Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION - PDP (RE-SUBMITTAL) - 26-00 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSPeak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 2 C. The P.D.P. complies with the Land Use and Development standards of the L-M-N zone district (Article Four). D. The P.D.P. complies with the General Development standards of Article Three, with three exceptions. E. The three Requests for Modification of Standards have been considered and found to meet the adopted criteria. F. Two neighborhood meetings were held with surrounding property owners. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: L-M-N; Existing residential S: R-L; Existing Overland Park E: R-L; Existing residential (Sienna P.U.D.) W: L-M-N; Existing residential (Lory Ann Estates) The property was annexed as part of a larger parcel in 1970. There has been no previous development activity on the parcel. 2. Compliance with L-M-N Zone District: The proposed land uses, multi -family and single family detached, are permitted uses in the L-M-N zone district, eligible to be considered by the Director or Hearing Officer. Due to the Requests for Modification of Standards, the applicant has elected to consolidate the Modifications and the P.D.P. application, and have them reviewed concurrently by the Board. The P.D.P. meets all the applicable Land Use and Development Standards as follows: A. Section 4.4(D)(1)(b) — Density This standard requires that the maximum density taken as a whole be 8.00 dwelling units per gross acre of land. The P.D.P. represents 58 dwelling units on j •'�-� • • ■ gas f 2 �t a • t �i • • X i^ - , v r CL rIRICTM Sl L k, rk f71t`i7 ' ^` FOR COLLINS ✓t`+ R,r'1 onn �r.JJ' IY'a r 11 1 r • � C ffap,ih zry 16 Vt,. y... r .rOf KCI Sr r� lJ :t zo l \ n Figure 3 County Planning Map 197(revised Phase I Environmental nmental Siteite Assessment ssessment 76 OLLECEX 74 4 3 4 3 6a 4 76 76 c5 n as � r9. 7 3 ASSESSMENT SITE 4 74 */\ 75 4 12 45 76 54 ( 74 74 7 75 3 6 0 ,3 15 95 —14 4 3 \ 67 74 \1 11 4 4 I 96 5_ 3 3 99 75 74 4 22 - 65 81 22 3 3 76 4 ' 45 91 76 3 4 \` 24 t1 96 74 2 3 45 1 I 2 4 , ` l 42 3 3 "� 4 84 3 4 3 76 3 4 3 1 v 4 3 i i 0 S9 3\�-��.1- �� 0 3 3 _ nq 66 4 . nf�10-5 _ 84 36 i 10s B4 3E tl 7 � Pi I I\ 1 2-,-28 5 28 Figure 2 Prepared by: U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Map MDG Inc. Littleton Christian Church Phase I Site Assessment 820 Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO Soil Types: 80204 Bresser-Louviers complex, 7 - 30% slopes Tel (303) 571-5787 and Blakeland sandy loam, 1 - 15% slopes Fax (303) 571-5788 �—ik Municipal \ o� . Jf Golf Course ; a. q 5130 ro J) z \ a` b 1V 8 . q'• �' � � Y� I . , • 1� Ewa .. � Sr2! r• •• _ � }7 ii PRO 1 ,P In. v,ea�==z. •PRO5�C7. h' •.57. n _' - 5065g, � 1i !I . a 4 J o 1 ) 4 CL• �• 1' GraPit i t Darni 1�\. w �n I ' A am DRAKE _.RO-�r---OAO.-���^r—.. 5144 0 Mw FEET 0 SOOm IOOOm Figure 1 Site Map of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ridT7N R69W, NW 1/4 NE 1/4 of section 16 Horsetooth Reservoir Quadrangle, Larimer County, Colorado The county planning maps indicate there are no commercial buildings on or adjacent to the site. The microwave -radar station and the dwellings (other than farm) west of the Assessment site are the only prominent features located near the Assessment site (Figure 3). These structures pose no threats of spills or hazardous materials. PUBLIC RECORDS REVIEW MDG, Inc. reviewed information from public agency databases provided by ENTRAC, Inc. This record review was conducted to assist in the identification of recognized environmental conditions associated with the Assessment Site. It was found through this record review there are currently no environmental concerns including registered underground storage tanks and leak facilities, RCRA facilities, CERCLA and NPL/Superfund sites and state priority listings, and landfills associated with and within '/4 mile of the Assessment site as of August 2000. Unfortunately, MDG, Inc. was unable to interview the nearby landowners when performing the site assessment. Several attempts were made to contact adjacent land owners but they were either unavailable or did not know enough about the site to comment CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Assessment site has historically been used for agriculture, farming, and residential dwellings. Our investigation gave no indications for concern from historic or current use of the site. Residential housing - has occurred on a limited basis throughout the Assessment site since the early 1900s and has persisted to date. The lands to the east, west and north have been developed for home dwellings. The property to the south is currently being used for recreation purposes. It is our belief that.there is no concern for environmental release at the Assessment site due to current of historic uses or practices. Additionally, we did not find any evidence to support concern for release of hazardous substances into the environment from off -site sources. LIMITATIONS This report was conducted by reviewing photographs, topographic maps, county planning maps, geological maps, information supplied by a public record search company (ENTRAC), and conducting site visits. We did not collect air, soil, or water samples for analysis for contamination, test for radon gas, determine presence of wetlands, assess for threatened or endangered species habitat, or conduct geotechnical investigations. James Eussen Biologist/Environmental Specialist Along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel trees and grasses are most common, while along the upland sites grasses and forbs are most common. There are few tress occurring in the upland site except near the properties adjacent to West Elizabeth Street. Surrounding Areas There are residential housing developments to the east and west of the site. Most of the housing is quite recent although some still exists from the late 1940s. A recreation baseball field occupies the site directly to the south. A trailer park and residential housing occupies much of the land north of West Elizabeth Street. Overland Trail Road is a main arterial road on the western edge of Fort Collins, extending north to Laporte and south to Loveland. West Elizabeth Street occurs for approximately one mile intersecting Overland Trail to the west and Taft Hill to the east. Currently, much of the surrounding lands are being developed for residential housing. Soil Formation Soils at the Assessment site were ascertained by reviewing soil surveys, topographic maps, and geological maps of the area. Site visits provided additional information. Two soil types occur on the Assessment site: the Altvan-Satanta loam, 0-3% slopes and Altvan-Satanta loam, 3-9% slopes (Figure 2). The Altvan-Satanta loam, 0-3% slopes has a runoff hazard that is slow to medium and an erosion hazard of slight to moderate. It is approximately 45% Altvan loam and 30 % Satanta loam. Altvan-Satanta loam 3-9% slopes has a runoff hazard of medium to rapid and a wind and water erosion hazard of moderate but can become sever on greater slopes and with inadequate cover. Approximately 55% of the soil is Altvan soils and 35% is Satanta soils. Altvan soils usually occur on uplands and high terrace slopes and benches, they are well drained soils and formed from mixed alluvial deposits materials. Satanta soils are deep, well drained soils that have formed in mixed alluvial and wind - deposited materials. These soils also occur in uplands and on high terraces and benches. Surface Water As mentioned above, only the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel occurs on site. The headwaters of the cannel begin at the Cache La Poudre River near Bellvue, west of Laporte approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Assessment site. For the most part, the cannel flows along the foothills east of Horsetooth Reservoir. At the Assessment site the cannel crosses West Elizabeth Street. After approximately 200 meters it makes and immediate turn to the west crossing Overland Trail Road, eventually emptying into Fossil Creek approximately 4 miles south of the Assessment site. It appears the cannel has been re-routed just beyond the Assessment site, northeast of the current drive-in theater location. Site History Historical land uses at the Assessment Site was determined by viewing historical topographic maps and county planning maps. Any change in land use, presence of above ground storage tanks, and changes in topography indicating potential dumps were further examined. Historic topographic maps included the following years: 1906, 1943 (using 1937 surveys), 1956 (using 1948 surveys), 1958, 1969, 1971, 1975, and 1978. County planning maps were reviewed for 1958, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979 (revised from 1974). The primary use of the Assessment site has been agriculture, farming, and residential dwellings. There is no evidence from the site visits, historical topographic maps, and county planning maps that would suggest other land uses for the Assessment site. Between 1948 and 1958 a mining operation started south of the Assessment site. Based on the topographic maps the mining operation is a small scale gravel operation which may or may not still be in production. Because the mine is located down stream of the site there is no concern for spills or hazardous materials. INTRODUCTION This Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was conducted at a site of approximately 9.8 acres located in Larimer County, Colorado between West Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail Road. Design Development Consultants plan to develop the site for home construction and requested that this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment be conducted prior to construction activities at the site. Currently, most of the site is vacant, except for two properties along West Elizabeth Street. Here several old structures occur on site. Historic land use of the Assessment site has mostly been agriculture, farming and residential dwellings. Based on historical topographic maps agriculture and farming practices were conducted on a relatively small scale and probably started before the turn of the century and continued into the 1970s or 1980s. There is no record of any other land uses that may indicate a potential for spills or any other hazardous materials for the site. The Assessment Site lies within a mixed agriculture and residential area. There were no associated treatment, storage or disposal facilities occurring within '/< mile of the Assessment Site. Additionally, no permitted landfills were found in the surrounding area and there was no evidence of such sites in other historical records and maps such as historical topographic maps and county planning maps. It is our belief that there is no concern for environmental release at the Assessment site due to current or historical uses. Moreover, we did not find any evidence to support concern for releases into the environment from off -site sources. SCOPE The purpose of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is to identify recognizable environmental conditions such as presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or the possible contamination of soils, and waters. The Assessment took place at the site of approximately 9.8 acres located approximately /. mile east of Overland Trail Road along West Elizabeth Road (Figure 1). It was conducted at the request of the client who is proposing to construct homes on the site. The scope of this Assessment does not include the collection or analysis of soil or water media, wetland determination or delineation, habitat assessments or surveys for any threatened or endangered species; assessment of radon gas, asbestos -contamination, lead -based paints, lead contamination in water, or geotechnical investigations and or engineering. SITE DESCRIPTION AND METHODS The Assessment site is located in T7N R69W, NW '/< NE'/< of section 16 of the Horsetooth Reservoir 7.5 minute quadrangle, in Larimer County, Colorado. The site was visited on 13 June 2000 and visually inspected for evidence of recognizable environmental conditions such as the presence of fuel tanks, evidence of dumping, abnormal soil and vegetation coloring, or topographical irregularities. Additionally maps, photographs, and public records were obtained to ascertain the likelihood of present, past, or threat of future release of hazardous materials at the site. Currently, most of the land is vacant except for the two properties located to the north, along West Elizabeth Street. What appear to be old stables occur adjacent to the.properties. These structures have not been used for several years. During the site visit there was no visual indication of any spills, evidence of dumping, or other environmental concerns within and adjacent to these structures. The vegetation and soils surrounding the structures did not show any discoloration and appeared to be typical of the surrounding sites. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel flow seasonally through the site and confluence's with Fossil Creek approximately 4 mile to the south. The cannel has been in existence prior to 1905 (earliest topographic map available for site). It appears to have been re-routed just beyond the Assessment site, northeast of the current drive-in theater location. Vegetation along the site is composed of native and non-native species. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel at West Elizabeth and Overland Trail Larimer County, Colorado Prepared for: Design Development Consultants 2627 Redwing Road, Suite 350 Fort Collins, CO. 80526 Prepared by: James Eussen MDG, Inc. 820 Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO 80204 16 August 2000 Photo 3. Looking northeast from the center of the proposed development site. Note the dryland grasses and stands of rabbit brush that are common throughout the upland site. Trees are absent from the upland site except near the adjacent dwellings, photographed here Photo 1. Looking south (downstream) along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel. The proposed development site lies to the right. Note the grasses (reed canary grass) that comprise most of the vegetation along the cannel. Also note the proximity of the houses along the cannel. Photo 2. Looking northwest towards West Elizabeth Street from the southern edge of the proposed site development. Houses in background are located north of West Elizabeth. g fr •, .._r VINE• •� RIVE 5b19.. ;I r.• 1p •S y/ FIE D '" > ?I:• isW. .. er Coup" Voir ew In 11 LAF —14 �r I. it r L 6(00 MU I I Ilk Trail S130 Pal 6140 =`c'' 'a t 7 sn4 w.t�beth St. s -- GO A.uessmmt site •2 t 1 lj q° tl�l. •:•�f • �i-Jll , „ 11 @ • gyp( `\ . •PROLYFC4T. ST • 'f .. 5065` • •tee , r • Hughes ...., � .,.. � —., � `� f '"� � ` r w� Figure I Site of Proposed Development Site between West Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail Road T•7N, R69 W, section 16 SW '/4 Fort Collins, Colorado, Quadrangle, Horsetooth Reservoir C Animals typically found in similar habitats appear to be absent or occur in such low numbers they go undetected. The riparian area posses some wildlife value, there is sufficient cover and food resources to support substantial numbers of wildlife. Because the riparian strip is extremely narrow, with steep banks, and is isolated from any higher quality habitat the wildlife value would still be considered low. Current conditions along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel do not constitute federal environmental regulations under the Endangered Species Act or under the Clean Water Act section 404. However should condition change or new provisions implemented prior to construction activities additional surveys may be warranted. Development cannot occur without altering the existing landscape. Typically, native vegetation is replaced by non-native vegetation resulting in a change in the animal assemblage. Species that are unable to adapt to alterations are often replaced by non-native species or less desirable species. Red fox, stripped skunks, raccoons and deer mice are examples of such species. With housing development, domestic cats become the most common predators decreasing small mammal and bird populations. Non-native house mice rarely found in undisturbed sites become common in close proximity to human habitation and structures often displacing native species such as harvest mice and pocket mice. Adjacent to the proposed development site housing development is encroaching from the east and from the west. West Elizabeth Street forms the sites northern boundary and is developed along its entire stretch west to Overland Trail Road. The adjacent property to the south has been developed for recreational use. Because of the surrounding conditions and the proposed development sites lack of quality habitat it is unlikely the proposed housing development will have any impacts to the wildlife that may on occasion frequent the area. also observed frequenting the large trees along the cannel. These birds may be attracted to the bird feeders placed in the back yards of nearby homeowners. During the site visit in June a single pair (one male and one female) of mallard ducks were observed along the cannel's east boundary. Several Brewer's blackbirds and tree swallows were also observed near the cannel. There was no evidence of mammal usage during the June site visit, however the tall vegetation along the cannel may have concealed all of the signs including tracks and fecal remains. The mammal assemblages that are typical fog these sites are those that are considered generalist and able to live in close proximity to humans, these include; meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodrats (Neotoma spp), harvest mice (Reithrodontomys spp), house mice (Mus musculus), red fox, coyote, raccoon, and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). While riparian areas provide habitat for many species the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel does not constitute critical habitat for any of the State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species such as the Preble's meadowjumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) or the Ute ladies' -tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). The Preble's mouse prefers structural diversity of vegetation, and especially an extensive shrub layer across a rather wide riparian corridor or wet meadow. The lack of shrubs, and constant water, along with a narrow corridor precludes the cannel from being potential Preble's mouse habitat. The crowded grasses and clay soils inhibit the Ute ladies' -tresses orchid, which requires sunlight and well -drained substrate. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) enforces Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates activities in all waters of the U.S. including; rivers, lakes, harbors, bays, and wetlands. Results of the on -site visit and interviews with the USACOE indicate that the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel is not jurisdictional by the USACOE definition and no specific requirements or permitting under the Clean Water Act will be necessary prior to construction activities. Upland Habitat The upland site comprises most of the proposed development site. The upland site is bordered on the east and west by housing developments, and on the north by West Elizabeth and a tailor park. A recreation/baseball field is adjacent to the proposed properties southern boundary. Vegetation through out the upland site consists of mostly grasses such as crested wheatgrass (A. cristatum), weastern wheatgrass, and smooth brome (Photo 2). Rabbit brush (Chrysothaninus spp) is the most common plant species occurring in isolated patches over the entire site. Fringed sage (Artemisia frigida), wild alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and oyster -plant (Tragopogon dubius) are also common along the northwest end. Trees are absent from the upland site except near the two properties adjacent to West Elizabeth Street, here cottonwood and Russian olive are most common (Photo 3). The upland site provides less value for wildlife then the riparian area. There is little structure or cover to support animal life. Animals such as coyote, raccoon, and red fox will on occasion frequent the area in search of food, however the site provides no real value for most small or medium size mammals. Prairie dogs (Cynomys spp), pocket gophers (Geomys spp) and other fossorial mammals occur in habitats similar in composition and structure, however there was no evidence to suggest any of these species occupy the proposed development site. There should be several different types of insects that occur throughout the entire site attracting several species of birds. However, insects were never abundant during either site visit while even fewer bird species were observed. Increased number of insects maybe more common during other times of the year resulting in more birds utilizing the area. CONCLUSION Two unique landscape features types occur within the proposed project site between the Overland Trail Road and West Elizabeth Street, the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel or riparian site and the adjacent upland site. The upland site does not provide enough food or cover to support large numbers of animals. INTRODUCTION Design Development Consultants contacted MDG, Inc. to conduct an environmental assessment focusing on wildlife habitat on the approximately 9.8-acres section of property proposed for a housing development just east of Overland Trail Road and south of West Elizabeth Street in Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). Home sites will be built north and west of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel. Construction activities will also include building a box structure and a drop structure within the existing cannel to minimize flooding events. Much of the surrounding lands have been developed into residential subdivisions. This environmental assessment focusing on potential wildlife habitat and wildlife movement corridors was conducted to determine if any critical habitat would be impacted by the proposed construction activities. In addition, features that could constrain the development potential for the proposed development site were identified. Such features include those regulated by federal government including threatened and endangered species and jurisdictional waters and wetlands of the U.S. This report summarizes the existing landscape features within the proposed development site including vegetation types and their associated animal assemblages and their usage. METHODS MDG, Inc. biologist assessed the site on two separate occasions, on March 6, 2000 and on June 13, 2000. During each visit field notes were taken detailing habitat types, dominant vegetation, wildlife usage, and potential wildlife usage through out the proposed development site. In addition, telephone interviews were conducted with Kim Kreimeyer and Suzan Haze, both with the City of Fort Collins, to discuss the scope of work, the impacts, and the ecological components of the environmental assessment. RESULTS There are two distinct landscape or habitat types that occur within the proposed development site, the Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel or riparian site, and the adjacent uplands site. The landscape types and their wildlife value are expanded upon below. Riparian Habitat The Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel flows seasonally along the edge of the proposed housing development site. The cannel crosses West Elizabeth Street from the north then turns abruptly to the west at the properties southeasterly boundary eventually crossing Overland Trail Road. The banks of the cannel are steep with thick stands of vegetation where grass and grass -like plants dominate (Photo 1). Reed canary grass (Pholaris arundinacea) is abundant the entire length of the cannel occurring along both banks. Dry land grasses such as smooth brome (Bromopsis inermis) and western wheatgrass (Agropyron smirhii) are also common to the west. Horse -tail (Equiselum arvense) is common along the cannel but occurs in isolated patches. The dominant tree species consist of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), occurring along the entire cannel and cottonwood (Populus deltoides) occurring in dense patches along the west end, with less common Box -elder (Acer negundo) occurring at the southeast end. Patches of weedy species such as leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and curly dock (Rumex crispus) are found throughout with less frequency. During the site visit in March, the cannel was dry, except for a few isolated pools and muddy areas. Tracks of raccoons (Procyon loror) were found along the entire stretch, with tracks of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and coyote (Canis latrans) occurring along the northeast side. The tracks of foxes and coyotes can often be confused with those of domestic dogs that are common throughout the nearby housing developments. Field examination of fecal material along the ditch and adjacent to the upland sites confirmed their presence. Both plant and animal remains were found in the fecal material, items common in wild carnivores but rarely occurring in domestic dogs. Birds such as black capped chickadees and Brewer's blackbirds were Environmental Assessment (Wildlife Habitat Evaluation) Pleasant Valley and Lake Cannel Overland and Elizabeth, Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Design Development Consultants Prepared by: James Eussen Biologist/Environ mentaI Specialist MDG, Inc. 820 Santa Fe Drive Denver, Colorado 80204 I-0 July 2000; al t �t t-' • Future transit operations are expected to achieve level of service 'B' condi- tions. This level of service exceeds City standards. In summary, the transportation demands associated with Peak View are considered minor. They can be easily absorbed and accommodated by the current transportation system. Based upon analyses documented in this study, acceptable operating condi- tions can be expected in the vicinity of this development for the foreseeable future. . . M X. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analyses, investigations, and findings documented in earlier sections of this report, the following can be concluded: • Current roadway operations in the area of the Peak View site are accept- able during all peak hour periods. Site traffic associated with the Peak View development is expected to be 34 morning peak hour trips, 44 afternoon peak hour trips, and 464 trips per ' day. These trips can be easily accommodated. The impacts of site generated traffic are negligible. This is verified by the finding that overall intersection levels of service remain relatively constant between current and future conditions with Peak View fully built. • No site related transportation improvements are needed. The proposed full ~ movement access points to Elizabeth Street will not require construction of auxiliary lanes. • Per City criteria, traffic operations will be acceptable with the proposed de- velopment. • The Peak View development will build pedestrian facilities along the south side of Elizabeth Street. Anticipated levels of service with this improvement will meet or exceed City criteria. • Future bicycle levels of service will exceed those required by City standards due to construction of a bicycle lane along the south side of Elizabeth Street in conjunction with this development. The site will have direct access to east -west on -street bicycle lanes with connections to north -south bicycle lanes. 27 N rn Table 3 Travel Time Factor Worksheet Destination Approximate Distance Auto Travel Time Bus Travel Time Travel Time Factor Fort Collins Hi hSchool 7.3 miles 23 min. 44 min. Foothills Fashion Mall . 5.6 miles 19 min. 38 min. CSU Transit Center 3.0 miles 13 min. 10 min. Downtown 3.3 miles 14 min. 25 min. Total Travel Time 69 min. 117 min. 1.7 Service Level Standards Worksheet Standard Mixed Use Centers and Commercial. Corridors Remainder of the Service Area Meets Standard Fails Standard Score Hours of Weekday Service 18 Hours 16 Hours 1 0 1 Weekday Frequency of Servic . 15 Minutes 20 Minutes 0 1 1 Travel.Time Factor 2.0 X 2.0 X 1 0 0 Peak Load Factor <= 1.2 <= 1.2 1 0 1 30T4 LOS 'B' �'• 1 i Route-3 runs when CSU is in session during the fall and spring semesters. It runs from 6:50 A.M. to 11:02 P.M. This approximates 16 hours per day. The current peak load factor is less than 1.20 for a representative weekday peak hour. B. Planned Improvements No improvements are planned in the immediate area of the site. Passenger demand is expected to be the driving force behind increases in the frequency of service and hours of operations. It is expected that Transfort will adequately serve this area in concert with ridership demands. C. Levels of Service Using the criteriapresented in the Manual, current and future transit levels of service. were determined. The. current travel time factor was calculated for transit and automobile trips to Fort Collins High School, Foothills Fashion Mall, the CSU Transit Center, and the down- town area as defined in the Manual. Bus travel times and transfer times were ex- tracted from the current Transfort bus schedule brochure. Walk time from the site to the bus stop is considered negligible. Auto travel times were estimated as part of this study. Auto park and walk times were assumed to total 5 minutes. Current travel times for bus and auto traffic were estimated and resulted in -a travel time factor of 1.7. It is expected that weekday service will be expanded to accommodate any growth in user demand. This will result in a future LOS "B" being provided as shown on Table 3. Service beyond the established goal of LOS 'D' will be easily provided. 25 n In i® It ft M W. M a :. , specific connections to priority sites: description of destination area within 1,320' including address =BlevinsMiddle School Poudre High School Bauder Elementary School Table 2 Bicycle LU5 WorkSheet level of service - connectivity minimum proposed base connectivity: I C I I C I I A destination area classification see text Public School Public School Public School LA C A IMIMIMII A C A Levels of Service The City of Fort Collins defines level of service based upon connectivity of the site to existing and planned bicycle facilities. In this instance, the site will abut the planned >' bicycle lane on the south side of Elizabeth Street resulting in excellent connectivity in all directions. Alternate connections to the area bicycle system will be further en- '- hanced by access to the local street system to the east, west, and south of the site. This results in level of service 'A' being realized in the future. A bicycle level of serv- ice work sheet is presented on Table 2. Bicycles wishing to go to Bauder Elementary School will be able to go to established bicycle facilities on Fuqua Drive using either Elizabeth Street or the Peak View bicycle trail. From this point they travel south on Fuqua Drive to the school. Blevins Junior High School is reached by proceeding east -from Bauder Elementary School on Prospect Road to Taft. Hill Road. Once at Taft Hill Road, bicyclists can travel south to the school. Poudre High School is accessible from the site by traveling east on Elizabeth Street and then north on Fuqua Drive, Ponderosa Court and Impala Drive.- This leads directly to the high school. IX. TRANSIT A. Existing Conditions Transit stops are currently located near the site along Elizabeth Street. Bus routes 2 and 3 provide 30-minute service to this location. Service is available using Route 2 from 6:52 A.M. to 6:27 P.M., which is about 11% hours per day on a year round basis. 23 `r _ ,aa�,� i� Table 1 project location classification: Other destination area within 1,320' including address Bauder Elementary Blevins Junior High Poudre High School Adjacent Residential Areas Pedestrian LOS Worksheet destination area classification Institution Site Institution Site Institution Site Residential Areas factors were assessed under current and future conditions. These factors pro- s vide the basis for determining minimum level of service criteria. Based upon the investigations into current and future pedestrian levels of service, acceptable levels of service will be experienced. A pedestrian level of service worksheet is presented on Table 1. VIII. BICYCLE FACILITIES A. Existing Conditions Elizabeth Street currently has on -street bicycle lanes to the east and west of the site with a gap in the immediate area of the site. These lanes connect to established bicycle routes on Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail. Excellent connectivity is therefore provided in both -the north -south and east -west directions from the site -outward. IB. Planned Improvements I Improvements are planned on the area bicycle system in conjunction with this devel- opment. More specifically, a bicycle lane will be built fronting the site on the south side of Elizabeth Street. The availability of access to Pleasant Valley Road and connecting local streets leading to the bike/pedestrian trail associated with Peak View further strengthens the site's connection to bicycle amenities. 21 C. Levels -of -Service City of Fort Collins multi -modal transportation Level -of -Service Manual (the X Manual) was used to assess both current and future pedestrian conditions. It was determined that the site fits the "Other" classification due to its relationship to area attractions. Sidewalks leading to Bauder Elementary School, Blevins Junior High W_:`' School, and Poudre High School were investigated. These school routes were evalu- ated using the "School Walking Area" classification. Students wishing to walk to 3 Bauder Elementary School could travel east on Elizabeth Street to Azuro Drive, east .:_ on Argento Road, south on Deerfield Drive, east on Lake Street, and south on Fuqua " Drive to Prospect Road. Use of the existing pedestrian signal would facilitate a safe crossing to school grounds. An alternate route would be possible using the internal 'I north -south aisle to Overland Park leading to the local streets to the east of Peak View and the Overland Park bike/pedestrian trail. This alternate would connect to Deerfield Drive just south of Argento Drive. The route identified above would be used from this.point. Junior high school students could follow the same path to Lake Street. Once on Lake Street, they could travel east to Taft Hill Road and south on Taft Hill Road to Blevins Junior High School. Poudre High School students would need to travel east on Elizabeth Street to Kimball Road, north on Kimball Road to Orchard Place, east on Orchard Place to Ponderosa Court and north on Ponderosa Court to Mulberry Street. They would need to cross Mulberry Street and go north on Impala to the school. Other areas such as the King Soopers Shopping Center to the east of the site and CSU are beyond the 1320' distance specified by City standards. Accordingly, they were not investigated. It should be noted, however, that bus service is available for students going to CSU or for that matter King Soopers. Bus service is free to stu- dents and would likely be the preferred means of accessing these locations and other attractions. 20 2F4: VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 3 r ` l;k. Existing Conditions d The existing sidewalk system was field reviewed within 1,320 feet of the Peak View site. Sidewalks currently exist along the south side of Elizabeth Street from the east property line to Taft Hill. To the west of this point, they are lacking in the immediate area of the site and start again to the west of the site. Pedestrian facilities have been installed under earlier editions of City design stan- dards. This has resulted in a mix of older and newer designs; however, all facilities were determined in generally usable condition. Pedestrian ramps are available at critical intersections and traffic signals facilitate crossings at the Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill Road intersection. Generally speaking, Taft Hill Road has sidewalk along both sides as do other area streets. Except for the areas which have been devel- oped, sidewalk does not exist along Overland Trail. B. Planned Improvements The pedestrian system planned adjacent and internal to Peak View will conform to current City criteria. It will facilitate access to the external pedestrian system thereby accommodating and complimenting the integration of pedestrians into the site. No off -site improvements are planned in conjunction with this project. The current side- walk system at the site boundaries is considered sufficient to serve this site and pedestrians using this facility. Construction of sidewalk along the site's Elizabeth Street frontage is planned with this project. When built, the current gap in the side- walk system will be eliminated. Additionally, the north -south internal drive aisle will extend from Elizabeth Street to Pleasant Valley Road providing a connection to adjacent sidewalks, bicycle facilities and neighborhoods. 19 I I a a I i(♦. JM1 .t iti�• 2010 Operating Conditions ,.`.' 2010operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full devel- :opment of Peak View. This investigation used the traffic volumes shown on Figure 8 --A 44,� rnnrluiw ncn +Mf cKi IA n nn GinJ trc I Dooi d4onf nnero4inn rr.rdi tions are shown below 2010 OPERATING CONDITONS WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL APPROACH/ MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PK HR PM PK HR Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill Signal EB C D WB C D NB C D SB C C Overall C D Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail Stop SB LT A A WB LT C C WB RT B B Overall ..A A Elizabeth Street —Access Points Stop EB LT A A SB LT/RT A A Overall A A As indicated, all intersections will continue to operate acceptably (per City standards) through the 2010 evaluation period. Capacity worksheets are in Appendix F. 1 18 2005 Operating Conditions = :,:2005 operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full devel- , :--opment of Peak View. This investigation used the traffic volumes shown on Figure 7 and the existing roadway geometry shown on Figure 3. Resultant operating condi- tions are shown below 2005 OPERATING CONDITONS WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL APPROACH/ MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PK HR PM PK HR Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill Signal EB C D WB C D NB C D SIB C C Overall C D Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail Stop SIB LT A A WB LT C C WB RT B B Overall A A . Elizabeth Street —Access Points Stop EB LT A A SB LT/RT A A Overall A A Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix E. As indicated, all intersections are expected to operate acceptably per City standards. 17 xisting Total Operating Conditions ping operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full ;lopment of Peak View. This investigation used the traffic volumes shown on re 6 and the existing roadway geometry shown. on Figure 3. Resultant operating litions are shown below. EXISTING OPERATING CONDITONS WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL APPROACH/ MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PK HR PM PK HR Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill Signal EB C D WB C D NB C C SIB C C Overall C C Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail Stop SIB LT A A WB LT A A WB RT A A Overall A A Elizabeth Street — Access Points Stop WB LT A A NB LT/RT A A Overall A A Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix D. As shown above, acceptable operations are expected under existing total traffic conditions with the existing roadway geometry. 16 �,�.aw.rm�ldlrwl� w �J 0 M O M M 85/110 4-- 140/250 l� 60/145 5/10 t140/215 —► 140/215 ---► 5/5 —� U-) 5/5 —� O O 00 .- O o M � � N O CO O LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: A minimum of 5 vehicles or rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. N O N N U U U Q Q N w w U) V7 1401245 5/10 135/190 --,'4 320/345 - + 155/175 --,), t5 '� �� itykk ��yy �-- 50/150 1— 120/430 80/200 Elizabeth filiff,"i MCI to CD N M CO Figure 8 2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC � u� uuc;+aA all�1 ai>Y t� F- O � O �o M (D 80/100 55/135 T I 130/195 —► 5/5 %r) o to W) (D r• N LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: A minimum of 5 vehicles or rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. �t �,vlPc (D C k— o 0 45/135 �— 130/230 f— 130/235 (D a ' 4--- 110/390 70/185 5/10 � 5/10 j Elizabeth I 135/195 —► (w 125/175 1 5/5 � w o �' `� 290/315 --* o v� Lo 140/170--,V Lo co O O N N N N N U U Q (D U) Figure 7 2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC M M M M�.. Al k— 75/90 ,�— 501125 T( 120/185 —lo- w) Ln 5/5 rn LO ti V) V) N r-. 125/185 --IN- 5/5 —� to o rt � rvr t kt �yl'.-55 N 4-- 120/210 1c' 5/10 V R I 105/150 � Co255/285 120/150 U) yN U Q Q in MU 'k— 45/120 4— 90/350 Vr- 65/170 r Elizabeth I un O o •�- N .�- ti CO 0 to LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Figure 6 NOTE: A minimum of 5 vehicles or rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. EXISTING TOTAL TRAFFIC = VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS order to assess operating conditions with Peak View fully operational, capacity analyses were conducted at the Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill Road, Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail and both site access point intersections. Total traffic (background traffic combined with site traffic) was developed for three time frames: the first being existing conditions with site traffic added, the second being 2005 total traffic and the third being 2010 total traffic. Existing total traffic is shown on Figure 6, 2005 total traffic is shown on Figure 7 and 2010 total traffic is shown on Figure 8. Site traffic was rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles with a minimum of 5 vehicles for each traffic movement. This represents a very conservative analysis. Total traffic volumes were reviewed from an auxiliary lane standpoint. The results of this review are discussed in the following. section. A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements Traffic movements at the site access points to Elizabeth Street were reviewed. This effort focused on the need for eastbound right turn lanes and westbound left turn lanes to accommodate vehicles entering the site under 2010 traffic conditions. No lanes were determined warranted using criteria presented in Report 279, "Intersection Channelization Design Guide" as published by TRB. Warrant sheets are presented in Appendix C. The Elizabeth Street intersections with Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail were not reviewed given either the current availability of critical lanes or the compara tive amount of site traffic expected to use these intersections. 12 ,� ►ran rr.rs � r� � � � ii t ..." �ft>�� � � 1 '�— 3/1 - 2/2 20% LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour nom = nominal ► distribution nom a ► Pleasant Valley nom W a 80% ► 41 4— 3112 Elizabeth 6/3 12/6 --► 6/3 a Figure 5 PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC V =3j'�Tl 41 t +f wr t, C. Trip Distribution `f Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the avail- able roadway system. In this case, all traffic must use Elizabeth Street to access the vt< site. Current biases reflect heavy weighting to the east during the morning peak hour and more balanced conditions during the afternoon peak hour. For purposes of this study, 80% of site traffic was assumed to be arriving and departing the site to the east. The remaining 20% were assigned to areas served by Elizabeth Street to the west. Peak hour site traffic is shown on Figure 5. V. FUTURE CONDITIONS ;y - A. Roadway Improvements The site is located in a generally developed section of Fort Collins. Accordingly, no i. significant major roadway improvements are planned in the area of the site in the future. When and if improvements are made is largely speculative and cannot be reasonably predicted. For analysis purposes, any future improvements are assumed to occur well beyond the time frames considered in this study. I I B. 2005 and 2010 Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic was developed using an annual growth rate in the range of 1 %s - 2 percent per year. This factor was applied to existing traffic volumes to approximate future conditions during the time frames requested by the City. 10 Weer-lizabvh Sarcef R 51 ".v r 7 UK", TSUI. go, sr, NEW 1 ./2 cs/ ws III W28 T-7 2 T6P -;I If J vlap•r LOCK 5 177 2 I 1 I 1 ; 'IOII II , 0 8 1 LORY I Lj TRAi ANN 4__ ESTATES I L-L L 1— TR C.0 T A 0 r Ell saoF SLCCY- 3 1W. rl .0 ----------- a: A LOCK 2 '00 vm, L 4,ND 'D 0 0 LL ,BLOCK 0 5c, 0 500 F bR M s BLOCK I 1 5' 25. 2 "10, w L 0; - - - - - - - - - -- - 11co s 0000j, f If 5 ji36,18"t in OVERLAND :ARK /W: S/ 102t A'S TRACT 'C'.OVCF',LAt:D TRAIL FARM OC,IH ;.c' V Figure 4 CONCEPT PLAN 01 ✓H. IV. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ' A. Project Description Peak View is a residential development with a blend of townhomes, patio homes, and single family residences. It is expected that construction will start as soon as possible with completion and full occupancy within the following two years. Two full movement accesses to Elizabeth Street are planned to serve this develop- ment. Sidewalk and a bicycle lane will be built along the south side of Elizabeth Street adjacent to the site. A concept plan is presented on Figure 4. B. Site Traffic Site traffic was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition", a nationally recognized reference. The apartment classification was selected to best represent this development. Trips associated with Peak View are indicated in the following table.. Land Use D.U. Daily AM Peak our PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate In Out Townhomes 58 5.86 340 0.44 5 21 0.54 21 10 Patio Homes 6 9.57 57 0.75 1 3 1.01 4 2 Single Family 7 9.57 67 0.75 1 3 1.01 5 2 TOTAL 464 7 27 30 14 As shown above, Peak View is expected to generate 34 morning peak hour trips, 44 afternoon peak hour trips, and 464 trips per day. These trips are considered minor. N. l� ME z m O P^.. yT'4 TAMP j+i w U h Elizabeth Figure 3 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY s; ;. 'F_xisting Traffic Operations r;. Highway Capacity Manual procedures were used to quantify current intersection oper- ations. Resultant levels of service (LOS) are indicated below for both morning and aftemoon peak hour conditions. This was undertaken for the Elizabeth Street inter- sections with Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail. Traffic volumes from Figure 2 were loaded onto the current roadway geometry, which is shown on Figure 3. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITONS INTERSECTION CONTROL APPROACH/ MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Elizabeth Street —Taft Hill- Signal EB C C WB C D NB C C SIB C C Overall C C Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail Stop . SIB LT A A WB LT B C WB RT B B Overall A A Per City standards, overall level of service 'D' is defined as acceptable for arterial street intersections. As shown above, all intersections currently operate at level of service 'C' or better during peak hour periods. Capacity work sheets are presented in Appendix B. no Y CD � N t 4 72/88 48/122 00 lM co OO .0, 1 43/122 4— 89/337 63/168 1 98/148 1 en 243/278 —► o rn `r' 116/147 ui W 0 m� H v c m t m O I LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour nom = nominal Elizabeth Figure 2 CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 0 I �j Overland Trail is a two lane north -south arterial roadway. It serves the west areas of Fort Collins and lies on the west boundary of the urban area. - Elizabeth Street is an east — west minor arterial roadway extending east and west of Colorado State University (CSU). It is a three -lane roadway narrowing to two -lanes in the immediate area of the site. Current daily traffic on Elizabeth Street is estimated at 10,500 vehicles. f° r Taft Hill Road is an arterial roadway having two lanes in each direction. It accommo- dates north - south travel and is located some 0.9 mile to the east of the site. It extends through the City of Fort Collins and typically has auxiliary lanes at all key intersections and on -street- bicycle lanes. A functional sidewalk system exists alonq both sides of Taft Hill Road. B. Surrounding Land Uses The Peak View site is currently vacant. Residential developments surround the site with Overland Park situated directly to the south. The area is considered fully built. C. Existing Traffic Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were obtained for the Elizabeth Street - Taft Hill Road intersection and the Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail intersection. This information is presented on Figure 2. 4 s., I II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS - g-,� Prior to undertaking this study, a scoping session was held with Eric Bracke, City 'Traffic Engineer. During that discussion, it was determined that an abbreviated 4 :.4 ransportation impact study was appropriate. Key items of agreement and direction are identified below. • A full assessment of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service needs to be conducted. • The Taft Hill Road— Elizabeth Street, Elizabeth Street— Overland Trail and site access intersections should be investigated during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. • _ An assessment of existing and future conditions is appropriate. Future conditions were identified as the years 2005 and 2010. -. • Traffic growth on nearby arterial streets of 1'/2 2% percent per yearis rea- sonable to estimate future background traffic. The above items are included or addressed in the following sections of this report. The City's Transportation Impact Study base assumptions and pedestrian destina- tions forms are attached in Appendix A. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The Peak View site is located along the south side of Elizabeth Street east of Over- land Trail. 3 •, r F`-Q (/I La Pone Ave 05 < p x xi Z mI �. Z m o } 0 T. IW ��9ra St o5 ! n' W IV ulberry St I 0•i i ld Grch P J E Jf I.L x, 1 rl :Eh t.tnSt ` Poplar Dr I� f pASANr-�naaty j SITE -rebtree D ,• -:� Dale Dr CIE 3rA _ Lake St�l rf W Pro pect`�R + r, ea _�.���_� ?r ice:.- V'� i j •9'1'r�ry p a 1 fey : v oucne D f f � � yf .Z .irp / r 0 mi 0.2 0.4 01 Figure 1 F .'.. copy^9n1 m 1988.1997. microsoft Corpmum - VICINITY MAP 2 List of Tables Table 1 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet ........................................................................ 22 'Table 2 Bicycle LOS Worksheet .............. ............................................................... 24 Table 3 Future Transit Level of Service 26 .................................................................... J =s} List of Figures Figure1 Vicinity Map...............................................................................................2 a .:;r:•- Figure 2 Current Peak Hour Traffic ..........................................................................5 Figure 3 Current Roadway Geometry ......................................................................7 . -; Figure 4 Concept Plan.......................................................................:.....................9 :. Figure 5 Peak Hour Site Traffic.............................................................................11 Figure 6 Existing Total Traffic................................................................................13 Figure 7 2005 Total Traffic ....................................................................................14 Figure 8 2010 Total Traffic ............. ........................ ..................... ......15 Table of Contents .. ; INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... • � II. AGENCY DISCUSSION.................................................................................. 3 EXISTINGCONDITIONS...................................................................:............... A. Existing Road Network......................................................................................3 Y,. B. Surrounding Land Uses.....................................................................................4 C. Existing Traffic...................................................................................................4 .. ,:. D. Existing Traffic Operations................................................................................. IV. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES................................................................................:.8 A. Project Description .................................................................................... .........8 B. Site Traffic..........................................................................................................8, C. Trip Distribution........................................................................................... .....10 V. FUTURE CONDITIONS.....................:......................................................... ..A0 A. Roadway Improvements.............................................................. ................10 B. 2005 and 2010 Background Traffic Volumes...................................................10 VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS.........................................................................................12 A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements...........................................................................12 C. Existing Total Operating Conditions....................................................... ..........16 D. 2005 Operating Conditions..............................................................................17 . .. E. 2010 Operating Conditions..............................................................................18 VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES....................................................:.........................19 A. Existing Conditions..........................................................................................19 B. Planned Improvements......................................................... ........................... 19 C. Levels -of -Service .............................................................................................20 21 Vill. BICYCLE FACILITIES.....................................................................................21 ." A. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... B. Planned Improvements....................................................................................21 C. Levels of Service ......23 IX. TRANSIT ................................................................................................ .........23 A. Existing Conditions.........................................................23 K B. Planned Improvements....................................................................................25 .. C. Levels of Service........................................................................................... ..25 .., X. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................27 Transportation Impact Study PEAK VIEW Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared For: Design Development Consultants 2627 Redwing Road #350 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P. O. Box 260027 j Littleton, CO 80127 I 303-792-2450 June 26, 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUTE GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF RIGEr TURN LANES Warranted? Yes No K TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME IVPM) Location: A C C,145S - to � l �b P i N Time: 2 ' /+`tI-1 t — LANE MlcMttArs ,00 Warranted? FULL- WIOTM TURN LAN! Yes to S Y W G 2 so No M H N z 40 o c i � 20 NOTE: For Pond tvaada ►t a uMar 46 mph, pack hour right tuma purer than 40 •ph, WA anal putt hour aoproad) Wu than 300 vVh, LY adW litAi4 a Pkhou /t IN — 200 u 100 Z00 300 400 S00 600 700 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME IVPMI Location • Ac'G C,�e? - W 2,-� I «c he — Time: -910 f 0 P fl? Source: KMPR 279 Intersection Channelization Design Guide TRB Nov. 1985 if VOLUME WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN LANES AT U1�_:_,\AL77FD iVTERS°CT.IONS Two Lanes — 4" mph v 4'� b / 3rgy/j - o//i/��Y%'/'J �Jps'ir✓ 'r 7,F774//611 �! i J� er Location:: AC�C�iS — /,(% 2,�71(:wbef-4 Time: vZ01C �syt V0= 15o VA=150 9 LT in V9, = .7'/ Warranted? `Yes X No M C p / mx AMEN ve .eo•.C,wC ve:u.•iv +. Location: QPEi - �(�Zxslve�, Time: JO to Pr" VC = as 5 VA = x269 % LT in VA = $ �% Warranted? Yes X No NZ Gl.�n I`J pg NEI q •sv+.a+c •ovwn•a Location: Location: Time: Tine: V0 = VA = V0 = Ve. 9. Li in V4 = 9e MTi in VA = Warranted:' 7es No Warranted? Yes No Source: NCHRPR 279 Intersection Chennelization Design Guide TRB Nov. 1985 Apr 24 01 06:53a Two -Way Stop Control Gene Ocppcla Ju:i raz P. °age 2 of 2 pproach Delay I - 10.6 j ppmech LOS -- _ , g HCS20VOM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, Ail Rights Ronvod Vmion 1.1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TE?vfP\u2kG086. TNIP 4/23101 Hp. '24 UL Uene uoppcis Two -Way; Stogy Control Page 1 of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISIte Information nai st GC gency/Co. Date Performed /23/01 nai sis Time Period PM estStreet: WEST ELIZABETH Iorth7Scuth Street: ACCESS ction Orientation: East-West tud Period hrs : 0.25 le Volumes and Adjustments Foav�oarrmrl treet Eastbound Westbound en`. 1 2 3 1 4 5 g L T R L T R Volume 0 215 10 20 245 0 Peak -Hour Factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.Go 1.00 f.00 1.00 I Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 215 10 20 245 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbcund ovement 7 8 9 i0 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 10 0 10 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Heavy ehicles 0 0 C 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Chann6zed 0 0 Lares 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration LR Qela , Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB vie Normbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 20 20 C (m) (vph) 1356 639 vlc 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.04 0.10 Control Delay T 7 10.8 OS A B le GC 'Nw NDOWS\TEN4P'�u2ki086.T',%O 4,'23/01 H p r z2 4 i �b:a.;a Liene ..CppCLa JuJ ,'Z11: p•� Tao-INxt Stoo Control Page 1 of T1RW0•WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC_ -- [Agency/Co. 'Date Performed 4/23/01 'Analysis Time Period Am Intersection WESTEUZAEETHB CCESS urisdlclion nal sis Year 12010 P I East/West Street: WESTEL!ZABETH U�JJBCL D NorthlSouth Street: ACCESS inlerse0cri Orientation: East-West IStud Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 8 - T R L T P, Volume —0 140 10 10 140 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 T 59 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 140 10 10 140 0 Percent Heavy ehicles 0 __ 0 - Median Type Undivided T Channe!ized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 10 0 20 0 0 0 Peak -How Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 20 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (0%) 0 0 Flared Approach N Al Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 C Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cenfiguraiion LR Delay, Queue Lenth, and Level of Service Approach EB vVe Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 1 a 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 10 30 (m) (vph) 1444 620 !c 0.04,, 0.04 5% queue length 0.02 0.11 Cwitroi Delay J 7.5 9.6 LOS A A ide:,iC:V VNDOWS\TE1NfP\.u2kE036.TNV 4'23/01 is I� � 1 'o ,�� �. 11111 ��., �ir r -� � 1� 1 ,� ---�- ��� �i�-z-r��I �i� . �i �� � � ,�� � �� �i� �� ,ice~ �� �� !i� � .�� -- � � �. ._. - ?�: ._.� �� JT1�L ' � J���L J!JJ4�L J� l_ll_._Jl_1 l_,_J l_ll_._Jl_J l_Jl_._ll_l - =- © __ was determined that under 2010 peak hour conditions, the access will function at level of service (LOS) 'A' overall with all individual traffic movements operating at LOS 'B' or better. Accordingly, no operational deficiencies are expected and the site access will meet or exceed City requirements, Capacity work sheets are attached. Future peak hour traffic (2010) was reviewed to determine if consolidating the access to West Elizabeth would result ir an auxiliary lane(s) being needed. it was determined that no auxiliary lanes are needed with a single access to West Elizabeth. This is consistent with the earlier study. Warrant sheets are attached. In summary, the reduction in the number of dwelling units and the consolidation of access to a single point along West Elizabeth will not change the findings of the transportation study for this project. It is therefore concluded that the original Peak View Transportation Impact Study remains valid. trust this letter satisfies your current needs. Please call if you need any further assistance. Sincerely, Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. Attachments EUGENE G. COPPOLA, P.E. P.O. BOX 260027 Littleton,CO 80126-0027 303-792-2450 April 23, 2001 Mr. Don Leffler Design Development Consultants 2627 Redwing Road #350 Fort Collins, CO 80526 RE: Impact of Site Changes on the Peak View Transportation Impact Study Fort Collins, CO Dear Mr. Leffler: I have reviewed the proposed Peak View site changes as they relate to the Transportation Impact Study dated June 26, 2000. The results of this review are documented below. Reduction in the Number of Dwelling Units The current site plan reduces the number of dwelling units to 58 from the earlier proposed 62 units. This represents a reduction of about 6 percent which Is an improvement from a traffic standpoint but negligible. Accordingly, no significant change is expected with this reduction. Reduction in the Number of Access Points The current site plan has one access to West Elizabeth instead of two accesses as previously planned. Traffic from the earlier study was combined to represent conditions with one access to West Elizabeth. Capacity analyses were performed at the access. It A. This will be passed along to Traffic Operations since it is not part of our project. 41. Will the garages be set back from the edge of the alley? A. No, the garages will be at the edge of the pavement. 42. Will your west access off Elizabeth be restricted to right-in/right-out only? A. We don't think so but defer to the findings of the transportation study and the direction from the City's traffic engineer. 7 30. What about your on -site stormwater detention pond? Could this water back up and impact the spillway system? A. No, these are two separate systems. 31. The swale that takes the spillway water down to the wetland area, how close will this be to the homes in Sienna? A. Don't know at this time. We will have to get back to you on this. 32. Have you got a design for the single family homes yet? A. Not at this time. 33. How does Parks and Rec plan on providing access from Pleasant Valley Road into the park? Will there be a new sidewalk? A. We don't know at this time. 34. Since we live in Sienna, we encourage to save as many existing trees as possible for buffering purposes. 35. Will construction traffic come through Overland Trail Farm? A. No, construction traffic will come in from Elizabeth Street. 36. Elizabeth Street is unimproved along your frontage. Will you be required to improve both sides? A. No, just the south side. 37. Are you required to have two streets coming from Elizabeth? A. Yes. 38. What is your construction phasing? A. We will probably phase the project from north to south. 39. What is your construction schedule? A. We would like to begin earth work and overlot grading in October or November. 40. If you are going to connect Pleasant Valley into Sienna, then we need to have a raised crosswalk at Azuro where the sidewalk goes into the park. G 23. Can you explain a little more about the proposed spillway for the canal? A. Yes, as you know, one of the problems with this canal is that it is very flat and is not designed to carry storm flows. But, as we know from 1997, storm flows get into this canal from upstream causing the canal to overtop and flood surrounding properties. The City's Stormwater Department has asked us to do two things that would help everyone out. First, we would install a box culvert that would limit the amount of volume that could pass through. Second, upstream of this culvert, we would install an engineered spillway structure that would intercept excess storm flows that normally overtop ditch, and route this water southeast via a Swale into the existing stormwater detention pond/wetland on the east edge of Overland Trail Park. This should make it safer for everyone. 24. Why are you providing parking for Overland Trail Park on Pleasant Valley Road? This will just bring in more traffic to our neighborhood. How many spaces are being considered? A. This parking is provided at the request of the Parks and Recreation Department. The parking will be parallel, just like on any public street with houses. There is room for about 14 spaces. The parking will not be head -in diagonal or 90 degrees. There is no land area for a separate off-street parking lot. 25. You should be aware that there is high ground water in the area. 26. Does the developer have an existing example of the townhomes that we can look at? A. No, these townhomes will be custom designed for this project. The rooflines are different and there is more detail than anything existing. 27. Will there be garages for the single family and patio homes? A. Yes. 28. What about lighting? A. Since the streets will be public, the roadway lighting will be standard and provided by the Light and Power Department. We have not yet determined the extent of lighting in the alleys. 29. How wide are the public streets and alleys? A. The streets will be 31 feet wide and the alleys 16 feet wide. 5 15. The City's reliance on traffic studies has a fundamental problem in that traffic counts are underestimated. There is always more traffic generated by a project than what is estimated in the study. Also, I question whether or not most trips will head east. I live out here and can tell you that Overland Trail is being used more and more as a western beltway around the City for north -south traffic. A. We will work closely with the Traffic Engineer to construct the necessary public improvements to mitigate the impacts attributed to our project. 16. How many trips per day are estimated for the townhomes? A. We factor six trips per day for the townhomes. 17. Since we live in Sienna and we will be looking at the garages for the townhomes, we will see 24 trips per day coming and going from these garages. This will be difficult for us. Is there any way to re -orient the buildings so that there is less impact on us? A. Keep in mind that we are constrained by location of the canal, the requirement to extend Pleasant Valley Road and the existing park boundary. We will explore mitigation options to increase the buffering for Sienna. 18. Could you reduce the density? A. Density is a factor of the purchase price which reflects the supply and demand in the marketplace. We do not have many options and still be able to make the homes affordable. 19. How about all single family or patio homes? The townhomes, and their garages, seem to be causing the most problems. 20. What is the distance between the centerline of the ditch and the paved alley? A. About 25 feet. 21. Why not put the townhome garages on the west side of the building along the street and not facing Sienna? A. The City has strict standards about garage placement so that public streets do not get lined with garages. 22. Sienna owns a little triangle of ground that can't be used for lots between the ditch and our backyards. This area should be used for a dense planting of trees to mitigate the townhomes and garages. A. We can look at this possibility. 11 9. Will parallel parking on Pleasant Valley Road be carried through into Sienna? A. Yes, there is already parallel parking allowed on Pleasant Valley in Sienna. 10. There are a lot of mature trees on the property, especially around the existing structures. Will you try to save these trees? A. Not all trees can be saved. Some will be in the alignment of the new streets and some appear to have a limited life span remaining. We will work with the City Forester on complying with the Land Use Code which requires tree mitigation for trees that are removed. 11. Have you considered a three-way stop at the Pleasant Valley/Virginia Dale intersection in Overland Trail Farm? A. No, we have not considered this but will pass the comment along to the City. 12. Why don't you re -align Pleasant Valley Road so it is more like the road on the south edge of Rogers Park? This road is curved and has speed tables and really slows down traffic. A. Response from City: The road in Rogers Park is not a public street but an access road to the park's parking lot from the neighborhood. 13. Do you need both north -south streets between Elizabeth and Pleasant Valley? Could one of these be downgraded to a bicycle -pedestrian path? A. Yes, these streets are needed to gain access to the lots and for the fire department to find the houses. The fire department requires houses to be addressed from streets for location purposes. Also, the fire department requires two points of access in case one access becomes blocked. 14. Will a traffic signal be needed at Overland Trail and Elizabeth as a result of this project? A. We are in the process of preparing the Transportation Impact Analysis. Our preliminary discussion with our traffic engineer is that most trips will exit our project and head east on Elizabeth as this is the direction for jobs and shopping. A. Response from City: Signalization will be determined by the City's Traffic Operations Engineer based on the Transportation Impact Study for our project, surrounding growth and safety considerations. Generally, a signal will not be installed until warranted by any of a number of thresholds. 3 A. It will be public and constructed to the City of Fort Collins standards. This includes two travel lanes, parallel parking on both sides and detached sidewalks on both sides. 2. How many speed tables were you considering? Instead of just one, there should be two, one at each end of the new street so drivers entering either Overland Trail Farm or Sienna will be forced to reduce speeds. A. This is a good idea. We will discuss this with the City's Traffic Operations Department. 3. Will the ditch be straightened out and maintained all the way to Overland Trail? A. No, only to our west property line. Ditch maintenance, in the form of keeping down the weeds, will remain the responsibility of the ditch company. 4. What will be the price of the townhomes? A. We have not yet finalized a price at this stage since we have not yet calculated our full development costs. 5. We live in Sienna. Our backyard will face the alley and garages for the townhomes. Will these townhomes be two -stories in height? If so, then our views will be severely impacted. Why not put the single family or patio homes next to Sienna instead of the townhomes? This would make for a better transition of densities. Otherwise, it looks as if the homes in Sienna will bear the burden of having townhomes across our property line. A. Yes, the townhomes will be two -stories. We can look at enhancing the buffering with fencing and/or landscaping along the property line to try to mitigate the impact. 6. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the townhomes on the project's west side over by Lory Ann Estates? This would put two-story next to two-story in a like manner and reduce the impact on Sienna. A. We will consider this option. 7. Since I live in Sienna, I am concerned about views. At least patio homes and single family homes will be on larger lots rather than the massive four-plexes with their four -bay garages that face east. 8. As a resident of Sienna, I would rather look at the backyards of patio homes or single family homes. A. These are good comments. 2 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Sperry — Kelley Property DATE: July 17, 2000 APPLICANT: Ms. Vicky Wagner CONSULTANT: Mr. Don Leffler, Design Development Consultant PLANNER: Ted Shepard The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the residential project would contain 54 townhomes (in four-plex structures), six patio homes, and seven single family detached homes for a total of 67 dwelling units. The site is approximately 9.22 acres. The site is located on the south side of West Elizabeth Street, east of Lory Ann Estates and west of Sienna. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs through the property. Pleasant Valley Road would be extended so that there would be a connection between Overland Trail Farm P.U.D. and Sienna P.U.D. There would be a three-way stop at Pleasant Valley and our proposed north -south street. Parking for Overland Trail Park would be allowed on Pleasant Valley Road. We are exploring traffic calming, in the form of speed tables, on Pleasant Valley Road. The townhomes would feature alleys for rear -loaded garages. We also propose to improve the ditch by constructing a spillway so that if it overtops from a storm, the excess water can be diverted into the existing detention pond/wetland at the east end of the Overland Trail Park. In addition, a new box culvert would be installed so that only a certain volume of water could pass through. This box culvert would be constructed downstream of the spillway but upstream of Overland Trail Farm P.U.D. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the consultant/applicant. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS Will the new section of Pleasant Valley Road be a private street or public street? Will there be sidewalks? Maxine R. Horton 2750 Pleasant Valley Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 July 7, 2000 Ted Shepard Chief Planner 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Shepard, I am responding to your letter about the request for residential development project located on the south side of West Elizabeth Street, east of Lory Ann Estates and west of the Sienna subdivision. Unfdrtunately I will not be able to attend the meeting on Monday July 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.. I live in the Sienna subdivision on Pleasant Valley Road. I am in favor of the SPERRY/KELLEY residential development project. I think Fort Collins needs more affordable housing for it's new and existing residents. The SPERRY/KELLEY residential development project is close to public schools, stores, the CSU Equine center, and is on the bus route to Colorado State College. I think additional parking and access to the park is also a good idea. The current parking is not adequate at this time to support the activities that occur at the park. Additional parking should help with this problem. I also support that Pleasant Valley Road to be connected through to Overland Trail. It is important that this road is opened for emergency vehicle access (police, fire and ambulance) for our neighborhood. I think a closed subdivision with limited emergency access is a disaster waiting to happen. This road opening should cut down on response time for PVH ambulance, Fort Collins Police, and for the Poudre Fire Authority if there is a need for quick response from these departments. Sincerely, ,,-m P/�- kv-�,X_ tL fl4� Maxine R. Horton What will the posted and design speed limit be on Pleasant Valley Road? According to the September 24`h neighborhood meeting, and per my subsequent conversations with Craig Foreman of Parks Planning, a parking lot will not be constructed for park users. With the connection of Pleasant Valley Road, the closest access point to the park soccer fields will be in the new subdivision. This means that many park users will now utilize the public street for parking. I request that a small parking lot be built on the north end of the park to minimize parking in public streets If the park was not a public facility, and was instead a different type of use generating the same traffic volumes, a parking lot would be required. As a third generation northern Colorado native, I have watched the Front Range grow with trepidation. This enormous growth makes good planning even more important. I believe that the requests outlined above are purely "good planning." Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate a detailed response to my requests, and would be happy to meet with you in person to discuss these issues. Sincerely, Roxann Mackenzie Hayes cc: Cameron Gloss, Director of Planning Mr. Don Leffler, Design Development Consultants (FAX: 970-282-7123) City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Commission Kathleen Reavis, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Tom -Reiff City of Fort Collins Transportation'Planning Eric Bracke, City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer Eugene Coppola, Traffic Engineer October 4, 2001 Page 4 of 4 At the neighborhood meeting, it was stated that the City's Natural Resources Department did not want to have roads connecting across the ditch to the east of the new subdivision. According to Section 7.2.1, third paragraph, connectivity is required "around the development perimeter every 660 feet." Is a formal anneal going to be filed for not meeting the connectivity requirement for Andrews Street north of Pleasant Vallev Road to subdivisions to the east and west9 At the neighborhood meeting, we were informed that Pleasant Valley Road was going to be built to 34- feet in total width. The current cross-section of a Residential Local Street (according to Figure 7-9F of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards) is only 30-feet in width. I request that Pleasant Valley Road be built to Residential Local Street Standards. with a 16-foot travel lane, and 2 7-foot park lanes (for a total of 30-feet in width) Except for slight horizontal and vertical control, no traffic calming measures are proposed at this time. I request that traffic calming measures be appropriately evaluated at this time esnecially the consideration of raised crosswalks. I believe that the engineering study should also look at other portions of Pleasant Valley Road to determine if the proposed development should install other traffic. . calming measures. I would like to receive a copy of the engineering study (including calculations and the specific sections of the MUTCD and other manuals referenced). This engineering study should be starnped/signed by a Colorado professional traffic engineer. According to the neighborhood meeting minutes of 17Ju100, several ideas were presented and discussed that have since changed. I am a firm believer that if the facts change after presentation at a neighborhood meeting, that a detailed letter describing the changes be presented to all affected property owners so they understand the whole story: . 17Ju100 Neighborhood Meeting 24Se 01 Neighborhood Meeting "There would be a three-way stop at Pleasant The plan presented at the 24Sep01 meeting did not Valley and our proposed north -south street" (now have a three-way stop. called Andrews Street). "The townhomes.would feature alleys for rear- Alleys were not presented at the 24Sep01 meeting. loaded garages." "We will explore mitigation options to increase the The developer seemed to be reluctant at the buffering for Siena." 245ep01 meeting to discuss buffering via landscaping or fencing between the multi -family and single-family residential areas. I request that significant buffering be placed between multi- family and single-family residential areas "Will construction traffic come through Overland At the neighborhood meeting on 24Sep01, it was Trail Farm? A. No, construction traffic will come stated that construction traffic will be utilizing in from Elizabeth Street." Pleasant Valley Road. I request that construction traffic not be permitted to utilize neighboring subdivision roads, and instead use Elizabeth Street for access. This should apply to ALL construction traffic, including subdivision improve rient traffic and homebuilding traffic. October 4, 2001 Page 3 of 4 continued as proposed, it will also act as a 2 Lane Collector. As a general rule, collector streets should not have a large number of houses fronting on it as it causes driveway/traffic conflicts. Speeds generally increase on collector streets, which also leads to -safety hazards for neighborhood children. A good example of how a collector should not be designed is W. Lake Street. The numerous traffic calming measures on this road (from speed bumps to signs) show that a collector with houses fronting on it simply - does not work I would prefer to not investigate traffic safety measures "after the fact." Instead, I'd like to be proactive and build the development right the first time. Another point of concern with cut -through traffic is the poor level of service currently being experienced at Elizabeth Street and Taft Hill. I have not seen an engineering study that has been conducted at this intersection, but due to the large amounts of traffic and poor geometry, the level of service at this intersection must be at least a D or lower. Traffic accidents are also multifarious. Because of the safety hazards, many drivers will go to great lengths to avoid the intersection — which leads to cut -through traffic. According to Section 7.2.3.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, "New streets shall be laid out to minimize opportunities for cut -through traffic." The proposed street layout as proposed fails to address cut -through traffic and violates these standards. I request that Pleasant Vallev Road be extended from Overland Trail Farm to Andrews Street. and end at that voint. creating a backwards "L". However, abike/pedestrian connection should be installed to connect Pleasant Valley Road. This option would still accomplish the connectivity issues, and provide two points of access for emergency purposes. I would also like to make the following recommendations and suggestions: Section 4.5.3.0 (Special Studies) of the Larimer County UrbanArea Street Standards "provides the Local Entity with the opportunities to request specific focused traffic analyses that may be unique to the proposed land use action." Number 7 of this section discusses a Neighborhood Transportation Impact Evaluation: "The TIS may be required to include a focused analysis of the potential.project related impacts on adjacent residential neighborhood quality of life issues such as potential cut -through traffic and speeding/volume concerns." I request a Neighborhood Transportation Impact Evaluation be :conducted by the applicant on this proposed development. This TIS should include the following: predictions on pedestrian use (including to/from the soccer and baseball fields). The TIS should -also look at "cut -through" traffic based on surrounding development, as well as increased traffic to utilize the soccer and baseball fields. Please provide me a copy of this TIS. The TIS should also address the usefulness of a multi -way stop at the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Andrews. Section 2B.07 of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Millenium Edition) states that Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop.... The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study. " The Options element of this section then states: "Other critera that may be considered in an engineering study include: B. The need to control vehiclelpedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes." To establish a baseline for determining future problems, I request that traffic counts be taken for at least a week at the following locations: • Intersection of Azuro Dr. and Pleasant Valley Dr. — all legs • Intersection of Elizabeth Street and Azuro Dr. — southern leg — • Eastern -most Intersection of Pleasant Valley Road - all legs October 4, 2001 Page 2 of 4 2751 Pleasant Valley Road Ft. Collins, CO 8021 (970) 498-5724 — work (970) 416-7994 — home roxandmatt@yahoo.com October 4, 2001 Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Current Planning City of Fort Collins 218 N. College Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (970)221-6750 FAX: (970) 416-2020 cpianning@ci.fort-collins.co.us RE: Sperry — Kelley Property Peakview Estates Subdivision Dear Mr. Shepard, In April of 2001, we were evaluating the purchase of a house at 2751 Pleasant Valley Road, located in the Siena Subdivision. At that time,.I contacted the City of Fort Collins to ask the status of the application for development of the vacant property immediately west of Siena. Ginger Dodge, Planning Technician with the City of Fort Collins, informed me that the application had been "pulled." When I asked if this meant the application would have to be resubmitted and go through the whole process again, and if the new application would be subject to the current regulations, she said "yes." Based upon this conversation, we decided to purchase the house. Therefore, I was surprised to receive a postcard in the mail notifying me that a neighborhood meeting was being held on 24Sep01 concerning this property. I was unable to locate in your Municipal Code or Land Use Code the ability for a project to be completely removed from the application process, then reinstated at the old regulations. Could you please quote me the exact sections in vour code that allow you to reinstate an application to the old regulations? I believe that the project should be subject to the current land use regulations, and have based my_. comments on current regulations. As you know from the neighborhood meeting on Sept. 24th, I am most concerned with the connection of Pleasant Valley Road and its proposed design. I am not opposed to connectivity, as I believe it allows circulation for emergency purposes. However, I believe that connecting the subdivisions at this single location will cause a "funneling" effect. Since Pleasant Valley Road will be the only road connecting Overland Trail Farm to Peakview Estates to Siena to subdivisions further east, traffic will be concentrated to this road. Since this road also has very few existing traffic calming measures, vehicle speeds will be fairly high. Providing a closer access point for the soccer and baseball fields will also encourage more traffic in our neighborhood. We also must look at the types of subdivisions that are to the west of Siena — mostly multi -family. Can you give me the location of other fairly new development that has this type of connectivity between multi -family and single-family residential? The City. of Fort Collins current Master Street Plan (approved revision 7Nov00, printed 19Ju101) identified W. Lake Street as a 2 Lane Collector Street. It is my opinion that if Pleasant Valley Road is October 4, 2001 Page 1 of 4 Rock must be light gray in color (i.e. river rock). Multicolored rock (i.e. ping granite, dark red lava rock or other colors are discouraged). Large six-inch (6") in diameter or greater river rock, moss rock, or other "feature" rock may be used as part of the landscape. Wood mulch and rock should be placed over a weed barrier fabric and be kept in place with steel, plastic or brick edges. All edges should be installed in such a way as to prevent damming of water near the foundation. The additions of concrete curb -type edges are discouraged. Roofs The ARC shall approve all roof material HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Corrsives, flammable liquids, reactive or toxic materials (as defined in the Uniform Fire Code) if used, or stored, or handled on site must have a Hazardous Materials impact Analysis (HMIA) completed and supplied to the Planning department and the Fire Department. FCLUC3.4.5(C) WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrant shall be of an approved type as defoned by the water department and the fire department. No building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97FC901.2.2.2 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS These multi -family proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. color, and texture. Replacement material shall be the same quality or better, unless otherwise approved by the ARC, and shall match the original texture and color. Roof pitches shall be a minimum of 5:12 on primary structures and 4:12 on secondary structures. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 18" on primary structures and 12" on secondary structures. silver finished aluminum doors and windows are not acceptable. Architectural "add-ons" appliques or obvious simulation materials are not accepted. Building Projections All projections including, but not limited to, chimney flues, vents, gutters, down spouts, porches, railings and exterior stairways, shall match the color of the surfaces from which they project or shall be an approved color. Vents are to be painted to blend with the roofing. Garages Garage doors shall be painted the same color as most of the dwelling not a contrasting color. Antennas/Satellite Dishes/Solar Panels ARC allows one satellite dish per home, as approved. Large satellite dishes are prohibited in favor of the smaller (18") mini dish varieties unless otherwise approved by the ARC. Solar panels shall be ground mounted or laid flat on same plane as the roof. Solar panel shall not project above the pitch of the roof. Exterior mounted antennas are prohibited. Building Code All structures will conform to all applicable building codes and ordinances. Approval by the ARC does not constitute or imply compliance with such codes and ordinances. LANDSCAPE DESIGN Purpose and Intent The landscape design criteria is intended to supplement the Site Planning and Architectural Design criteria in order to integrate residential structures into the community. Additionally, landscaping should have compatibility with adjacent properties. The project's streetscape, and ultimately transition into perimeter landscaping. The ARC reserves the right to require landscape components as a part of the architectural approval, if in the option of the ARC, the architectural design needs specific assistance to meet the intent of the design guidelines. Timing and Components Front yard landscaping for the Traditional Single Family and multi -family dwelling units shall be provided by the homebuilder as part as the initial sales package. All other landscaping for traditional single family homes (i.e. rear and side yard landscaping) shall be obligation of the homeowner and shall be installed within one year of the property purchase. For traditional single-family homes, all landscaping, including front, side and rear yards, shall be the obligation of the homeowner and shall be installed within one year of property purchase. All individual homeowners shall maintain all landscaping on individual residential lots. The ARC requires complete landscaping plans for rear and side accessory structures must be painted the same as the primary structure, and utilize the same roofing materials. Concrete Driveways Concrete driveways and parking areas are not to be expanded without prior written approval of the ARC. No RV front yard on -site parking will be allowed. Dog Runs Dog runs will be allowed if they can be reasonably isolated and screened from adjacent properties. Local ordinances regarding noise, order and other nuisances will be in effect. Gardens Vegetable gardens will be allowed in the rear yard only, except as approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Flower gardens are encouraged in the front or side as a compliment to the landscape installed by builders. Architectural Design The architectural character of the homes in Peak View is intended to reflect regional character with a variety of interesting and compatible relationships of form, texture and style. Additionally, economic factors, environmental concerns, and construction practices prevalent in the industry are important influences. These DAS are intended to promote a high level of design quality, assure compatibility between residential products within the community, and quiet character and form. Together, these key components comprise an essential part of the Peak View image. There is not single "correct" architectural style for homes or commercial structures in Peak View, yet all design elements are expected to be related clearly to one another in order to establish a unified design theme. This identification and compatibility with in the established architectural theme will be achieved at all levels of design identification, including individual dwellings, commercial center structures and "street scenes," to create a totally unified and architecturally harmonious community. Color The color of exterior material will generally be subdued to blend with the color of the natural landscape. Generally muted color tones are recommended, although occasionally accent colors used judiciously and with restraint may be allowed. Use of highly chromatic or "bright" colors is to be avoided. Materials The front of each single family and multi -family home shall have a minimum of 25% brick, stone or dryvit, excluding the area of the garage door. Exterior surfaces shall blend and be compatible with the community and the landscape. Use of brick, wood stucco and stone is preferred. Exposed concrete blocks, painted concrete, multicolored masonry, mirrored glass, metal siding, prefabricated metal buildings, simulated brick, unnatural brick tones, and Purpose and Intent The following Design and Architectural Standards ("ADS") have been prepared to ensure that the goals and vision are realized for properties in the Planned community known as Peak View. The purpose of these ADS is to provide specific design criteria for the subsequent improvement or modification of landscape within the community. The ADS are designed to establish and maintain a quality community appearance, assure compatibility, direct character and form, and enhance value. All residential development within Peak View Estates is to abide by the applicable criteria established by these DAS in addition to the development standards established by the City of Fort Collins. Community Concept and Character The community design concept for Peak View Estates provides for a development of single family and attached multi -family dwelling units, centered by a common open space. An extensively landscaped perimeter treatment is punctuated by bicycle path connecting West Elizabeth to Overland Park. Relationship of the Design and Architectural Standards (DAS) to other regulations The DAS is not intended to supersede applicable federal, Colorado, or Fort Collins codes or ordinances. In case of conflict or discrepancy or for subjects not addressed in the DAS, the more restrictive DAS, governing agencies, coeds and/or regulations shall take precedence. The DAS are to be used by owners when modifying or upgrading homes or landscaping on individual residential properties within Peak View Estates. The DAS will also be used by the Peak View Estates Architectural Review Committee ("ARC') in reviewing proposals to determine their relative conformance to the overall design objectives and criteria. The Homeowners Assoc. shall be FHA Certified by an Attorney. The DAS are intended to cover each site -specific or lot -specific issue, and community issues such as edge treatments, and relationships to adjacent land uses. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN Accessory Structures Accessory structures, i.e., "storage sheds," are not allowed on any property without specific approval of the ARC. The home builder and homeowner is encouraged to provide for storage space in garages; provided, however, such storage may not interfere with the primary use of garages. Any accessory structure must be architecturally compatible with the residence or home, EXCEPTIONS TO REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND CODES Peak View PUD will comply with all City of Fort Collins Standards, with the following exceptions: The lot size for single-family residential lots shall be a minimum of 4,000 S.F. with an average lot size of approximately 5535 S.F.. Front setback for the traditional homes shall be minimum of 15' and 0' rear setback to the garage. Side setbacks of single-family detached homes shall be a minimum of 5' with a minimum of 10' between adjacent structures. Side setbacks of traditional multi -family dwelling units shall be zero -lot line on each side. IMPLEMENTATION It is anticipated that this project will be developed over a 2-3 year period beginning in the spring of 2001 and competed in the fall of 2004. The master declaration of covenant controls and restrictions shall govern the entire Peak View Estates PDP Subdivision. This project subject to the Peak View Estates PDP Subdivision Architectural Guidelines and Control Committee. All applications for a letter of approval shall accompany building permits related to architecture from the Architectural Control Committee. ARCHITECTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For information only, these standards will not administered by the City of Fort Collins, but will be reviewed and approved by the Architectural review Committee. The following is intended as an outline of architectural and residential lot development standards that will apply to the construction if single family and multi -family dwelling units with Peak View Estate, PDP Subdivision. Prototypical Architectural Elevations have been prepared with these plans to help illustrate the aforementioned design standards for the traditional multi- family dwelling units. The covenants for the development will require that a homeowner or builder submit to Architectural Review Committee, plans and specifications for their review and approval prior to the construction of any improvements on any single family detached lot. The applicant must submit to the Building Department a letter of approval issued from the Architectural Review Committee, related to all said construction, prior to receiving a Building Permit from the City of Fort Collins. INTRODUCTIONS will be oversized to accommodate any surface runoff from the southern portion of this development. On site drainage will be detained and allowed to discharge at the 100-year historic undeveloped rate per the drainage master plan. LANDSCAPING The project will be landscaped with regionally appropriate plant materials. In open space and buffer yard areas a naturalistic design approach shall be used. These areas shall include informal plantings of coniferous and deciduous trees with large drifts of shrubs. Turf areas will incorporate low water use draught tolerant seed and sod varieties. Along the entry streets and streets that border the subdivision green, Incorporating a detached walk and tree lawn, the developer shall plant deciduous street trees at approximately 40' on center. A variety of street tree species shall be used throughout the development for visual interest and horticultural stability, thus creating a canopy effect as the project matures. The proposed street tree planting is intended to draw attention to common greens that are located in the center of the development. Each individual homeowner shall be responsible for residential lot landscaping and maintenance. Homeowners shall be required to submit a landscape plan for the entire property to the Architectural Review Committee for their approval prior to doing any landscaping. No more than 20% of the lot (excluding building footprint) can be non -Irrigated planting. Homeowners adjacent to the tree lawn areas shall be responsible for planting the tree lawn with Bluegrass Sod (no other plant material will be allowed) and maintaining the tree lawn sod and the street trees. The developer shall plant the tree lawn with street trees as shown on the landscape plan. In addition, the home builder of each lot shall be responsible for planting one additional tree per lot In the front of each home and two additional trees per lot for all corner lots, one in front and one on the side of each home. The location of these trees are at the homeowners discretion, but must be illustrated on the landscape plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee for approval prior to planting the trees. All common open space areas, landscape medians, landscape within the public right-of-way, streetscapes, parked, detention ponds, and entry features shall be planted and irrigated by the developer and maintained by and common Homeowners Association. The developer may investigate the potential for utilizing raw water sources for open areas irrigation purposes. Project entry sign walls will be constructed at each of the project entries as shown on the plans. Each of the entry sign walls shall incorporate a consistent project entry theme utilizing a stone entry wall. Appropriately sized project signage shah be applied to each wall, at each entry. For added visual interest and nighttime visibility, the primary entry sign walls may be illuminated. Project Development Plan Narrative Project Location Peak View Estates, PDP is a 9.206-Acre Planned Residential Community located in western Fort Collins, bounded on the north side by West Elizabeth Street located between the Siena PUD subdivision on the east and Lory Ann Estates on the west. Overland Park and Pleasant Valley Road bound the south. Land Use Peak View Estates features a diverse offering of housing opportunities. The plan includes spacious single family home sites and alley access multi -family dwelling units. The community is situated around open spaces between multi- family units and with walking corridors lined with canopy street trees. The main entrance from Elizabeth includes. pedestrian corridors for access to Overland Park, detached sidewalks with tree lawns for landscaping buffers that insure a high level of visual quality for residents as well as the local community. The traditional neighborhood is characterized by multi -family dwelling units with garages in the rear of the dwelling units, which are accessed by a private roads. The streetscape is designed for people, with detached sidewalks and tree -lined colonnades. Residential setbacks are minimized so that the architecture of the multi -family dwelling units with their front porches and entries create opportunities for social interaction with the neighborhood, creating safer and more active streets for people. Shorter, walk able blocks with frequent intersections help to slow and calm traffic. Peak View Estates is conveniently accessible to all areas of Fort Collins with its many retail, restaurant and shopping services and schools. Peak View Estates is within walking and biking distance to the Colorado State University and public trail system. Peak View Estates is also within walking distance of Overland Park. The developer of Peak View Estates is committed to building homes of quality value and distinction as well as building a community "worth coming home to". Circulation Peak View Estates primary access shall be from West Elizabeth Street with inter -connectivity with Siena PUD and Overland Tail Farms Phase II via Pleasant Valley Road. Extensive road improvements to the south half of West Elizabeth are proposed adjacent to the development. This will facilitate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the site. These improvements will be made along the entire frontage of the development from Lory Ann Estates to Siena PUD. Internal vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be accomplished with the development of local residential roads. Public roadways shall be developed and private drives will be included to allow rear -access garages. Alleys will be included to allow rear -access garages. The alley will be a 16' wide, public access roadway. Development Phasing Schedule The developer proposed to install the north 1/3 and the south 1/3 of the development in phase one and the middle 1/3 in phase two of the roads, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, sidewalks, common area landscaping, and balance of utilities at the same time over the entire site. The developer will obtain the respective permits for site development and erosion control prior to the start of construction to insure all local government agency permitting is in place prior to construction. There will be two phases for the infrastructure pertaining to this site. Single Family Homes and 35 of the 48 Multifamily Dwelling Units will be built in phase one and the balance of the Multifamily will be built in phase two. The proposed build -out for the development is projected within 3 to 4 years for 100% completion. Developer and Owner Names Vicki Wagner, General Manager BLS Development, LLC 2402 Cedar Wood Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Bus. No.: (970) 493-7309 Aug-16-CO 10:35A Frederick Land Surveying 970 669 3725 P.02 PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION A tract of land lying in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, 'rownsltip 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Fort Collins. Larimer County, Colorado being more particularly described a follows - Assuming the North line of the Southwest % of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears S 89024'30" E with all bearings herein relative thereto. Commencing at the West '%, corner of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian thence run S 89°24'30" E along the North line of the Southwest '.4 of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian for a distance of 864.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence continue S 89°24'30" E for a distance of 460.07 feet; thence leaving said North line run S 00°05'09" W for a distance of 869.02 feet, thence run S 89°36'48" W for a distance of 458.76 feet; thence run N 00°00'01" E for a distance of 876.87 feet to the Paint of Beginning. CONTAINING 9.206 acres, more or less, and being subject to all existing easements and/or rights of way of record. Table of Contents Application Legal Description Developer and Owner Names Development Phasing Schedule Project Development Plan (PDP) Narrative Sketch Plan Review Responses Multi -Family Attached Housing, Architectural Elevations Lighting Plan Narrative PEAK VIEW SUDIVISION A tract of land lying in the Southwest '/a of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6`h Principal Meridian, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Project Development Plan Submittal To Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for Vicki Wagner, General Manager BLS Development, LLC 2402 Cedarwood Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 E Design Development Consultants 2627 Redwing Road, Suite 350 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 April 22, 2001 6 innovative planning, design, buffering and management practices. The developer has implemented the policy and due to the additional open space preservation adjacent to the irrigation ditch the need to reduce the set back requirement is part and parcel with the desires of the community and city plan. Item 7. Principals and Policies: Natural Areas and Open Lands; As stated on page 127 Principal. NOL-1, the developer has implemented the principle to preserve and protect natural areas to provide habitat essential to the conservation of plants, animals and their opportunities for education, research, nature, interpretation hiking, and other activities. Item 8. Principals and Policies: All New Neighborhoods; "Policy AN-3.2 Street and Outdoor Spaces. `Where a pattern of streets and outdoor spaces is already established, a development plan will continue and extend the pattern.' The developer has implemented within the PDP both characteristics from the west and the east of the development along Elizabeth Street and with the request for reduction in set back distances will continue the consistency and connectivity to each adjoining neighborhood. Item 9. City Plan Principals and Policies: All New Neighborhoods; " Policy AN-3.3 Neighborhood Edges. The edges of neighborhood should be formed by features shared with the adjoining neighborhoods, such as major streets, changes in street pattern, green - ways, and other features". The developer has implemented trails and street landscaping to facilitate the Principals of City Plan. With the support of the City of Fort Collins Planning Commission and Zoning Board we formally request support of the modification as being consistent with the policies of the City Plan for the City of Fort Collins, as well as, consistent with the goals of objectives of the City Plan. If you are in need of additional information or assistance please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely, Design Development Consultants Donald D. Leffler Item 1. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code: As stated in Division 3.5.2.0 (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway and Division 3.5.2.0 (2) Street -Facing Facades. The proposed development facilitates the desires of the orientation and interconnectivity with the sidewalks and neighborhood. Item 2. Community Appearance and Design: As stated on page 29 of the City Plan for the. City of Fort Collins, "Housing in many different forms will be included inattractive, safe neighborhoods that encourage walking and social interaction." The developer is promoting this within reason and request the waiver for reduction in setback requirements is approved in accommodating the interconnectivity with sidewalks, and social interaction. Item 2. Community Appearance and Design: Page 31 of the City Plan addresses `The design of streets will complement the distinctive character of their respective districts or neighborhoods and will serve to connect rather than separate adjoining neighborhoods.' It is the intent of this modification to support the directive from the city plan and the land use of adjoining neighborhoods. Item 3. Open Lands: As stated on page 51 this modification is in support of `Important natural areas will be preserved and protected'. By increasing the open space adjacent to the irrigation ditch as requested by Natural Resources the developer has reduced the allowable density for the current zoning and request the reduction in set back from the 30 foot requirement. This specific modification is in complete support of the need for higher density in our community and directly related to our community goals. As we know communities with high -density ratios have favorable mass transit systems that replace the need for automotive travel. This request is in direct support of the goals and objectives of the City Plan. Item 4. Community Goals: Page 51 of the City Plan `The City will utilize any opportunities to develop public access along stream and irrigation ditch corridors for providing additional trail linkages throughout our community.' This statement is a direct correlation to our requested modification. The developer through working with staff, City Plan and the Land Use Code is requesting the modification to connect adjoining neighborhoods. Item 5. City Plan Principles and Policies: Housing; Policy HSG-1.1, and HSG-1.4 This development and modification request is in support of the Land Use Patterns and Land for Residential Development. The development supports the order to maximize the potential- land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Item 6. City Plan Principles and Policies: Principle ENV-5; As stated on Page 123 of the City Plan, the desire integrating wildlife habitat and other important natural features into the developed landscape by directing development away from sensitive areas and using With the support of the City of Fort Collins Planning Commission and Zoning Board we formally request support of the modification as being consistent with the policies of the City Plan for the City of Fort Collins, as well as, consistent with the goals of objectives of the City Plan. If you are in need of additional information or assistance please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely, esign evelopment Consultants Do d D. Leffler Additionally, the architectural features on the sides of the dwelling units fronting Andrews Peak Drive are enhanced with residential housing characteristics such as windows, additional stone features and landscaping. Thus creating a very appealing curbside view that is consistent with the up scale character of the residential subdivision. Furthermore, the proposed development is not detrimental to the general public and complies with the balance of the design and Building Standards of the City of Fort Collins, Land Use Code. Additionally, it is the intent of the developer to promote the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and City Plan for the City of Fort Collins and by requesting the Modification listed above, the developer is supporting the specific goals and objectives of the `City Plan' as stated below. Item 1. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code: As stated in Division 3.5.2.0 (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. The proposed development facilitates the desires of the orientation and interconnectivity with the sidewalks and neighborhood. Item 2. Community Appearance and Design: As stated on page 29 of the City Plan for the City of Fort Collins, "Housing in many different forms will be included in attractive, safe neighborhoods that encourage walking and social interaction." The developer is promoting this within reason and request the waiver for reduction in setback requirements is approved in accommodating the interconnectivity with sidewalks, and social interaction. Item 3. Community Appearance and Design: Page 31 of the. City Plan addresses `The design of streets will complement the distinctive character of their respective districts or neighborhoods and will serve to connect rather than separate adjoining neighborhoods.' It is the intent of this modification to support the directive from the city plan and the land use of adjoining neighborhoods. Item 4. City Plan Principles and Policies: Housing; Policy HSG-1.1, and HSG-1.4 This development and modification request is in support of the Land Use Patterns and Land for Residential Development. The development supports the order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Item 5. City Plan Principals and Policies: All New Neighborhoods; " Policy AN-3.3 Neighborhood Edges. The edges of neighborhood should be formed by features shared with the adjoining neighborhoods, such as major streets, changes in street pattern, green - ways, and other features". The developer has implemented sidewalks, courtyards, trails and street landscaping to facilitate the Principals of City Plan. Peak View Estates, PDP Fort Collins, Colorado Request for Modification of Standards In accordance with Common development practices as stipulated in the Modification of Standards (section 2.8 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code) we are requesting the following Modification. Request for modification to the Building Standards contained in Division 3.5.2.0 (2) of the Land Use Standards. Under Division 3.5.2.0 (2), the enclosed modification from the application currently filed will result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of fact and that the proposed project would be equal too or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. Under the terms defined in Division 3.5.2.0 (2) requires Buildings with four or more dwelling units to have at least one entry door facing the street. The specific buildings to which this modification is addressed to are lots 9, 14, & 15. The developer is requesting a modification from the required street frontage entry way to accommodate the new urban feature of courtyards with neighborhood and community interaction with pedestrian access and neighborhood park atmosphere between dwelling units. These landscape courtyards are in conjunction with major walkways. This in -fill development facilitates the desires of the City Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Additionally, the developer has been working with City Staff to create a new urban community for increasing density, enhancing community with focus on neighborhood interaction and pedestrian activity. The developer has implemented along Andrews Peak Drive the desire for neighborhood character with detached sidewalks and tree lined streetscape. Pedestrian accessibility and interconnectivity are key points with this proposed development, with additional focus on neighbors and community by the use of the court yard character. Our interpretation of this standard is that it is intended to address remote buildings typically associated with apartment complexes developed prior tot adoption of the Land Use Code. These remote buildings were often located far from public streets and sidewalks. In Peak View, however, the location and distance of all of the units in the proposed subdivision are within 200 feet of a pedestrian access on the east side of Andrews Peak Drive and visible from the street side parking available on Andrews Peak Drive. TWIT A 1 B nBUILDING SECTION xaEvI• . r-m' MV �e WK arc na-d �+swxs FS€f wuc e��mw eecrioro . eioe c�ev<r�a. s u "w A6-T m U) w w w a RCMIpK_ 511EEi f.11E BUILPiiWi NS . doe aEVAT1everioR SHEET HUY A6-Q I UNIT A � B nBUILDING SECTION ncu o. ur . r-a• SHM NWM A6-D WIT A !,FRONT ELEVATION aar� er ue rsaa wrt n-e-a a[Hsrora vacs r,wc axreaart a�e�ana.e SHE[T Hu4 A5-T MIT n WIT B UNIIm UNIT e nFRONT ELEVATION - 9CJLE• W' . I'-O >� /,REAR ELEVATION d YAlEL'1' • I' p' EXIERKM e�evanpp scEr mwarn A5-Q 'r Croom ull liiiiommmom ii ���� 't ' � 'e=low � iuu■ � 1 ui- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'"'''VMIT UNIT " ""`° `"° IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllll A — • v {#VII N a)H0.EL• VATION xxe• w• r-o O� uj uj H ;w a o m «a xensiae v¢r xue eMe.w. e�evarxx» sxm xuuxcx �� ..Ns. PYmN rurw su•• � u....as xocr wm.own mw•e..c im EWLLq T. _rrr. r..r rrY.r V _ ___i—_—_—_—_ / — _ __-- _ re--_ aY ___._---•---_-' m"'®`rm�.R.m.•W".�nr..,xr,r.m.m..aw.Nm.mm�..® .r.....�r(...�vf ..rtN _�_N....� fl II � �- Yrl�n..Ni� a�� � r✓. rt�r.r r.wr w. r.r rr... LOT 4 rr�� r...-.yeyr...Nr w w �•rr � g If I ' � ��9 I ` >MI• fr �-.� rmrn mrr.RrO♦4�(T.R.v w®uoeVm.N ."i �" mf�'hA. A..�r'w .1w�j�.i.� a � ` 1 I n ��� n , Ir I I � � u ru� `•p.. wwroar'r.0 r.w r� N ~yV w'•n uwn.. w. n.N er. �...n h..M.Y Y.u.W.. I .:� i R rm•� r.vyW..rN a. �..w....um..nr�r.s-r rY..r, ."•r'iW."•'i..'�'�'r"7•.. r'iyra:.�i .••r`r "i..•'�.. I ,) ♦ �, � 1 � v rm® .........::: ter. r I� f n �n 1. I � ;v.�:N�.w,^e �r'r�� ��,.�.'°rn.'or..wr..s �•w qY d pp��� 1 II rtl tl}9 + '- x I'' u�erB IW vr.m W.q u...0 M•..0 of �ar......e upyi ' I I i I I � f ._ j .f. ..R�...,ay.m...rNx.r...t.rN_ar.r•s®W.,.N�. r�� I__ I �_..FI d' rs rrir r.retl � . ra � sr�wt.s. m v� ^'°' sw•••. io iu � € s � i Ili r ' 1 u rr'. r.hr 'rN .� umi. i %a w `•+" � "�. . s-u < 3 � Y 1' � / ; � � � a .`�. ai'w� aP'i r.°'�� a s'�as vrw. r<..n..�. z� •s A •• I � 1 � . � N e ¢muasam �' s+�^".�..°. ,`.�. s� r a i p 5� I .aOf wTio F PA a S nsc • ram[ i lOT6 LOT 1 I LOTO sr.v�.oe Ina W r a r-r rv.u.R gpg P RIR 1R P!0 ------------ I - -- racer m nm r a MOf6 N l_------------------------------ _ , �I f' i. N YR •.rasa \� � � 'w c .Z II-' _ - •—_• /• GRAPRIC SCALE � Planfion Dx.O. r PWtinpDmdr 'p w I. rRI E LEGAL DESCRIPTION OPEN SPACE E%RIBrr "" "Q-1 T ,G 1-4 T"..t PY .jx SMII IM Y ylll IINgIIY TRACT I.C" .Lw --------------------- OVERLAND PARK rtg TRACT "C".OVERLAND TRAIL FARM +� OWNER/DEVELOPER: Vicki Wagner . $ Wagner BLS Development, LLC 3 2402 Cedarwood Drive Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 ��LL Lane UGG Table rIAgY 2%MQ Mr GR� )R AAµ Ylw: l!. K ANaY G.gc ILLn arm ¢r Ta ♦tA mars )N! K IMI JI a CF, M>A-fNaY Aff1 Y ) afY a() I "'C"T YYfTJ ID M JFRL FN yGnYL wr IQ JGw1 lux SIX G)m arc (Gwax W0 G Im mrK GGLIGL wR M RIGr AIIDGIw mrR !J G//K YMYIYAR.b6 LMQ Yµ >ra 00,111I JRM) SIM Y u Yr1C OTQAr .IaN T 1.M K IIJ > IIAIDrM nL,> ULC l A aIAS AIL Mr.M' !>rl T .N. K I>J [ 9Q-NIY ll.1YJ lut AGa GAAr T zm K ss! a Imu rMMG . u VMMf�GlMG[rmou IDIIlls In. Gr)JTp[fALL1-)M uII rCL fMl1 lPal T I.Jr K Il! I wl[rY wYll OFI fA¢ .NL T I.Gr K Ila r abmrL SIMLS aR4 91f M2A MLJ T llr K ImR GENEMLN 1 ,R Ipn V W (>.Lrl! N! ..K .M R.IIDRq ,M mMl R ,116R ,i Q..ILL > cR.Mi YM rAR aa>. IwG INos.Ma M+M AGMRrIr RGa .yo ..GRr .cw a.R arr w vrMY Ya.v RGY ., r YYRNd F /. NO6 rR A�lRM > M ,_ .. RY♦, MR M GR r ,� m,.R MI Gm . M 091 .IR 1MMI. Y[ M I.RiYIC RIMiM .® n0 NY,. ,m.m um arrnoe Ialra M aRGOLIn T M rT.II v m>rm ry nemac mMn.e Maio n ti AMrwur> mMIr .Y. r AmaG m m.... l A IRYAR IMmMIrY .uml.Rn 4 YIIIrM IYQMq NVmIr m YOIi RYIOI rM .IQ Irf. MRR aL 1V•F IMrt4_Y.4 r inr F MI MMAY MLrrRi �ngr lrR4.lY ML M11P'Y n M TY M M InOI.IXN>InFY a IB.� IRpI A M RYrr r> YM TYI. 4WiP nMl LrM TMf M W0'M RY . WpmlFa Ral M R.Y p[ F F.YI fYr4Lr1! i TMI M Ill® RY'w'ailwl n'rllz a oIw mIRUM ®er mw>. IM nms rrlMuwl ,w rrvwo Y Iwmrt emm s A IAg w �0 RYr M Im.M Ilpl M OR AOIn q m rgW1 n Wm1M r1.INIrM>IIQI lag n OM1 YII-r-r.Y Rlml M IDYY i Rt Yrrr �R IOR 4 RY.[ O[ ®gr L!I >6 IU 101. CIrY bR rL Imw .6 M nCM4 IOMar6 WY Lgl Ilgl M IRYiru fII6r TR WRIO LraM GAR \rrl MG YdnR i>Im\ .AN.aO11'� g XO(.1D>Of. t11R XG[.IwRI. ImYn YmI .IOrM 1>wY tYnAl1 AIMI G.F1G 00L YMIf. Is cMnG IIm Gvu R .MMm m an ravM ImM rRA( nNGNu Il. GNGA f Wl Nn Z .Mig M YI[ WP MO nM1 .1llIIM.R ,.IwAY V RO RA YE6 4 aTRL 61QY 6nIF IIG nR OIIG IYi .G! IIO Mll ®m R ARnr .A .R NIRMt YmOgi 1> W] � MWCI 1G R(O > M rYY GVIAM RIMP R M Im Illy M rNRR.IK m M VIIK GML 51OHT DISTANa WEMENT REMIMM OWNER'S CERTIFICATION �.r lrrGrw ww�r..I r ••'••®'��• Yy.IY. M..>Y.�rm rr.IM WF.• .uiw."..n_�.wa� M Gr11 .wnY tlM .+M.M' W w. rM1 v llll lFM! M,YwrY M MM sI.M ti ..r .Ml . GM1 AYlws �I r Yew ..Aa o.._I,I.m u" DMA f. FtlM F MIM�1 M' N W IM..riP rilY. Iww M W r—YmY waMYAGMI ..rr rr.Yy mww . ArrrM rrr lr wwwp ....l.w .ter —.. w G.r.. G�MrrlrM.ra.Mwr ��r� ..wG.� M.M. 0111ECT011 OF NING GMr1Y Y II.wYR Final Plat of PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION A tract of land lying in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Fort Collins, Lorimer County, Colorado .6 If14 «- �• �,°[ .war[ N wYG N OWOY• - [ Fee 17{iab*M S~ [ IF re rr+ I y, 1 ye W• W[I T�1 I I 1 I I 1 R 1 I — I Y � �` .r• � ill I ua 1 yl rr• ++u � I ul I f I Lw Lu !1 1 C yr9 I 1 ar• aN�e e 3�l I g 01W.MO Ala' � I I —URE, d L ABIC! t- — — — FM' =�J L as as ar+ aa- Dslgn DnebponeuL Cmeolfaata �- PFJ[+ta 2 -SQ i ft4 o ��- ft*&Xb t I=A ffiu""M mo. -_ w w u.r r_ ar a trK ar efa Na r y~ i aooN.ee6 2 2 w=^- � wr RO [taa a-Mgfaa [r w.+i VICINITY MAP #26-00 Peak View Subdivision PDP Type II (LUC) 11/1 D-/Ol 1"= 600' Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 12 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends approval of the Modifications of Standard for Sections 3.5.2(C)(2), 3.5.1(D)(1) and 3.5.2(D)(2). 2. Staff recommends approval of Peak View Estates P.D.P., #26-00. Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 11 B. The P.D.P. complies with the Land Use and Development standards of the L-M-N zone district (Article Four). C. The P.D.P. complies with the General Development standards of Article Three, with three exceptions. D. The three Requests for Modification of Standards have been considered and found to meet the adopted criteria. 9. Supplemental Findings on the Requests for Modification of Standards: In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), the following supplemental findings are offered with respect to all three Requests for Modification of Standards: A. The granting of all three Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good. B. The P.D.P. as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standards for which the Modifications are requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the Modifications are requested. C. With respect to the Modification to Section 3.5.2(C)(2) — Street Facing Facades, Staff finds that the P.D.P. is equal to or better than a plan that would comply because the P.D.P. provides a creative relationship between the public street, the residential structures by the use of courtyards. This relationship is enhanced by not having any garage along the public street. The courtyards and connecting walkways provide for an active, pedestrian -friendly neighborhood. D. With respect to the Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) — Residential Building Setbacks — Arterial Streets, Staff finds that the 20-foot setback is sufficient since West Elizabeth is two-lane "minor arterial' which is similar to a collector which would allow a 15-foot setback Also, by fronting these structures along the street, the streetscape is found to be more urban in character. E. With respect to the Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) — Residential Building Setbacks — Non -Arterial Streets, Staff finds that the one -foot differential is insignificant, not discernible in the field and that only one building is affected. Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 10 The P.D.P. is completing a section of roadway that was originally planned for and anticipated. The street design in both Overland Trail Farm and Sienna provided for this missing gap to be completed so the three neighborhoods would connect. B. There is a concern about cut -through traffic in the larger context of the square mile section. There will be some additional trips on the surrounding neighborhood streets. This new increment of traffic will not cause any additional delay at any existing neighborhood intersection. The entire square mile section, as with the entire city, is designed so that streets will connect to provide access to surrounding arterial streets. C. There is a concern about buffering along the east property line. The P.D.P. is separated from Sienna by the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal which is generally located within a 50-wide easement. There are some mature trees along this ditch, especially in the northeast corner, which will be preserved. The separation and buffering between the residential projects is considered adequate. D. There is a concern about storm drainage and the potential flooding of the ditch. The P.D.P. will be providing a spillway structure to accommodate the potential over -topping of the ditch. The southerly bank will be raised. The northerly bank will be lowered, adjacent to the project's stormwater detention pond which has been over -sized to accept any ditch over -flows. The spillway will feature an outlet directing storm flows over to the City's existing regional pond on the east side of the park. 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In evaluating the P.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The two housing types, multi -family and single family, are permitted uses in the L-M-N zone, subject to Administrative Review. Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 9 along Elizabeth by fronting Buildings six and seven along the roadway. The granting of the Modification allows for buffer zone along the PV&L Canal for a wildlife movement corridor. 6. Modification of Standard Request: Section 3.5.2(D)(2) — Residential Building Setbacks - Non -Arterial Streets A. Description of the Request This standard requires that the minimum setback for residential buildings be setback from any non -arterial street by 15 feet. Building Five is setback from Andrews Peak Drive by only 14 feet. Therefore, the difference is between the standard and the plan is one foot. B. Applicant's Justification The applicant has stated that the one -foot difference between the standard and the plan: Would not be detrimental to the public good; • The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard. C. Staff Evaluation Staff finds that the one -foot difference is insignificant and that only one building is affected. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The P.D.P. will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well than would a plan which complies with the standard. 7. Neighborhood Meetings: Two neighborhood meetings were held. Significant changes were made to the P.D.P. as a result of the first meeting. Minutes to these meetings are attached. Briefly, the neighborhood issues, and their resolution, are summarized as follows: A. There is a concern about the extension of Pleasant Valley Road into the two abutting neighborhoods. Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 8 substantially address an important community need expressly described in the Comprehensive Plan. C. Staff Evaluation 1. The purpose of the arterial setback is to protect residential properties from the negative impacts associated with the noise and other aspects of a busy street. Most arterial streets are four lanes wide. Elizabeth Street, as a minor arterial, is only two lanes wide and more similar to a collector street in terms of traffic volume and cross-section than a four -lane arterial street. (Collectors require only a 15-foot setback.) The standard, it appears, attempts to address two significantly different situations with one distance. Staff, therefore, finds that a 20-foot setback from a two-lane arterial street is sufficient for the abutting roadway and would not be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Land Use Code directs residential structures to front on public streets to create an active, livable, pedestrian -friendly streetscape. Building five fronts on Andrews Peak while Buildings six and seven front on Elizabeth. This building orientation promotes the new urbanism development pattern and the general purpose of street - facing residential building placement. 3. The applicant has provided a buffer zone along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. This accomplishes the general purpose of Section 3.4.1(E) which states: "The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the ecological character of the natural habitat or natural feature from the impacts of the ongoing activity associated with the development." This buffer zone acts as a limiting factor in the overall length of the developable ground within the project but accomplishes a public purpose. By buffering the PV&L Canal, the project substantially addresses and important community need. In summary, Staff finds that the 20-foot setback from West Elizabeth, a two-lane minor arterial, is sufficient and will promote the purpose of the setback standard equally well as a 30-foot distance. The P.D.P. creates an active streetscape Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 6 Although not a design criterion, Transfort runs two routes, 2 and 3 on Elizabeth Street. 4. Modification of Standard Request: Section 3.5.2(C)(2) — Street -Facing Facades A. Description of the Request This standard requires that every building with four or more units must have at least one building entry or door facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking. Buildings 9, 14 and 15 are four-plexes. Instead of entrances facing Andrews Peak Drive, the doors face a landscaped courtyard featuring connecting walkways. B. Applicant's Justification The applicant has provided a supplemental document which states that the Request a Modification of Standard: • Would not be detrimental to the public good; • The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well as would a plan that strictly complies with the standard; C. Staff Evaluation The purpose of the standard is to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian -oriented streets in residential development. 1. The multi -family section of Andrews Peak Drive is only 475 feet in length. The Modification affects only the east side of Andrews Peak Drive. For its entire length on the west side, all residential structures will front along the street. 2. The east side of Andrews Peak Drive will feature detached sidewalks, street trees and two courtyards featuring landscaping and connecting walkways. There are no individual driveways intersecting with Andrews Peak Drive. All units feature rear -loaded Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 5 The alleys are not public; they are considered "private drives." In compliance with the standard, their function will only be to provide access to property within the development. These drives cannot be used for "through" traffic. J. Section 3.6.3(E) — Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets The construction of Andrews Peak Drive will allow access to Elizabeth Street which connects to two arterials: Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail. The P.D.P. also completes the missing section of Pleasant Valley Road, the east -west local street established by previous developments. This will allow access to and from the proposed development and to the street system within the entire square mile section. This street system provides access to three arterials: Taft Hill Road, Overland Trail and Prospect Road. K. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study was prepared in conjunction with the P.D.P. West Elizabeth Street is classified as a minor arterial street. Andrews Peak Drive and Pleasant Valley Road are classified as local streets, with on -street bike lanes. Three intersections were analyzed, Elizabeth and Overland Trail; Elizabeth and Taft Hill Road; and Elizabeth and Andrews Peak Drive. In the short-term future (2005), under peak hour conditions, all three intersections will operate within acceptable levels of service, defined as "D" or better. In the long-term future (2010), under peak hour conditions, all three intersections will continue to operate within acceptable levels of service. Under peak hour conditions, for the future year 2010, the Elizabeth/Andrews Peak intersection will operate at Level of Service A overall. Some individual traffic movements will operate at Level of Service B. Under all scenarios, the development of Peak View P.D.P. does not trigger the installation of a traffic signal at the West Elizabeth/Overland Trail intersection. For pedestrians, the frontage along Elizabeth will be improved with a sidewalk filling the gap between Sienna P.U.D. and Lory Ann Estates. Both new internal public streets will include detached sidewalks. An eight -foot wide bike/ped path along the east property line will be a private off-street connection between Elizabeth and the southern portion of the project. Crosswalks will allow a safe crossing at the Andrews Peak/Pleasant Valley intersection for access to Overland Trail Park. Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 4 D. Section 3.4.1(E)(1) — Establishment of Buffer Zones The P.D.P. provides a 50-foot wide buffer along the north bank and a 20-foot wide buffer along the south bank of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal to facilitate wildlife movement. E. Section 3.5.2(C)(1) — Relationship of Dwellings to Street and Parking Every multi -family structure faces: (1) a public street (21 units), or (2) a direct connecting walkway that is less than 200 feet from a public street sidewalk (25 units), or (3) within 350 feet of a public street sidewalk connected by a major walkway spine (2 units). F. Section 3.5.2(D)(2) — Residential Building Setbacks All residential buildings are setback from the public right-of-way by the required minimum distance except buildings 5,6 and 7. The applicant has requested Modifications of Standard for both the Elizabeth and Andrews Peak frontages. G. Section 3.5.2(E)(1)(3) — Garage Doors For all 48 multi -family units, the garages face private drives, not public streets. For the ten single family detached units, the garage doors are recessed behind the front fagade of the ground floor living area or a covered porch measuring at least six feet in width, eight feet in length and four feet in depth. Further, the garage doors do not comprise more than 50% of the ground floor street -facing linear building frontage. H. Section 3.6.2(A) — Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements All streets are public. There are no private streets, only private drives serving the side and rear -loaded garages. Both new internal public streets connect to surrounding properties and include on -street bike lanes. The frontage along Elizabeth Street will be improved to the minor arterial standard. There are no cul-de-sacs. Section 3.6.2(L)(1) — Private Drives Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 3 9.21 acres for a density of 6.30 dwelling units per gross acre, which is below the maximum allowable density. (The site is located within the designated "infill" area thus there is no required minimum density.) B. Section 4.4(E)(3) — Maximum Residential Building Height This standard requires that the maximum height of residential buildings be no more than 2.5 stories. The P.D.P. establishes the maximum height of the dwelling units at two -stories. 3. Compliance with General Development Standards — Article Three: A. Section 3.2.1(C) — Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. provides street trees on 40-foot centers along Elizabeth, Andrews Peak Drive and Pleasant Valley Road. The courtyard areas between the multi- family buildings feature sod and shade trees. Foundation shrubs are provided for the multi -family structures. The storm water detention pond and the area along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal along the east property line feature non - irrigated native grass. B. Section 3.2.2(B) — Access, Circulation and Parking One the key design features of the P.D.P. is a hierarchy of streets and paths. First, there are two new public streets. One of these, Pleasant Valley Road, will connect to both abutting neighborhoods on the east and west. Second, there are private drives to serve the garages of the multi -family units. Finally, there is an eight -foot wide bicycle -pedestrian path along the east property line beginning on the north at Elizabeth Street and connecting to Andrews Peak Drive south of the multi -family units. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) — Required Number of Parking Spaces The P.D.P. exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.75 parking spaces for each of the 48 two -bedroom multi -family units. A total of 84 spaces are required, and 96 are provided. This meets the minimum required amount of parking. Guest parking is also available on the two internal public streets. For the ten single family detached dwellings, a minimum requirement of ten spaces are required. A total of 20 spaces are provided. Peak View Estates, PDP Fort Collins, Colorado Request for Modification of Standards In accordance with Common development practices as stipulated in the Modification of Standards (section 2.8 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code) we are requesting the following Modification. Request for modification to the Building Standards contained in Division 3.5.2.13 (1) of the Land Use Standards_ Under Division 3.52.13 (1) The enclosed modification from the application currently filed will result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of fact and that the proposed project would substantially address the important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Currently the site known as the proposed Peak View Estates, PDP, is zoned as LMN. The parcel- has, a gross area of 9.206 acres with 58 proposed dwelling units. This results in a gross density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre. West Elizabeth Street bound the proposed site on the north. Elizabeth is a designated Arterial Street and under the terms defined in Division 3.5.2.1) (1) requires a minimum setback of 30feet from every residential building. The developer is requesting a reduction from the required 30-foot setback to 20 feet to accommodate the transition between developments as an in -fill development and facilitate the desires of the City Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Additionally, the, developer has been working with City Staff to facilitate the natural area adjacent to the existing irrigation ditch and improve upon the pedestrian/bicycle corridor between Elizabeth Street and Overland Park. In accommodating the desires of City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department the Developer has reduced the density from previous submittals from 62 dwelling units to 58 total dwelling units and enhanced the area for open space and wildlife influences as requested by city staff. 1. Furthermore, the proposed development is not detrimental to the general public and complies with the balance of the design and Building Standards of the City of Fort, Collins, Land Use Code. Additionally, it is the intent of the developer to promote the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and City Plan for the City of Fort Collins and by requesting the Modification listed above, the developer is supporting the specific goals and objectives of the `City Plan' as stated below. i July 6, 2000 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Mr. Shepard: rarle R. Horton 2750 Pleasant Valley Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 970 416 1023 RECEIVED Jul- 10 70nn CURRENT PLANNING This is in reference to your letter of June 14, 2000, in which you ask for comments on the proposed "Sperry/Kelley Property" development. I will not be in Fort Collins on Monday, July 17, 2000 and so cannot attend your neighborhood information meeting. My wife and I own the property at 2750 Pleasant Valley Road, in Siena P. U. D., two houses away from the site. I have no objection to this project. In fact, the proposed continuation of Pleasant Valley Road is badly needed to provide access to our neighborhood. We live near the current end of Pleasant Valley Road, and we have been concerned about emergency vehicle access to our home, should this ever become necessary. As I am sure you are aware, the section of West Elizabeth Street immediately north of the proposed development site is dangerously narrow for the amount of traffic that uses it. I hope that the development plan includes provisions for making that section of West Elizabeth Street wider and safer. Thank you. Sincerely, 1*7100" Earle R. Horton Local Residential roads shall be 36' wide within a 57' right-of-way. These roadways shall include 10' travel lanes and 8' shared parking and on -street bike lanes on each side. All internal residential roads have 6' tree lawns with detached sidewalks on both sides of the road, within the right-of-way. Public Facilities Providers Police City of Fort Collins Fire and Rescue Poudre Fire Authority Schools Poudre Valley School District Parks City of Fort Collins Public Utilities All basic utilities required for this development have been extended to the site or are near the property and are available for extension to the property. Adequate capacity currently exists within the City's infrastructure utilities to serve the project. Water - City of Fort Collins Existing 18" water main in West Elizabeth. Water mains will be installed in all streets and connected with water mains in Pleasant Valley to complete the internal looping of the service. Sanitary Sewer - City of Fort Collins Service - 8" sanitary sewer service exists in Pleasant Valley road on the west and east side of the proposed development. On -site sanitary sewer will be routed to a future sanitary sewer connection located at the southeast corner of the development, located in Pleasant Valley Road. Electric - City of Fort Collins Service - service exist in West Elizabeth Street and will be extended along internal residential streets and distributed to the site. Gas - Public Service of Colorado Service - service exists in West Elizabeth Street and will be extended along internal residential streets to bring service the site. Telephone - QWest (US West) Service - service exists in West Elizabeth Street and will be extended to internal residential streets and distributed to the site. Storm Drainage On -site and off -site storm drainage will be routed to an on -site detention pond via a system of surface swales, area inlets, roadways and storm sewer pipe. Storm drainage will be detained in a grass lined detention pond and discharged into an existing off -site conveyance system in Overland Park. These off -site facilities have been sized to account for the Peak View drainage. No offsite drainage improvements are anticipated because the necessary on -site detention Peak View Estates, P.D.P., #26-00 December 6, 2001 P & Z Meeting Page 7 garages that gain access from a private loop. This layout promotes variety and visual interest along the roadway. 3. As mentioned, the two courtyards feature connecting walkways to Buildings 9, 14 and 15. These walkways promote a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. 4. The four buildings that are "side -loaded" on the east side of Andrews Peak Drive feature windows and attractive residential architecture. These structures do not turn their back to the public street. The Andrews Peak streetscape is open, varied and invites active participation among neighbors. In summary, Staff finds that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the P.D.P. provides a creative relationship between residential structures, the public street and the garages. The P.D.P., therefore, is found to promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard. 5. Modification of Standard Request: Section 3.5.2(D)(1) — Residential Building Setbacks — Arterial Streets A. Description of the Request This standard requires that the minimum setback for residential buildings be setback from any arterial street by 30-feet. Elizabeth Street between Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail is classified as a "minor arterial" street. Buildings five, six and seven, which front on Elizabeth, are setback by 20-feet. Therefore, the difference between the standard and the plan is ten feet. B. Applicant's Justification The applicant has provided a supplemental document which states that the Request a Modification of Standard: Would not be detrimental to the public good; The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard; • The granting of the modification would result in substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would ITEM NO. 3 MEETING DATE 12/6/01 STAFF Ted Shepard Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Peak View Estates P.D.P. #26-00 APPLICANT: Mrs. Vicki Wagner/BLS Development C/o Design Development Consultants 2627 Redwing Dr. #350 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Mrs. Vicki Wagner/BLS Development 2402 Cedarwood Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 58 dwelling units divided between 48 multi -family and ten single family detached units. The project is 9.21 acres in size and located on the south side of West Elizabeth Street between two residential neighborhoods, Sienna P.U.D. and Lory Ann Estates. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs through the southern portion of the property. The project includes three Requests for Modification of Standards. The parcel is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Standards EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of the Requests for Modification of Approval of the P.D.P. A. The two housing types, multi -family and single family, are permitted uses in the L-M-N zone, subject to Administrative Review. B. The Requests for Modification of Standards require both the P.D.P. and the Modifications to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT l 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 I. INTRODUCTION Peak View is a planned residential development along the south side of Elizabeth Street to the east of Overland Trail in Fort Collins, Colorado. A vicinity map is pre- sented on Figure 1. rr� This transportation impact study follows the established guidelines for such studies as are applicable and appropriate to the proposed project. The following key steps were undertaken as part of this study. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current operations to establish base conditions. ' Determine site generated traffic volumes and distribute this traffic to the nearby- street system. • Estimate roadway traffic volumes for future conditions. • Evaluate operations with the Peak View fully operational. • . Inventory, evaluate, and assess the pedestrian, bicycle, and .transit net- works serving the site. • Identify deficiencies and recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic and enhance the alternate travel mode systems as ® appropriate. Key areas of investigation are documented in the following sections of this transporta- tion impact study. Apr 24 C1 06:51a Gene Cappole 303-732 p.5 Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 pproach belay — 9.6 Approach LOS ! — A M..IjUM --' tJopynght D SVuu Ltruvmily of Florida. All Righb Rucnvd Vmion 4 I file://C:\WINDOWS\TENT\u2kE086. TMP 4/23/01 yards. At the time of, but not later than (1) year following the closing of first occupancy of a home, whichever occurs first, the rear and side yards shall be suitably landscaped with grass, shrubs and trees. Fencing Fencing at Peak View Estates is subject to review and approval by ARC. Fencing is allowed to provide a sense of security, provide confinement for family activity, and yet avoid complete physical and visual enclosure. It is intended that plant material integrate the fencing into the community to enhance desired visual enclosure. When used fences shall be considered architectural extensions of a home. Fencing. is prohibited in the front yards of homes. Side yard fencing shall not extend more than 4' beyond the face of the primary structure. Site Drainage and Grading Structure and landscaping elements shall be placed on the property so that the existing topography shall not be disturbed. Finish grading shall prevent pounding or washing of water into the site or adjacent propertied. Drainage shall be directed away from all structures. Newly graded areas shall be protected agents soil erosion. Owners are encouraged to utilized soil engineers and landscaping professionals to help ensure proper drainage is maintained. Plant Materials Plant materials used in the landscaping should be native or naturalized to the area. Plant material selection should be made from locally available nursery or garden center stock. The Colorado Nurseryman's Association Rocky Mountain Plant Guide lists acceptable Materials. Lawn Lawn areas should be kept at least six (6) feet away from the foundation of the home or as recommended by a professional soil engineer or landscape professional, to ensure proper drainage is maintained. Foundation Planting Planting beds should surround the foundation of each structure and provide a minimum of two (2) feet of planting area from the homes' foundation to the lawn areas to ensure proper drainage. In all instances, watering near the foundation should be a minimal (e.g. drip irrigation systems) to avoid possible structural damage to the dwelling unit. Front Yards and Edging Landscaping in the front yards of Traditional Single-family homes shall be installed by the home builder, and shall be maintained by the homeowner in a condition at least as good or as better than the condition at the time of installation. The additions of concrete curb type edges are discouraged. Rock and Mulch Planting beds visible from an internal public right-of-way or private street may utilize wood mulch or rock. Wood mulch provides a favorable environment for plants, reduces irrigation requirements and minimizes long-term maintenance cost.