages
along the streets in front of the buildings, there was no parking spaces along any
of the streets (therefore must pull all parking areas into lots off the streets), and
that no part of the site was to be more than a 1/2 block distance from any major
street.,
Page 10
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity .
11-11-97 Submittal Package under new Land Use Code process for Community
Commercial District reviewed and received by Dana Goode and Leanne Harter,
Planning Department. At the time of submittal, Leanne Harter indicated that a
Context Diagram would need to be submitted in plan format that indicates what
was addressed in the written format. An example of a Context Diagram would
be made available for Wagner Architectural Team's reference. Refer to enclosed
copy of Submittal Package.
11-12-97 Telephone conversation with Leanne Harter, City Planner:
1) A.P.O. labels arrived and the fee of $589.00 needs to be sent. Wagner
Architectural Team will mail the check directly to Planning Department.
2) Told that for the P.D.P. submittal, an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.)
submittal for Planning & Zoning Board review and approval would need to be
completed priorto any approvals of the P.D.P. submittal received on 11-11-97.
Since there is one land owner for the entire 40 acres where our 13.88 acre site is
a part, Bob Blanchard, Planning Director, is'requiring an O.D.P. of the entire 40
acres. This must show all street layouts, as well as expecting the longest review
process to be with C.D.O.T. for access from Highway 287. The approved
O.D.P. can be amended -anytime in the future if useages need to be changed.
3) The O.D.P. can be done concurrently with the P.D.P. The O.D.P. can be
presented to the Planning & Zoning Board meeting one week prior to the.
Administrative Type I P.D.P. hearing and approval.
4)' The O.D.P. requires a Subdivision of Plat for Tracts A, B and C with
approximate acres. O.D.P. needs to shown how each Tract is being planned for
development with existing topography.
5) The current land owner(s), address and phone numbers are required for
entire 40 acres.
6) An actual legal description for the Waterstone site will be needed. .
7) Leanne Harter suggested that we have a meeting with Staff to go over all the
O.D.P. requirements for a complete submittal package.
8) Facsimile sent to Wagner Architectural Team on November 12, 1997;
regarding the O.D.P. decision and requirements. Refer to attached copy.
1 1-14-97 Telephone conversation with Realtor for 40 acre site to receive the owner of the
40 acres desired useage of other Tracts besides Waterstone's Tract.
Page 9
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity I
10-14-97 Meeting at Current Planning Department with Leanne Harter and Mike Ludwig,
City Planners, and City Engineering, Wagner Architectural Team, project's civil
engineer, Client and Developer. Reviewed the two options as stated in
telephone conversation with Leanne Harter on September 16, 1997. Addition
items discussed were:
1) No on -site detention will be required.
2) Crest Ridge Street extension needs to be shown on Plat.
3) Natural Resources requested that the Landscape Plan shows the native type
and species especially along the North property line adjacent to the Red Tail
Grove Natural Area. ,
4) Suggestion of rear door access to enclosed garage areas along sidewalk with
pedestrian lighting for security.. Concern given on a 'tunneling -effect' of garages
in front of apartment buildings. Explained that the layout was to create a more
private 'building courtyard' effect based from previous Client projects.
Additional suggestion to pull sidewalks away from back of garages and create a
planting bed area along backside of garages. '
5) After reviewing the two options for submitting the project, the earliest
possible hearing under the new Land Use Code procedure would be in
December of 1997. It was determined that proceeding with the new Land Use
Code would be the most feasible approach. Article 3, General Development
Standards need to be followed. Article 4, Community Commercial District,
would take precedence over.Article 3. The 'Mock Standards' would need to be
addressed since project was over 10 acres.
10-28-97 • Alta Survey was completed by Landstar Surveying, Inc. Information sent to civil
engineer and for stabilization study. Some additional coordination and
information was found necessary for.the surrounding areas of our project site,
which Landstar Surveying addressed.
(7/1997-11/1997) Lidstone & Anderson initiated work efforts to complete the stability
study. Coordination with the survey crews to obtain site -specific cross sections
and spot elevations. Reviewed the base mapping and survey data provided by
Landstar Surveying. Conducted a preliminary field reconnaissance of the study
area. -Coordination with Wagner Architectural Team to address Staff comment
from first submittal review.
Page 8
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History_
Wagner Architectural TeamJtd. Project No. 96123
Date- Project Activity
8-19-97 Letter from Landstar Surveying to clarify that survey documents should be
completed on or before September 10, 1997. Refer to attached letter.
9-15-97. Letter from Client regarding schedule, and additional payments for a new SAMA
to maintain the H.U.D. status. Closing of this project through H.U.D. needs to
occur before December 31, 1997. Refer to attached copy.
9-16-97 Telephone conversation with newly assigned City Planner, Leanne Harter:
1. Waterstone is not subject to newly adopted code, but is subject to newly
approved submittal process.
2. Two Options for resubmittal:
1) Resubmit Preliminary Site Development for second round of reviews
with Staff and referral agencies. Takes three to four weeks for written
comments. Must have complete submittal package reviewed for approval, no
incomplete packages will be accepted. If submitted on a Monday, countdown
would begin on Staff's weekly -meeting held every Wednesday. Comments
would be made as quickly as possible, depending on the complexity. Best case
would be that a Planning & Zoning Board hearing (and public hearing) would
be held for approval of the Preliminary Submittal only. Then, a second hearing
would be required for the Final Submittal, for review and approvals.
2) Pull original submittal and go under the new Land Use Code process.
Water -stone site zoned for Administrative Hearing. The process takes four to five
weeks for Staff and referral agencies to review an'd provide. comments. Only
one hearing to the Planning & Zoning Board. Plans must be very detailed prior
to public hearing. With the Staff and referral agencies approvals, the plans can
go directly to the Director of Planning and the Director of Engineering for
approval signatures and get the plan recorded. Wagner Architectural Team .was
recommended to look at the new Land Use Code, schedule a meeting with
Leanne Harter and City engineering to review the project and the current
information prior to any decision of which option to proceed with Waterstone:
Once submittal is ready, a meeting must be set up with Dana Goode, Planning
Department, who receives the plans, checks for completeness of submittal
package.
9-25-97 Surveying still not completed although deadline of September 10 was given.
Civil Engineering and Stabilization plans and reports cannot be completed until
survey information is completed. A search for other surveyors that could get the
work done was authorized by the Client'.
Page 7
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
5-16-97 The request for a stabilization report along Fossil Creek based.on Stormwater
and Natural Resources comments was reinforced during a meeting held at Fort
Collins Planning Department. Attendance at meeting included Parson's &
Associates, Wagner Architectural Team, Stormwater Department, and Natural
Resources Department. It was recommended to contact Lidstone & Anderson
for this stabilization report, which would cost a few thousand dollars and take
about one and a half to two months to complete. The concern remains with the
creeks switch backs North of project site. If a one hundred foot setback was
provided, that would be considered in the solution. As well as the buffer
(stabilization) report, a Master Drainage Study will be needed.
6-3-97 Due to the amount of major revisions and additional information required,
Parson's & Associates submitted a new proposal for civil engineering services.
Based upon these services, their work would not be started until the end of
August or early September.
6-6-97 Request For Proposal for civil engineering services were sent out to find an
engineering company that could complete the scope of required information in
a quicker timeframe.
6-24-97 Wagner_ Architectural Team contacted Lidstone & Anderson to submit a proposal
for Fossil Creek Stabilization Report.
6-24-97 Lund Partnership submitted their civil engineering proposal along with several
other engineering firms. '
6-28-97 Landstar Surveying, Inc. submitted their proposal fora boundary survey with the
surrounding areas. Their work would be prepared as an A.L.T.A. Survey
document for requirements with H.U.D. projects. This proposal was approved
by the client, Rod Hubbard. Refer to attached copy.
7-2-97 Client, Rod Hubbard, selected Lund Partnership to start the civil engineering
services for the resubmittal by August 11, 1997, based upon receiving an
extension on the project financing.
7-22-97 Client, Rod Hubbard, received proposal for stabilization study for Fossil Creek
from Lidstone & Anderson, with a cost of $16,910 (Sixteen thousand, nine
hundred and ten dollars). Refer to attached copy.
Page 6
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date • Project Activity
4-22-97 Telephone Conversation with Mike Ludwig, continued:
included to have the Staff know that the Plat is correct. This is to include the
revised site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, site amenities (mail kiosk,
clubhouse, trash enclosures), grading plan, utility plan, drainage plan and
reports.
2. Mike indicated that there is not a limit on the number of extensions granted
for resubmittals. Projects are never 'kicked -out' of their process, nor is a project
required to start totally over that are in for processing. It is only after Final
Approval that only three extensions are granted for moving ahead with building
permits at time of construction.
3. If Waterstone's resubmittal arrives by April 30, 1997, the Planning & Zoning
Board meeting could not take place any earlier than May 19, 1997. After April
30, 1997, the City has changed their scheduling of Planning & Zoning Board '
meetings and City Council meetings. Therefore, any submittal after April 30,
1997, can not be presented for hearing any earlier than July 3 or 17, 1997.
4. Mike indicated that everything that had been commented on in the first
submittal must be fully addressed. ,
4-22-97 Telephone conversation with Parson's & Associates, additional clarifications
needed from utility referral agencies before completing civil engineering plans
and reports. The first date available for this utility coordination meeting was
scheduled for May 13, 1997, at 10 A.M. in Fort Collins Planning Department.
Stormwater, Light & Power, Cable Co., U.S. West, Public Service, South Fort
Collins San -District & Loveland Fort Collins Water District, and Ward Stanford
of the Current Planning Department had been contacted and set-up for this
meeting.
5-13-97 Utility Coordination Meeting items discussed:
1. Light & Power need ten feet from transformer location which need to be
show on plans, with a minimum of one transformer for two buildings. Blanket
- Easement.for all utilities should be provided (gas / electrical / phone _/ cable).
Clearance between buildings and from any gas lines must be four feet. Electrical
meter locations need to be shown on plans.
2.. U.S. West and TCI (cable co.) both requested a letter of intent and the
'Blanket Easement' with no trees within four feet of any utility lines.
3. Gas line to come from main located from College Avenue (Highway 287).
.4. Any lines crossing City property will require an easement agreement.
5. Clearance between garages along parking drives needs to be a minimum of
fifteen feet for utility lines and servicing.
6. Tap fees will be based on unit basis.
Page 5-
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History,
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
1-15-97 Neighborhood Meeting, continued:
b. Rental rates were discussed.
c. Building Heights were discussed.
d. � Native species of trees adjacent to open areas discussed.'
e. Estimated late Summer, early Fall of 1997 as earliest construction
date start. '
f. Copy of submittal packages would be sent to Jan Wick, Neighborhood
Coordinator for the area. .
1-30-97 Peter Barnes, City of Fort Collins, sent information to Wagner Architectural
Team regarding building height regulations.
2-11-97 Letter from Mike Ludwig regarding confirmation to H.U.D. indicating that the
property is located within the City of Fort Collins. Referto attached copy.
2-18-97 Wagner Architectural Team received comments back from the City of Fort
Collins and the referral agencies (comments from the Zoning Department
received on 2-19-97) refer to attached copied dated February 14, 1997.
2-24-97 Wagner Architectural Team sent letter to Mike Ludwig requesting more time to
address all the comments received from the City, refer to attached letter dated 2-
24-97.
2-26-97 Apartment Building were reduced in height which required an addition of one
apartment building along the established drives and parking to meet with the
desired density per acre. Additional land purchase negotiations had to be
started to acquire additional property for both the added apartment building and
for the extension of the public street of Crest Ridge Street.
3-24-97 Revisions to the apartment unit layouts determined necessary. The apartment
building land coverage required to be changed and providing a 100-foot setback
from Fossil Creek to the North of site development required that another
additional land purchase be negotiated. These requirements made the property
increase from the original 12.31 acres to 13.488 acres.
4-22-97 Telephone conversation with Mike Ludwig regarding the resubmittal:
1. Planning & Zoning Board will only be reviewing and approving the
Preliminary Plat, but the entire package of Site Development Plans must be
I
Page 4
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
1-8-97 Breakdown of required submittal packages received from Mike Ludwig, City
Planner.
A. Planning Department.needs
1. Traffic Study, with City to process access permit from the State
2. Drainage Plan and Report
3. Plat
4. Utility Plan "
5. Application Form and fee
6. List of property owner(s) and mailing list of surrounding properties
B. Zoning Department needs:
1. :Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Access Plan
4.. Drainage Plan
5. Utility Plan
I6. Building Elevations of all sides of structures for each building-
1-10-97 Document of Design Team and checklist of all submittal requirements prepared
by Wagner -Architectural Team and sent to all team members, copied to Mike
Ludwig. Refer to attached copy.
1-13/14-97 Renderings of Preliminary Site Plan with landscaping and Building Elevations
done for submittal and scheduled Neighborhood Meeting. Neighborhood
Meeting determined necessary by Mike Ludwig due to controversy of property
location, although not a necessary requirement under the 'Use -By -Rights'.
1-15-97 1. Received Parson's & Associates plans and reports for submittal package.
2. Final submittal packages coordinated with Parson's & Associates, refer to
attached letter dated January 15, 1997.
3. Scheduled Neighborhood Meeting held at 7 P.M., on January 15, 1997;
refer to attached notice from Mike Ludwig, dated January 6, 1997:
a. Mike Ludwig, City Planner, informed neighborhood that the only public
hearing involved will be concerning the Subdivision Plat, that this meeting
was more of an informational meeting to let the interested neighbors know
what the planned development would look like. The actual process for
'Use -By -Rights' includes multi -housing and not subject to a P.U.D. process,
with only a required administrative review and approval process.
Page 3
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
Date Project Activity
12-16-96 Continued:
2. Utility access and tie-ins, fire sprinkled building information with central
monitoring box at clubhouse location, fire hydrant locations and 'knox-box'
location.
3. Fees for stormwater (approximately $2274.00), Parks & Recreation fees may
also apply and will be determined, drainage issues to Fossil Creek, Natural
Resources water quality control'will,need to be coordinated by our civil
engineers. .
4. Easement.requirement along College Avenue (Highway 287) by means of a
State Access Permit will be needed with an,addition of an acceleration and
deceleration lanes, and additional fees -may be required for street oversizing
(approximately $584,00 per unit).
5. Traffic Studies will be necessary.
6. Drainage and Grading Plans and Reports for the site will be required.
7, The. 'drop -dead' date of January 16, 1997, will need to be meet for all
submittal information for the Preliminary, Plans and Plat prior to the City's
moratorium for rezoning and the new Land Use Code format. No incomplete
applications would be accepted.
12-19-97 Wagner Architectural Team was informed by Peter Barnes, City of Fort Collins,
Zoning Director, that for the Final Plata Minor Subdivision Plan set with Utility,
Drainage, Grading Plans and .Reports, Traffic Studies, Architectural Building
Elevation for all sides of all structures, and Landscape Plans would need to be a
part of the complete application due on or before January 15, 1997 by `5 P.M.
12-23-96 1. Owens Landscape Design and Management producing the Landscape Plans.
2. Parsons & Associates producing the Drainage, Grading, Utility Plans and
Subdivision Plat.
3. Terracon producing the soils report.
4. Surveyor being selected. Found that a new survey would require a minimum
of two weeks for the sites 12 acre site and the surrounding area would require a
minimum of 30 additional days. The previous survey would be used forthe
preliminary submittal package.
Page 2
Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History
Wagner Architectural Team, Ltd. Project No. 96123
the new Land Use Code submittal, that we would now need to have an Overall
Development Plan submittal and approval prior to any approvals of-our'C-C'submittal on
November 11, 1997. This was due to having our 13.5 acre development interest still under
the original 40 acre land ownership. Our client had not completed land purchase awaiting
the reviews and approvals from the City of Fort Collins with his desired development.
On November 18, 1997, Wagner Architectural Team, architectural client representative,
and Lund Partnership, civil engineer, had a.meeting in Fort Collins with the Current
Planning Department and City Engineering Department to go over all the specific Overall
Development Plan requirements and where particular information could be found to
complete this newest submittal request. Leanne Harter was most helpful and had even
developed a tentative schedule and-timeframe that could be excepted. During the end of
this meeting it was pointed.out that since our development was over 10 acres that the new
'Block Standardsi for residential use had not been meet.- We were told -that we had,
misinterpreted the regulations and that the planner was surprised we had gotten as far as we
had and that we would need to start over in our site development plan from scratch.
This brings the project into our current request to submit our project under Division 2.12,
Vested Rights and Taking. The following is our Chronological List of Project History to
prove: (A) some authorized act of the city, (B) applicant's reasonable good faith reliance
upon such act, and (C) substantial change in position and expenditures by applicant making
it highly inequitable and unjust to destroy his rights acquired.
Date Project Activity
11-13-96 Meeting with HUD Officials addressing the Conceptual Site Plan:
Implemented the comments on traffic impacts, noise levels from the railroad
tracks along the West side and Highway 287 on the East side of the property,
and the flood plain locations. Approval to proceed with the project was given.
11-14-96 Decision to have a certified survey done to have a Minor Subdivision Plat filed
in dividing property into desired lots. Selection of civil engineering services
done.
12-16-96 Conceptual Site Plan review meeting with the City of Fort Collins with
comments made by City Planners and Referral Agencies, as follows:
1. Requested a detailed site plan showing parking requirements and layouts,
bike rack requirements and locations and pedestrian walkways.
1
WAGNER ARCHITECTURAL TEAMR' LTD4
December 19, 1997 , )Jib
Mr. Robert Blanchard, Directo`r,ofl Planning D EC 2 3 RECq
CurrenfPlanning Department, City of Fort Collins,
281 North College Avenue'.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-b 8kl
Re: Waterstone Apartments, Vested Rights and Taking Submittal
k C`
Cover Letter and Chronological List of Project History -
Wagner Architectural Team;, -Ltd Project No. 96123
Dear Bob:��'
The purpose of thisletter is to+idenfifyfou;project, Waterstone`Apartments, as a property
that should be made _exemptfrom the application of the new/Lanftse Code, dated March
28, 1997. Th letter; a'r encIbsetl {documents are submittedito lmeet the requirements for
Vested Rights',as the procedure�for relief from the Land Use. Code Block Stank
Vested
requirements:.' LL�I .ih
Waterstone Apa\rtm r is was originally submitted under 'Use By Rights' for lthe r";eyiew and
approval oPa Plat`fo our tleueI pment of^rnultl family housing: IIn the original preliminary
submittal we"included all th'e;additional information and drawi'h&that were''requested by
the City to,identrfy precisely how{the R,latiwouId/relate to our apartment c impl"ex �r .
�, - / 1 I f
development: J roc,' j
The comments we received-backifrom�(the City.a d their referral ageincies were significant
and "required an extensive amountrofjaddition I research, land; purchase negotiationsn„-!
eng \eermg-studies; and overall redesign of�thYe'site'development pia Biy thie time=alr.`tthe
required information_was assembled and the revisions to the plans were made; we,were,
giveh„the option-tbleither continue under the original submittal,process,ofi��Use Byl Rights'�
orM a-Mh new Land=Use Code of Community Commercial District (C Q After meeting'
.r(NA
\--�^-;::� �,. ! v,
with:Leanne:H rter•and Mic_h"ael Ludwig, City -Planners, and various c departmentuo
s=and
re`erraFagenc es, it_was dete ri ilned,th,dt processing;our protect=underthe new Land, Use
Code would' more expedient method for approvals _
�svZt.t.
Our second -submittal -package included all theGrequirements_foi the 'C C' ResidentiabMulti °�
family usage along -with responsesJo,eeach of the comments 'received from the`previously 11'
preliminary submittal Use By -Rights' submittal.., t the`! tim�of oursubmittai on November \�
'11. 1997, we_ -were told that a -Context Diagram would need to be submitted although w_e
�f� had=add ��ssed this_requirement in the'wntten documents) letter.\ On Nov }tuber `3, 1997,,5 y6`' �\
1 we were contacted by Leanne Harter"and informed,'tha_t since',we decided to..proceedF under
10730 E. B&HANY DR. #113 • AURORA, CO 80014 • (303:
ATTACIEMENT D