No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROMONTORY - PDP - 32-99 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSCommw,ity Planning and Environmental , _rviees >recycedpaMr Natural Resources Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: June 30, 2000 TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director -Pik Karen Manci, Senior Environmental Planner Kim Kreimeyer, Environmental Planner RE: Wildlife Movement Corridor Issue for the Promontory P.D.P Summary. This memo provides information on the characteristics of the Larimer Canal #2 irrigation canal on and near the Promontory site and its potential use as a wildlife movement corridor. It is our conclusion that the irrigation canal on the site may technically be considered a wildlife movement corridor under the Land Use Code. However, the value of the ditch is marginal at best. We believe that the twenty -foot (20 foot) ditch maintenance easement along the Larimer Canal # 2 that is retained in the development proposal will adequately provide for any wildlife movement and that to require a wider buffer in this vicinity would be meaningless in terms of wildlife habitat value. Enhancement of the area to increase habitat value would be irresponsible in our judgement because it would further attract animals to an area that is already intensively developed resulting in an increased risk of human/wildlife conflict and direct harm to wildlife. We have reviewed these conclusions with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and they concur with our assessment. We believe the project as proposed meets the performance standards contained in Section 3.4.1 (E) (1) of the Land Use Code. We recommend approval of a modification of the standard to reduce the required fifty -foot (5 -fao ) buffer to the twenty -foot distance shown on the Promontory Project Development Plan. Background. Natural habitats and features and their associated wildlife habitats are an important value to the Fort Collins community and Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code contains extensive provisions related to their treatment in the development process. Among the provisions of this section of the code is the requirement to provide buffer zones around various natural habitats and features which are either mapped on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map or defined in the Code. The Code contains a table with -standard distances for buffer zones for various natural features. These standards may be modified (either increased or decreased) decision maker to meet performance standards con wined in the code.. These considerations are base3 n the ecological character and function of the site and surrounding area. Buffer zone standards may also be modified where their strict application results in an exceptional and undue hardship upon the property owner or developer. Planning and Zoning Board approval is required in situations where the modified buffer zone is, on average, less than 80 percent of the general standard. When the Promontory development was first submitted, a site visit was conducted by Natural Resources staff. The site was a weedy field, bordered on the south by the Larimer Canal # 2 within an intensively developed area of the community. No Natural Habitats or Features were found on the site or within 500-feet of the site. Therefore, neither an Ecological Characterization Study nor delineation of Natural Area Buffer Zones was required on this project. 281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 224-6177 19. Comment: Control the construction traffic so that there is minimal impact on Boardwalk Drive. Use Troutman Parkway for construction traffic or use a temporary access through the Post Office property or along the ditch. 20. Comment: Mr. Prouty, the applicant, indicated that he would mail a copy of the Traffic Impact Study to the 4 attendees of this meeting so they can be informed. They could possibly meet with the City after reviewing the study. 3. Sense of Community / Quality of Life Our design goal has been to keep both the office and residential portions at a human scale, attractive elevations with architectural diversity and step down roofs, and a 'central park -courtyard" which integrates landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses. The central park -courtyard concept in this project, integrating a mail center gazebo and numerous meeting and sitting areas, is the essential design element, which benefits pedestrians, provides a sense of community and enhances quality of life. 4. Access This project has two entrances off Boardwalk, providing very good access by foot, bike, or vehicle to Foothills Fashion Mall, The Square, College Avenue retailers, Harmony Market and Harmony Market Place. In addition, there is very good access to nearby park with playground, playing fields and tennis (1/4 mile south on Boardwalk). 5. Architectural Character The LUC goal of achieving exceptional architectural character is realized by this project in terms of a) sensitive small office architectural style, b) innovative step-down roof design, c) differentiated and interesting architectural elements of the residential building frontages, d) thoughtful design considerations present in the courtyard-hardscape-landscape areas, and e) complementary interrelationship between all the foregoing. 6. Active Living Spaces All of the residential units front onto the central park -courtyard. These active living spaces fronting onto the park -courtyard create a vibrant community with the opportunity for interactions between neighbors, sense of community and quality of life. 7. Pedestrian Oriented Streetscapes, and Variety and Visual Interest in Exterior Design In both the residential and office portions of the project the relatively smaller scale, mass and height of the buildings plus landscaped setback, step-down roofs, varied roof design elements, and varied siding materials provide for an interesting pedestrian streetscape, and variety and visual interest in exterior design. In the office portion of the project, the complementary use of brick, stucco and lapboard siding, together with residential style and architectural entry gables provide an interesting pedestrian -oriented streetscape, and variety and visual interest in exterior design. . In the residential portion of the project, the central mail kiosk, the park, the pedestrian - permeable park -courtyard, the varied architectural elements and step-down roofs which 2 Commc y Planning and Environmental ~vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins Date: To: MEMORANDUM May 30, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Stephen Olt, City Planner�� RE: PROMONTORY, Project Development Plan (PDP) - #32-99 Modifications to Section 3.5.2(C)(1), Section 3.6.6(G), and Section 4.22(D)(2) of the Land Use Code (LUC). Pursuant to Division 2.8 - Modifications of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) of the LUC, any finding made under Section 2.8.2(H) — Modification Review Procedures shall be supported by supplemental findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said Section 2.8.2(H). Staff recommends that the following supplemental information (in bold type) be included as part of Finding of Fact/Conclusion 'B' and 'C' of the PROMONTORY, PDP - #32-99, Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for the June 1, 2000 public hearing: B. The PROMONTORY, PDP meets the standards as put forth in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation, with the following exceptions: The standard located in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway of the LUC. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land uses and their contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to the property the strict application would result in exceptional practical difficulties upon the owner. The site is a relatively long, triangular piece of ground located between a minor arterial street (Boardwalk Drive) to the north and east and the U.S. Post Office to the west. A major . irrigation ditch and Troutman Parkway is to the south. The 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 16 We hereby request that the'residential uses (building coverage, parking and drives) proposed for this property be allowed to occupy approximately 53% of the total gross area of the development plan for the reasons that: a) the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of the LUC; b) our proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and the purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard; and, c) the granting of the modification would result in substantially addressing important community needs. The ratio of 47% to 53% (non-residential to residential) is as good as 75% to 25% because this is not a crucial E District set aside for important employment uses and it is the best -fitting zoning for a mostly pre-existing transitional area (transitional meaning that office and multi -family developments sit between residential neighborhood development and the highway commercial corridor). This plan fits this context and it does not take a bite out of any significant employment opportunities. The 28% "excess" secondary use (53% vs. 25% residential) is only 1.42 acres of gross area and 25,648 square feet of building. This answers the standard of "no harm to the public good". As previously stated in this Staff Report, and as set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC, modification requests may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land uses and their contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it will protect the public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. The site is located on a minor arterial street (Boardwalk Drive) to the north and east, and is adjacent to single family residential uses to the east (High Pointe), multi -family residential to the south (the Somerset Apartments), the Post Office to the west, and offices to the north (the Landings Office Park). The proposed The Promontory development plan maintains the existing twenty foot ditch maintenance easement along the north side of the Larimer Canal # 2. Combined with the canal itself and the maintenance , easement on the south side, there will be a buffer of approximately 100 feet between Troutman Parkway and the south side of the proposed buildings. Given that this distance is equal to or greater than those found elsewhere along the canal, we are confident that the existing, marginal value of the canal will be maintained if the Promontory project is developed as planned. The Buffer Zone Performance Standards contained in the Land Use Code also speak to the enhancement of wildlife habitats and movement corridors within buffer zones. In some cases, this involves planting of native grasses shrubs or trees, topographic modification, or other steps to increase the value of the wildlife habitat within the buffer zones. In this specific instance, these habitat enhancements are not advisable. Given that the Promontory project is an infill project within high traffic, extensively developed portions of the community, we believe it would be irresponsible to require additional measures that might have the effect of making the area more attractive to foxes, raccoons, skunks or other similar wildlife species. Doing so would only increase the chance of negative encounters between people and wildlife in the area and increase the likelihood of animals being killed by animals. We are confident that the proposed development will not adversely impact the fox family that used the cottonwood tree on the adjacent property. Foxes typically maintain alternative dens and4hey move frequently, so there is no guarantee that they will use this site in the future. The den itself will not be disturbed and these animals have shown that they can utilize areas along the canal that are smaller than those that will remain after the project is constructed. The potential use of the area in the future by these or other animals will not be diminished. Because the den site on the adjacent property may be occupied again in the future, it will be important to determine if foxes are present at the time of construction. If they are, construction fencing will need to be installed (as occurred this year) to minimize the potential for young foxes to be harmed by construction vehicles. In conclusion, Natural Resources staff have extensively reviewed the issues related to the use of the Larimer Canal # 2 as a wildlife movement corridor relative to the Promontory development proposal. We find that the canal in this has mar 'nal v ue as a movement corridor or wildlife habitat area. We find that the project as proposed will adequately protect t ese values and meet the tandards.co perforrn�n�ince ntained in Section 3.4.1 (E) (1) of the Land Use Code. We recommend an ed'to the natural area buffer standards contained in Section 3.4.1 (E) to that a4n6dification be gr reduce the buffer requirement to the 20-foot ditch maintenance easement as proposed, rather than the general standard of 50 feet. Attachment Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 15 4. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS A. Division 4.22 - Employment District Offices and multi -family dwellings are permitted in the E - Employment Zoning District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review due to the inclusion of multi- family residential in the proposed development. The purpose of the E District is: To provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities.and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. This proposal complies with the purpose of the E District as it provides a mix of office and multi -family residential (at 13.6 gross dwelling units/acre) uses in multiple buildings located in a transition area between existing commercial/retail along South College Avenue and existing single family and multi -family residential along Landings Drive. Section 4.22(D) - Land Use Standards The proposal satisfies the land use standards in the E - Employment Zoning District, with the following exception: Secondary Uses. Although Residential uses are permitted in the E District, they are considered secondary uses and together shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan, as set forth in Section 4.22(D)(2) of the LUC. The gross acreage of the residential portion of this development plan is 2.69 acres, or 53% of the site (2.69 ac. divided by 5.08 ac.). The applicant has submitted a request for a modification of the standard as set forth in this section, citing the following reasons: TP-99101 High Pointe Development Project- Revised Land Uses Table 1 - Trip Generation Comparison 8/4/99 Office 30.00 1,000 SF 0.95 11.01 314 157 157 1.56 44 39 5 1.49 42 7 35 Apartment 24.00 D.U. 0.95 6.63 151 76 75 0.51 12 2 10 0.62 14 10 4 Condominium / Townhome 24.00 D.U. 0.95 5.86 134 67 67 0.44 10 2 8 0.54 12 8 4 New Land Use Totals 1 599 L 3001 2991 1 66 43 231 i 68 25 43 Office 1 55.00 1,000 SF — — 910 4551 4551 1201 107 13 — 1 120 20 100 TIS Land Use Totals 1 9101 4551 4551 1 1201 1071 131 1 120 1 20 1 100 Net Difference Between TIS and New Land Uses: 1 1 -311 -155 -156 1 -54 -64 10 L -52 5 -57 99101 tgen.xls - Trip Generation Mr. Jon Prouty Page 2 August 4, 1999 In comparison to the original trips estimated for the previous site uses as contained in the site TIS and shown in Table 1, the currently proposed land use plan will generate between 35% and 45% less traffic than the prior office land use proposal. The achtal net reduction maybe lower than this figure due to the percentage of residents who will both live and work on the site. Conclusion The original TIS for the site identified that the adjacent street, pedestrian, and bicycle network will not be adversely affected by the development, and that traffic mitigation measures are not warranted. Because the revised office and residential land uses proposed for the site will generate co»siderably Iower traffic volumes than that contained in the traffic impact study for the site, it is concluded that the adjacent street network will adequately accommodate the net traffic increases associated with the development of the new uses. Please feel free to contact me if you should need additional information or have any questions. Sincerely, TransPlan Associates, Inc. Jo Ann 1114gins, A1CP Scrlipr Flapper AttagTent: Table I 7 Trip �cnerjtion gpniparison A;F rj A550C/AYES, /nc. Consulting Engineers August 4, 1999 rn.99301wi.un Mr. Jon Prouty Lagunitas Company 3307 S. College Avcnuc, #200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Addendum to the Traffic Impact Study for the Park Place Project Dear Jon: At your request, TransPlan has conducted a trip generation comparison of the proposed site uses to the previously analyzed office uses for the Park Place Project. The site is located near the northwest quadrant of the Troutman Parkway / Boardwalk Drive intersection within the City of Fort Collins. A full traffic impact study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed project in August 1997 by Matt Delich. t At the time the TTS was prepared, the proposed site land uses included 55,000 square Ceti of general office space. The TIS identified any site related impacts to the surrounding street network for both the short terns (Year 2000) and Iong tern-i (Year 2015) traffic scenarios. Sinco completion of the study, the land use plan for the site has been revised to include a mix of uses that complement each other, The currently proposed plan involves 30,000 square feet* ofgeneral office and 48 ranch and townhome residential dwelling units. This trip generation comparison should serve as an :addendum analysis to the prior traffic study prepared for the project, The previous traffic study determined the existing and future street network and on -site parking will adequately accommodate the minimal traffic increases generated by the proposed site uses. Tdri Generation Comoarison Based on the above proposed description, the amount of traffic to be generated by the land uses was determined according to the rates and equations contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual'. The trip generation estimates are contained in Tablo 1, It is calculated that the proposed office and residential uses will generate approximately 600 average daily, 65 A.M. peak hour, and 70 P.M. peak hour trips, a less likely but rnaximuut pole ntiol of 46,300 square feet coultl he consirucleel if building pt7& comhintvl High Point Orrice Park Tmncnortation Impact Study Mallhew J. 0e11ch, P.I:•., August 1997. Trin Cienertlion. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6" Edition, 1997, 1375 Walnut Street, Suite 211 • Boulder, Colorado 80302.5263 Telephone: (303) 442.3130 • Facsimile: (303) 442-3139 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Intersection7btalDelay = (Veh icle KnalDelayx Volume) _ Volume Level -of -Service (Intersection) _ Level -or -Service Average Total Delay, sedveh A <_5 B >5and <10 C > 10and <_20 D > 20 and <_ 30 G > 30 and <_ 45 r > 45 A of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a treasure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level -of - service (LOS) criteria are slated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in Table 9-1. Delay may be measured in the field or estimated using procedures presented later in this chapter. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent upon a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group in question. LOS A describes operations with vet low delay, up to 5 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B describes operations with delay greater than 5 and up to 15 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progres- sion, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles slop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. LOS C describes operations with delay greater than 15 and up to 25 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. the number of vehicles slopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay greater than 25 and tip to 40 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures arc noticeable. LOS E describes operations with delay greater than 40 and up to 60 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by ninny agencies In be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 60 sec per vehicle. Ibis level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with ovetsaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high t/c ratios below 1.0 with ninny individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. TABLE 9-1. LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <5.0 B >5.0 and 5 15.0 C > 15.0 and 5 25.0 D >25.0 and < 40.0 E >40.0 and 5 60.0 F >60.0 APPENDIX B A M p M MATTHEW J. DELICH , P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE. COUNTS Observer �1 KL= Date 25 q / Day F,e/ u V l:n/0 L [. /-')) R = Ripttt turn ignt INTERSECTION OF J F K AND � A P D (A) A(4 L = Left turn EGMINS I J F K J FK TOTAL",I I South F3eA,eDw�1c K from EAST /3e�aKbwA�� T� '62' T� from NORTH I from SOUTH I from WEST R I S I L I Total II R I S I L I Total I R I S I L I Total II R I S I L I Total I I? 115 1 3 1 7 1 /S II 9 1 7 I I 1 I .27 II 4 1110 16412 174. II 0 I 9 1 0 l .3 II i/f II' J57 7 4- 5 11 -7 1 7 1 t(,l 3o 11 1 13 l 9 l 31 11 41 II 3 1 -7 13 1 113 11 3 13(D 1 4 1 y3 11 1 54 II a17 �o0 11141 IIZI 32-III01 1-315rI a8 II 60 112 I6,I 131 9.7IIZ 1441s1 5/ II i�f3 II ao3 I CIS II I Z I I /8 II51 I Iz3 II II -7I ¢1.3 1 7q 113 140IZ1 q'll 13 F /80 II ! I I II I I I II II I I I II I I t II II 7�t'-�113�I /81y.31 9511331 4013to1/07 11 6A II/ 0 75-11 S I/5-9I11 I i g II 3II '757 it I I I II I I t it II I I t II I I I II II I ees II I I l i Il I I I I II 2 II I I t o II I I I o 11 0 11 Z PE�s II I I I O II i I t o II U II I l I Z 11 I I t o II �� II Z 430IIZI 1301371 2 8 IIz91 33 13s1 9 11 19T 113O1 gl, I/Z I a8 II B 1931131 1 Ia 4LI1 �.7 445 I701 (l�ld(91 S IIII 12r 1311 8 II 1io9 Ildl 1111101 / 7 II 7 1 771121 11L 11 93 11 4l0 2 Sao 1124-1 3Z141�11oa. IIZ21 Z 7 1 96 11 197 11391 s(,1171 1,4z11 I/081/0I /,�'1 II57 i 51 45 IIZ2131 15("1 09 III, 142 IZ(ol S(� 11 1,75 i7319q 031 134 11 7 1 7ZIZol 103 1153 II L 4S II i I I II I I I II II I I I II I i I II II dap -'id g 71 /09 W51 -38'0 II F01 /' ? 112 ! 35711 73 11 3 I 1/ I I T 81 1131 1901551 47(g 11 1057 II /79q II i I II I I I 11 II I I I II I I I II II 12 11 4 11 1 1 1 Z II 1 1 1 0 11 Z 11 C-.� 0 U 0 o�� MATTHEW J. DELICH , P.E. �(7 Z 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE - LOVELAND, CO 80538 . TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Observer �"1 r I K e Date 4Z '77 pay ProAAYCity FO P- T CO LC- /SUS INTERSECTION OF L-Q..jbI QG 5 pa �r FIfL-AN0 a�aAWA R = Rigm turn Straignt L = Lettum TIME BEGINS Lia/v�lAJG' i P- C + _ `OTAL Norm South !�Qi:KDriAt.IL `aAI?tjWAt_/C TOTAL Past V" TOTAL ALL tram NORTH I from SOUTH I from EAST � tmm WEST R I S I L I Tatal II R I S I L I Total I R I S I L I Total II R I S I L I Total II 173 d 11.3 1 10 1 1Q 1;� 7 II © 1 ► IS 1 3 II 1113 1 701 11 1 q 11 IS I Z9 1 3 I So II 144 II- 75I 745 114 1 1(9 1 iFI 3s II 1 I Z I Z 1 S 11 qa IIz+I q7 11-7 1 13.0 11ZI 144 110 1 76 11 ;Z13 11 as3 goo 1110 1 5' 1141 29 11 Z 1 O 1 1 1 3 11 3�' 1119 11 1 1141 1;4 II 1315-5-1 51 73 11 /97 11 aa $1 II to I 1 11 1 .2b II 1 1 ; 1 21 q II 3o 1114 1 7 1 3 1 9g 111515Z 17 1 qq II /7z- II ,20 II I I I II 1 I I II II I I I II I i I II II .- 730-83o11a31 40 15 qI 11 7 II 1 `f 1 7 1 is 11 /32�_ 11,7 0 13 3 31.5 1 ysq 11671 /80 las-la ;z. II a6, II Ssg li I I I II I I I II II I I I II I I I II II BiF-r 11 1 1 I o II 1 1 1 o II 11 1 1 1 Z 11 1 1 1 1 II 3 II 3 ME711 I t t o II I I t o 11 o II I I 1 1 II 1 1 1 a II 1 II I t31KEll I I I a II I I t� II � II I I 1 1 II I I 1 1 II Z if Z PET�II I I t o II I I t o II o II I I I o II I I I o II o II o II I I I II I i I q II I I I II I I I II II 430 11 8 I S 1 7 1 0 11251 1(o II 15�o II 7116-41751171 lylo II7-6I 6-:7-1 Z& 1 //7 II a63 II 339 445 114 1 1 1 s IIZ3 1 16 1 24 1 7 II �o 7 111P3 190 1 =7-1 /g/ 1131 1 99 132' 1 /&g II .3q9 i1 'f// foo IIG 12 I 1 I 9 IIZ417-1 IZZ16, 7 II 7(0 115y110(11'Z-r1 /9'J 11271 y 1311 15411 33a II 41 s15 II I- Isl 1S 112&115 11 8 11 3 114`i1?3122I /& 112Z179-1331 /3 q II A 3 9 11 .37 II I I I II I i I II II I I I II I I I II II 430-53011a71 9 1 /91 5`f il� 81 6Z I7g1 ;3? II 2,92 11,;30I3 1001 674� I11061&411Id01 75 11 /a q4 11 M MATTHEW J. DELICH , P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE Y7 7, LOVELAND, CO 80538 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Observer tidy Date `t ZZ 97 Day U6Sf).4? 01,, �jeT eOC.L/rtJS R = Riphtturn INTERSECTION OF �- A l2D WALK S = Straight AND T2UUT�AA) L = Lett tum TIME BEGINS I3aAw A L K Lk 725a &)ATAwA4mJ NOortnn Soutn Tz�)U T V" 83L TOTAL ALL from NORTH II from SOUTH I from EAST I tram WEST R I S I L I Total I) R I S I L I Total I R I S I L I Total II R I S I L I Total II 1-730 11Z 14-(01 14F II 110 1-7 1 //211 146 II 1 1 1 II 41 IZ 1 /, II (, II- 745 III I $i I I 11 1133 114I 47 11 aa,q II I 1 1 11/31 13 1 16 11 2 1 (, I I I`-10 :: 11 1 95 110 1 /os 11 /(a S II 1 1 1 11 71 1 1 1 8 11 8 11 17ta `61 S' III 131 I I t 7 Z 11 1 89 1 Z 1 91 11 / 3 11 1 1 1 II 3 1 1 I 1 14 11 i N 11 S7 II I i I II I I I II II I I I II i I I II II 730-83o11 6 1 1 a4511 12A1331 4ssll 700 II I 1 1 11371 1 7 1 q4 11 q4 1174y II I I I II I I I II I) t I I II I I I II II �;�� II ( i I► II I I I I II Z II I I I II I I t o II o II z PEp ll 1 1 1 o 11 1 1 1 o it o II I I 1 II 1 1 1 0 11 0 11 0 -- sr `13C.L3(MJ�9dR3 \ � .�CdlM.c+1c%VS"a-���y�y4� ��S aa'f� psi 131k� II I I l i II I I I Z II 3 II I I I II I I t o II o II 3 PE : II I I t o II I I I O II U II I I I II i t I o it � II v II I t I II I I I II II I I I II I I I II II 4?o115- 1-791 1 II 1 q7 121o1/,z3 11;'o7, II 1 1 1 113Z1 1 41 at. II 3G 11 a43 445III 1 ►ol 1 1/02_ 11 1/&01Z51/ f 11a97' 11 1 1 1 11441 14- 1 4S 11 335- moo II S I l v51 I //a II I I Zii 141► 3 Il as3 II ` I I I 11531 1 4 I S� 11 S-7 II 3/0 sls 112 I 11to I //g 11 11; 11Z/DI 47 11 a6,6 11 1 I I 114571 1(o Is II si II I I I II I I I II II I I I II I I I II II 30:3o-o 1.5-671ci 0/1 �� I 11/ I 1/8 119z CITY OF FORT COLLINS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEM DESIGN AND MONITORING 0. 05. 1997 1-1 Weekly Susnry for Week Of February 4. 1297 all 08:21 Pq 1 ................................... :Ile: M0297001.PRN -------- -------------------------- --.............. St.: 000000010304 ......... ..-.--.--.-........ Id: 00000000076T /j/ .......... -..... -- Colmlld: 01 pity/Tom: FORT COLLINS County: LARIMER !ucation: BOAIIOVAIK W/O JFK EASTBOUND Fumat: Lure ,.m/s: 1-1 I'll -East .....---...................•----•-_-_-----__-----_------------------------_.__.---..-.----.------....--.---..-................_--_.. 9 10 A 5 6 1 8 Daily Wiley wend Tim Sun ..... ----- Mon ----- rue ----- Wed ---•- Thu Fri Sat ----- ..... ..... A.D. A19. AYg. DI:OO - - 27 27 - - - ----'-- 27 ....... 27 ....... 0 :12:00 - - 6 13 - - - 10 10 0 03:00 - - 9 8 - - - 9 9 0 03:00 - - 5 7 - - - 6 6 0 05:00 - - 14 7 - - - 11 11 0 :,6:00 - - 39 31 - - - 35 35 0 i1:00 - - 72 69 - - - 71 71 0 08:00 - - 107 - - - - 187 ]al 0 09:00 - - 197 - - - 197 197 O 10:00 - - 261 - - - - 261 241 0 11:00 - - 253 - - - - 263 263 0 t2:00 - - 341 - - - - 341 341 0 13:0G - - 405 - - - - 405 405 O 14:00 - - 410 - - - - 410 410 0 15:00 - - 415 - - - - 415 415 0 16:00 - - 360 - - - 369 360 0 17:00 - - 461 - - - - 461 461 0 18:0D - - 416 - - - - 416 476 0 19:00 - - 273 - - - - 273 273 0 YO:OD - - 201 - - - - 201 201 0 21:GO - - 152 - - - - 152 152 0 22:00 - 127 - - - - 127 127 0 23:00 - - 65 - - - - 65 65 0 24:00 - - 41 - - - 41 Al 0 ---- ----- iota]& - -------------------------•---•---------------------------------------------------------------.___.-•.---------•--------------------- ---- . ---•- 4611 '---- 162 ----' ---- ----- - - - --•---- 4922 ------- 4812 ------- O 4 Avg Mulay - 100.1 3.A - - - 4 Avg Day - - 100.1 3.4 - - - AM Peak Nr Mene None 12:00 07:00 None None Arne AM Cowl - . 341 69 - - - PM Peak Nr gone None 10:00 Mone None NO" More PM Count - . A79 - - - - CITY OF FORT COLLINS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEM DESIGN AND MONITORING D2-OS-1991 .... ............... ------------------ ..---............... ... Meekly Slmury For Meek Of February .............. 4. 1997 881 00:27 Pu 1 His: M0297002.PRN ---......................................................... Sta: ODOODO010308 Id: 000000000783 13 / Comld: 01 City/Town: FORT COLLINS County: LARIMER I0otl0n: BOARDWALK E/O JFK WESTBOUND Forms: Lem Lane/s: 1-1 I.nl•Mest --------------------------- 9 10 ---..... 4 -.......... 5 ---------------- •................ 6 7 B ..................................................... Daily Achy wend Time Sun ...__ ----- Mon ----- Tue ---•- we of ----- .---- Tnu Fri Ll ..... ..... ----- Avg. Avg. AYq. 01:010 - - 13 11 - - - ----•-- 12 ....... 12 ------- 0 02:00 - - 6 9 - - - 8 B 0 03:00 - - 10 6 - - 0 B 0 11e:00 - - 4 2 - - - 3 3 0 05:00 - 0 B - - B B I LIS: 00 - - 25 29 - - 21 27 0 01100 - - 91 93 - - - 92 92 0 OB:00 - - 362 - - - - 362 362 0 09:00 - - 280 - e 2B9 206 0 10: DO - - 3G9 - - - - 309 309 0 11:00 - - 329 - - - - 329 329 0 12:00 - - A62 - - - - 462 462 0 13:00 - - 447 - - - - "1 447 0 14:00 - - 426 - - - - 426 426 0 15:00 - - 403 - - - - 403 403 0 16:00 - - A22 - - - - 422 422 0 17:00 - - 480 - - - - 480 480 0 10:00 - - 523 - - - 523 523 0 19:00 - - US - - - 385 385 0 20:00 - - 251 - - - 251 251 0 21:00 - - 142 - - - - 143 143 0 22:00 - - 09 - - - - B9 B9 0 23:00 - - W - - - 64 64 0 24:00 ----- ----- - ----- 25 ----- - ----- - - - 25 25 0 Totals - -------------------- - .---------------------- 5565 ISO ---- ----- ----- - - - - .------------------------------------------------------------ ------- 5566 .--------------------------- ------- 5566 ....... 0 4 Avg WMday - - 100.0 2.8 - - - 9 AYg Day - - IOD.0 2.0 - - - AM Peak Nr No" None 12:00 07:00 Metre Mono Were AM Count - . 462 93 - - - PM Peak Nr None Kom 16:00 More None None None PM Count - __________________________________ - $23 - - - - CITY of FORT COUINS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEM OCSIGN AND MONITORING a7-05-1997 a,. Meekly Same ry for Week Of February 4, 1997 *11 08:77 Pg I .................................................................................................................................... Ill.: M0297003.PRN Su: 000000010306 to: 000000OU0109. a/ COemld: 01 ::Fty/Tovn: FORT COLLINS Cmmly: LARIMER .00eb On: JFK S/O 804WALK NORTN9OIIN0 Eorm44 Lane '.ne/s: 1.1 inl-NOr IN ................................................................................. 9 10 4 5 6 7 9 Daily Ailey Wkend II:I'l sun NOn ._.. ..... ..... Tut ..... Ned ..... Thu Fri Set Avg. Avg. Avg. ,II:OO - - 9 9 ..... ..... ..... ....... ....... ------- 47:00 - - 3 1 - - 2 2 0 -13:00 - - 2 3 - - - 3 3 0 04: 00 - - 2 3 - - - 3 3 a 04:00 ,%:in 01:00 - - 12 to - - - is 15 0 00:0D - - 30 31 - - - 35 35 0 09:00 - 80 - - - 00 00 0 10:00 - - 125 - - - - 125 125 0 11:00 - - 179 - - - - 179 179 0 12:00 - - 740 - - - 248 240 0 13:00 - - 230 - - - - 238 238 0 14:00 - - 343 - - - 343 343 0 15:00 - - 320 - - - - 320 320 0 i6:00 - - 210 - - - - 210 278 0 17:00 - - 296 - - - - 296 296 0 19:00 - - 341 - - - - 361 367 0 :9:00 - - 275 - - - 275 276 a •U:OO - - 108 - - - - 109 109 0 11:00 - - 81 - - - - 61 81 0 12:00 - - 58 - - - 59 SB 0 23:00 - - 30 - - - - 30 30 0 24:00 - - 14 14 24 0 ..... ..... ..... ,*tall - . .................................................................................................................................... ..... 3112 ..... 66 ..... ..... ..... - - - ....... 3110 ....... 3110 ------- 0 Avg WANay - 100.1 ^.2 - - - 4 Avg Day - - 100.1 2.2 - - - AM Peak ilr None None 12:00 08:00 None None None AM Count - - 240 31 - - - PM Peak Mir None None 10:00 None None None None PM Cant - - .................................................................................................................................... 367 - - - - CITY OF FDRT COLLINS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEM DESIGN AND MONITORING 12 05.1991 A,. Weekly Samury for week OF February 3, 1991 a•• 08:33 Pg 1 ................................................................................................................................... it: M0291004.PNN St.: 000000010302 Id: OOo0o0Do0569 13( C"ld: O1 '1lY /IoWn: FORT COLLINS County: IARIMER Oration: JFK N/O BOARDWALK S0UTN80WN0 Fennel: Lane an./$: 1.1 nl-South ................................................... 9 3 4 5 C 7 0 ... Daily .. *day . Wend lime Sun Non rue Wed Thu Fri Sal Avg. Avg. Avg. .... ... .. ..... 4I:00 - ..... 1 ..... 3 ..... ..... ..... - - - ....... 5 ....... 5 ....... 0 J2:0G - - 1 7 - - - 2 7 a 44:00 - - 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 14:00 - 3 0 - - - 2 2 •6:00 - - 6 6 - - - 6 6 ,16:00 - - 10 10 - - 30 10 *7:00 - - 32 26 - 29 29 1 06:00 - - 19 - - - 19 19 :9:00 - - 114 114 114 1 1U:00 - 131 - - - - 131 131 t 11:00 - - 178 - - - 179 170 12:00 - - 252 252 252 1 13:00 - - 286 - - - - 286 286 1 1.1:00 - 263 263 - - - - 263 263 1 L5:00 - 265 235 - - - - 250 250 1 16:00 - 776 262 - - - - 269 265 1 t7:00 - 307 321 - - - 314 314 1 18:00 - 308 276 - - - 292 292 1 19:00 - ISO 155 - - - - 157 157 1 2U:00 - 117 91 - - - 107 107 1 21:00 - 53 61 - - - 51 57 1 ":Do - 41 44 43 Al 1 03:00 - 20 IB - - - - 19 19 1 14100 10 6 - - - - 9 ------- 1 ------- 1 ....... ...._ ..... ..... 1*tals - Isle ......................... ..... 7840 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... 47 ..... ..... ..... - - - 2873 2873 1 • Avg Wiley - 63.3 90.9 1.6 - - - 4 Avg Day . 63.3 20.9 1.6 - - - AN Peak llr None None 12:00 07:00 No" None Wone An COWL - . 752 26 - - - PM Peak Mr Nerve 19:00 17:00 None None Mon. None PM Count - 300 321 - - - - ................................................................................................................................... BOARDWALK W/O LANDINGS EASTBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HOUR ---- HOUR EACH * REPRESENTS 23 VEHICLES OF DAY let 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- 12 AM 7 6 5 3 21 1 AM 2 7 1 4 14 2 AM 1 0 2 1 4 - 3 AM 2 1 0 0 3 - 4 AM 2 2 1 4 9 - 5 AM 4 10 17 14 45 ** 6 AM 23 23 19 33 98 **** 7 AM 28 40 51 84 203 *»******* 8 AM 62 67 61 69 259 **#kx###R RR 9 AM 87 81 76 83 327 *****#RR»RkR#R 10 AM 81 74 81 91 327 ************** 11 AM 109 87 117 123 436 ***************R»** 12 PM 108 144 .123 121 496 ***«RRRRR«RR#RRRR*RRRR 1 PM 152 121 109 112 494 ***#RRRRxRR«R»R«#hRRR 2 PM 113 115 124 138 490 **************RRxRRR« 3 PM 102 140 133 149 524 *»******»***RRRkR«xxRRk 4 PM 138 128 123 171 560 **********#««#RR}##kR##R 5 PM 173 148 156 108 585 ***************#Rzzk«zR#z 6 PM 105 97 78 65 345 *************** 7 PM 78 52 46 63 239 R}*#R#kx}« 8 PM 48 44 43 42 177 ******** 9 PM 48 22 32 29 131 ****** 10 PM 26 19 8 11 64 *** 11 PM 13 4 12 4 33 TOTAL VOLUME IS 5,884 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 436 BEGINS AT 11:00 AM ( 7 $) EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 648 BEGINS AT 4:45 PM ( 3.1 $) BOARDWALK E/O LANDINGS WESTBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HOUR ---- HOUR EACH * REPRESENTS 20 VEHICLES OF DAY lst 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 10 ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------------------------------- 12 AM 11 3 1 7 22 1 AM 2 1 0 1 4 - 2 AM 5 1 2 2 10 3 AM 1 1 2 0 4 - 4 AM 1 2 1 7 11 5 AM 3 4 9 12 28 6 AM 15 22 25 54 116 ****** 7 AM 54 00 96 133 363 R««#xxRRRR««#RR#RR 8 AM 103 92 98 87 380 RRRkRkR««}#RxR}RkRR 9 AM 82 75 85 95 337 RRx««««##RRRxRR}« 10 AM 64 65 97 90 316 RRRRRxR#RR}#RRxR 11 AM 84 106 105 117 412 12 PM 113 103 113 114 443 ********************** 1 PM 112 103 112 100 427 *RxR««««RRRR}««R«k}R} 2 PM 112 102 110 113 437 *****x«RxR#««Rk#R«R«#x 3 PM 108 103 125 127 463 *********************** 4 PM 118 106 144 149 517 RxkRR*RkR##R««#*R*RRxRR«*« 5 PM 124 132 115 113 484 k*##«xR#RR*}«RR#RR#RRRx# 6 PM 119 105 69 91 384 ******************* 7 PM 63 55 57 33 208 ********** 8 PM 42 52 39 44 177 ********* 9 PM 35 21 33 18 107 ***** 10 PM 32 27 12 12 83 **** 11 PM 14 7 10 7 38 ** TOTAL VOLUME IS 5,771 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 426 BEGINS AT 7:45 AM ( 7 %) EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 549 BEGINS AT 4:30 PM ( 10 %) DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 12AM ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997. DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 12AM ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997. LANDINGS S/O BOARDWALK NORTHBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HOUR ---- HOUR EACH * REPRESENTS 4 VEHICLES OF DAY let 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL A DASH MEANS !]OUP VOLUME < 2 ------ 12 AM ----- 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 ------ 0 --------------------------------- 1 AM 0 0 0 1 1 - 2 AM 0 0 0 0 0 - 3 AM 0 0 0 0 0 - 4 AM 0 0 0 0 0 - 5 AM 0 0 1 0 1 - 6 AM 1 1 2 6 10 *** 7 AM 2 4 6 8 20 RRRRR 8 AM 4 11 20 11 46 ******x***** 9 AM 17 17 13 8 55 RRRRRR#RR#RRRR 10 AM 12 14 21 22 69 R#RRRRRR#RRRRRRRR 11 AM 18 22 18 16 74 ********RRR*R#***** 12 PM 18 20 17 15 70 **********R**RR*** 1 PM 20 29 19 17 85 ***x*RRRRRRRk RRRRRRRR 2 PM 26 10 17 23 76 *********RR*RkR*RR} 3 PM 11 11 17 20 59 RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 4 PM 17 16 20 16 69 RRRRRRRRRk#RRRRRR 5 PM 18 15 11 10 54 ************** 6 PM 9 12 3k 9 33 7 PM 7 5 4 6 22 ****** 8 PM 6 4 1 2 13 *** 9 PM 6 1 2 2 11 *** 10 PM 0 0 1 1 2 11 PM 2 1 0 0 3 TOTAL VOLUME IS 773 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 83 BEGINS AT 10:30 AM ( 11 8) EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 91 BEGINS AT 1:15 PM ( 12 �) DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 12AM ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997. LANDINGS N/O BOARDWALK SOUTHBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HOUR ---- HOUR EACH x REPRESENTS 7 VEHICLES OF DAY let 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 4 ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------------------------ 12 AM 1 1 2 1 5 1 AM 0 1 1 1 3 - 2 AM 2 1 1 1 5 3 AM 2 1 1 1 5 " 4 AM 1 0 1 0 2 - 5 AM 5 5 5 4 19 *** 6 AM 6 6 8 7 27 "*** 7 AM 22 25 21 19 87 RRRRRRkRkkR* 8 AM 27 27 27 27 108 9 AM 29 27 31 32 119 10 AM 35 35 35 35 140 11 AM 46 46 45 45 182 *"""RRRk##R#RkR*R#RRRRRRkR 12 PM 48 49 45 53 195 RRRRR#RRRRRR}RRRRRRR }RR.RRRR 1 PM 50 50 50 49 199 2 PM 46 45 46 45 182 3 PM 51 50 50 50 201 RRRRRRRkRR#RR#RkR#RRRRR}RRRRR 4 PM 52 52 52 52 208 RRRRRRRRRR#RRRRRRRRR tRR RRkRRRR 5 PM 50 50 50 50 200 *******"#RRRk#RRRRR}tR#RkRRRR 6 PM 34 34 34 34 136 ****""***""*****•`" 7 PM 21 21 21 21 84 R##RRRRRRRRR 8 PM 20 .20 20 20 80 9 PM 13 10 10 10 43 10 PM 3 4 3 4 14 "* 11 PM 3 3 3 2 11 "* TOTAL VOLUME IS 2,255 VEHICLES. PEAK HOURS: MORNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 182 BEGINS AT 11:00 Art ( 8 8) EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 208 BEGINS AT 4:00 PM ( 9 8) DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 12AM ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997. APPENDIX A- n VII. CONCLUSIONS Thi$ study assessed the potential impacts of the High Point Office Park near Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. As a result of the analysis, the following conclusions were drawn: The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the following intersections: Boardwalk/JFK, Boardwalk/Landings, Boardwalk/High Point (proposed north access drive), Boardwalk/ Troutman, Boardwalk/proposed south access drive. The traffic impact analyses were performed for existing conditions and future Years 2000 and 2015. Future background traffic conditions without the project and total traffic conditions, with completion of the proposed project, were evaluated. Under existing conditions, each of the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service with the exception of the northbound movements from Landings Drive to Boardwalk Drive. The City of Fort Collins is currently considering modifications to this intersection, which would remove the northbound and southbound left -turn and through movements. For Year 2000 background and total traffic conditions, the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. It is not anticipated that traffic from the proposed project would significantly impart the traffic operations at the study intersections. For Year 2015 future background and total traffic conditions, the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the following exceptions: the eastbound traffic at high Point Drive, and the eastbound left turn from Troutman. In urban, areas as traffic volumes on collector and arterial streets increase, delays to left -turn movements to these roadways will increase. The traffic at each of these locations would have opportunities to utilize alternative routes. No intersection improvements would be required due to the proposed project traffic. Pedestrian access to and from the proposed High Point Office Park is good. However, there are several gaps within the sidewalk system in the area surrounding the project site. Most of these gaps will be eliminated with the development of vacant parcels. Bicycle facilities are present within the entire study area. The project site will be directly connected to these facilities. Currently, transit service to the study area, which is provided by Route 1, is operating at an acceptable level of service. It. is anticipated that this level of service will be maintained or improved in the future. 25 ' TABLE 4 j Year 2015 Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Background Traffic Boardwalk/JFK (signal) B B Boardwalk/Landings (stop sign) NB . RT A B SB RT A B EB LT A B WB LT A A Boardwalk/High Point (stop sign) WB LT/RT I B C SB LT A B Boardwalk/Troutman (stop sign) J EB LT C E EB RT A B INB LT A A Total Traffic -Boardwalk/JFK (signal) B B Boardwalk/Landings (stop sign) NB RT A B SB RT A B EB LT A B WB LT A B Boardwalk/High Point/Access (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT C E WB LT/T/RT B D NB LT A A SB LT A B Boardwalk/Troutman (stop sign) EB LT C E EB RT A B NB LT A A Boardwalk/South Access (stop sign) EB LT/RT B C NB LT A A 24 Intersection TABLE 3 Year 2000 Intersection Operation Level of Service AM PM Background Traffic Boardwalk/JFK (signal) B B Boardwalk/Landings (stop sign) NB RT A B SB RT A B EB LT A B WB LT A A Boardwalk/High Point (stop sign) WB LT/RT B C SB LT A A Boardwalk/Troutman (stop sign) EB LT C C EB RT A B NB LT A A Total Traffic Boardwalk/JFK (signal) B B Boardwal.k/Landings (stop sign) NB RT A B SB RT A B EB LT A B WB LT A A Boardwalk/High Point/Access (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT B D WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT A A SB LT A A Boardwalk/Troutman (stop sign) EB LT C C EB RT A B NB LT A A Boardwalk/South Access (stop sign) EB LT/RT B C NB LT A A 23 factor of 1.0. Based upon the criteria set forth by the City of Fort Collins, the project site is located within an area defined as the "remainder of service area". Currently the level of service is LOS D, which is acceptable for this service area. It is antici.pated that this level of service will be maintained or improved in the future with implementation of the City's Transit ,Development Plan. 22 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE The pedestrian activity associated with the proposed project would be related to the following: individuals who work at the future office park and live within the adjacent neighborhood, and individuals who work at the office park and are destined to adjacent commercial facilities, such as batiks and restaurants. Most'of the adjacent neighborhoods have good pedestrian facilities which provide connections to the proposed office park. Those individuals living to the east of the site must cross Boardwalk Drive. This crossing could occur at the pedestrian crosswalks at either Breakwater Drive or Westshore Way. Those pedestrians living north of these crossing would have to cross Boardwalk at unmarked locations. The need for additional crossing facilities for these individuals is unknown because the demand would not be determined .until after completion of the project. It is anticipated that no additional crossings would be necessary. However, this should be re-evaluated after completion of the project. It would appear that a pedestrian crossing of Boardwalk Drive, similar to those at Westshore Way and Breakwater Drive, could be painted at Landings Drive and/or High Point Drive. Signalized pedestrian crossings of Boardwalk Drive are not recommended. As mentioned earlier, there are some gaps within the sidewalk system to the north of the project site. These gaps exist either adjacent to undeveloped parcels or adjacent to residential areas which were designed without sidewalks. It is anticipated that the sidewalk system will be completed as development occurs on undeveloped parcels. Near the residential. area (on the east side of Landings, south of Horsetooth), there are sidewalks on the opposite side of Landings Drive. Gaps in the off -site sidewalk system are not the responsibility of this development. Pedestrian access to the adjacent commercial areas, primarily to the,west of the project site, is good. There are sidewalks within this area and the route is very direct and continuous. It is concluded that the pedestrian level of service is acceptable. BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE There are bicycle bicycle level of adjacent areas is facilities within the entire study area. The service to/from the proposed office park to acceptable. TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE The current transit level of service is determined based upon the followi.ng: the 12 hours of weekday service, 30 minute headways, a travel time factor of 2.0 to 3 of the 4 specific destinations suggested in the "Level of Service Manual," and the peak load 21 VI. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS The previous chapter described the development of future traffic forecasts both with and without the proposed project. Intersection capacity analyses are conducted in this chapter for both scenarios to assess the potential impact of the proposed project generated traffic on the local street system. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - YEAR 2000 The peak hour background and total traffic volumes for Year 2000, illustrated on Figures 4 and 7 respectively, were analyzed to determine the intersection delay and corresponding level. of service. Table 3 summarizes these results for Year 2000 background and total traffic conditions. Calculation forms are provided in Appendices D and E, respectively. As indicated in fable 3, the traffic movements at each of the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service under future traffic conditions for- Year 2000. As mentioned earlier, within the City of Fort Collins, the minimal acceptable level of service is LOS D or better. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - YEAR 2015 The, Year 2015 peak hour traffic, volumes for background and total traffic conditions were analyzed to determine the intersection delay and corresponding level of service. Table 4 summarizes these results. Calculation forms are provided in Appendices F and G, respectively. The level of.service analysis shown in Table 4 indicates that the study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions: the eastbound traffic at High Point Drive, and the eastbound left turn from Troutman. It should be noted that, in urban areas as traffic volumes on collector and arterial streets increase, delays to minor street left -turn movements onto these roadways increase. The eastbound traffic exiting the proposed project site at High Point Drive are projected to experience delays. However, the site plan was designed such that this traffic would have the option of utilizing the south access drive which is projected to operate in the long range future with acceptable operating conditions. The eastbound left turn at Boardwalk and Troutman is projected to operate with long delays under both background and total traffic conditions for Year 2015. As mentioned above, this is a typical condition in urban settings. A review of the future total traffic projections also indicates that very few vehicles will experience these long delays. 20 1 � 3 2��v �^ �-ji = �38 /190 4 At 'I� Q Nip � �-, X'J0 9s��� �\ 9 900 Q� Site oLn _Ln Access 5/20� 5/25 cn 4- N AM/PM o Rounded to the Nearest '� s 5 Vehicles. ass ti5 5a Iti TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015 Figure 8 co V Q N 3SS/ZSS 3Z%3135 / �\SS/8S¢ZS o m 49 h75 Qo' O AM / PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. 0 N As s h�\�h� PGGOg I Site ` " — 1 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC - YEAR 2000 1s s o� N 4o I' s Figure 7 18 V. FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The future total traffic projections reflect future traffic conditions with the traffic from the proposed High Point Office Park project. The future total traffic projections were developed for Years 2000 and 2015. TOTAL TRAFFIC — YEAR 2000 The total traffic for Year 2000 was developed by adding traffic from the proposed project to the background traffic for Year 2000. ,The resulting peak hour total traffic projections for Year 2000 are .shown on Figure 7. TOTAL. TRAFFIC — YEAR 2015 The total traffic for Year 2015 was developed by adding traffic, from the proposed project to the background traffic for Year 201.5. The resulting peak hour total traffic projections for Year 2015 are shown on Figure 8. MN co Ks4o o� 61 V 6/45 Site Access / PM �t 0C SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 16 Figure 6 Land Use Office - 55 KSF TABLE 2 Trip Generation Daily Trips 910 15 A.M. Peak Trips Trips in out 107 13 P.M. Peak Trips Trips in out 20 100 IV. PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Development of traffic projections for the proposed High Point Office Park project involved the following steps: estimation of trip generation, development of a trip distribution, and assignment of traffic to the roadway system. TRIP GENERATION Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in their report entitled Trip Generation,_ 5th Edition, 1991, were utilized to develop trip generation estimates for the proposed High Point Office Park. The ps'timated trip generation is shown in Table 2. Land use code 710 (General Office) was used to determine the trip generation. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from a point of 'origin to a point of destination. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The overall directional distribution of the site generated traffic was determined based on the location of the site within the City of Fort Collins and the existing traffic patterns and system in this area. The trip distribution used in the subsequent traffic assignment is as follows: approximately 30 percent to the north on JFK and Landings, approximately 30 percent to the south on Boardwalk, approximately 30 percent to the west on Boardwalk, and approximately 10 percent to the west on Troutman. TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The site generated trip assignments are shown on Figure 6. 14 � 00 I Site I ��. ..•� AM . / PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. Access BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015 HL Figure 5 0 a C aQ ,.o ti 14%135�� �\58�3 0 /p/1>O0 e o Qo O AM / PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. og9o�q `� O4�J� �s y ' � s Po �♦ Site Access - - - w BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC - YEAR 2000 46, N Figure 4 12 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015 j Future projections of background traffic for Year 2015 were developed by factoring the existing traffic to account for overall growth and adding traffic from proposed developments. Area Wide Traffic Growth An overall growth in traffic of approximately 1.5 percent annually was applied to the study intersections. The existing traffic volumes were adjusted upward by a total of 1.3 to reflect this area wide growth. Traffic From Nearby Projects The Landings Office Park development project, mentioned in the Year 2000 analysis, was accounted for in the Year 2015 analysis. Background Traffic Year 2015 The peak hour background traffic for Year 2015 is depicted on Figure 5. As mentioned above, this was developed by factoring existing traffic to account for growth near the study area and adding traffic from nearby developments. 11 III. FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed High Point Office Park project on the local traffic conditions, future traffic volumes were first estimated for the study area without the project. These future forecasts reflect the growth that, is expected from overall development in and around the City of Fort Collins and from proposed projects in the vicinity of the project site. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 2000 The growth reflected in Year 2000 Background Traffic is based on two factors: general area growth, and traffic generated by specific projects located near the study intersections. Future Roadway System It was assumed that the intersection of Boardwalk and Landings would be modified to eliminate the northbound and southbound left - turn and through movements. Area Wide Traffic Growth Based upon historical traffic growth and information within the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, October 1994, it was determined that traffic within the study area has increased by approximately 1.5 percent per year. Traffic From Nearby Projects Based upon data available from other traffic studies, the following .project is planned within the short range future: the Landings Office Park development, located on the north side of Boardwalk. This development is currently under construction. Background Traffic - Year 2000 The peak hour background traffic. for Year 2000 is depicted on Figure 4. As mentioned above this was developed by factoring existing traffic to account for overall growth within the area and accounting for traffic from other proposed projects near the study area. 10 a TABLE 1 Existing Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Boardwalk/JFK (signal) B B Boardwalk/Landings (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT B F SB LT C E SB T/RT B B EB LT A B WB LT A A Boardwalk/High Point (stop sign) I WB LT/RT B C S B LT A A Boardwalk/Troutman (stop sign) EB LT B C EB RT A B NB LT A A 0 C Q� N\o� cb �33 /230 �1 : SI/80 111 A g 0 QO Site Access AM / PM N o EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC a Figure 3 sections of roadway which have gaps in the pedestrian network or very narrow sidewalks are listed below. JFK Parkway North of Boardwalk on the west side of JFK, there is one section where a temporary 2.5 to 3 foot asphalt sidewalk exists on a parcel of land which is currently vacant. North of Boardwalk on the east side of JFK there is no sidewalk with the exception of a northern section near Horsetooth Road and a small section of sidewalk near a bridge structure for a canal. Landings North of Boardwalk on the west side of Landings, there is a section where no sidewalk currently exists. This section is south of The Wharf Condominiums and north of the Landings Office development. North of Boardwalk on the east side of Landings, there are no sidewalks adjacent to the residential areas of the Landings residential area. Troutman Between JFK Parkway and Boardwalk Drive, there exists a 2.5 foot wide side walk on both sides of Troutman. This sidewalk is adjacent to vacant parcels of property. There are pedestrian crosswalks on Boardwalk Drive at both Breakwater Drive and Westshore Way. These crosswalks provide access to the park located on the west side of Boardwalk at Westshore. Pedestrian activity is extremely light, as noted on the traffic count forms provided in Appendix A. BICYCLE FACILITIES There are bicycle lanes on each of the roadways within the study area. The bicycle lanes are primarily 5 feet wide, from face of curb to the edge of the'iane line. Bicycle activity is very light, as noted on the traffic count forms provided in Appendix A. TRANSIT SERVICE There is currently one transit route, Route 1, which is just beyond 1/4 mile walking distance of the project site. Route 1 provides service on College Avenue from the Front Range Community College and the South Transit Center, the North Transit Center, and ("SU. There ,are bus stops on College Avenue at Boardwalk Drive and Troutman Parkway. Route 1 provides 30 minute headways and service is provided for 12 hours on weekdays. EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK IiOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were conducted at each of the study intersections during April 1997. The existing peal: hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 3. The count data is provided in Appendix A. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the conditions of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level of service definitions are provided in Appendix B. Typically, the standard for minimum acceptable LOS is D. The Signalized and Unsignalized I 'Intersection Analysis techniques, as published in the Highway Capacity Manual by the Transportation Research Board in 1994, were used to analyze the study intersections for each of the traffic I scenarios. These techniques allow for the determination of the intersection level of service based on congestion and delay of each traffic movement. EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Tab,le.1 summarizes the existing weekday morning and evening peak hour level of service at the study intersections. The capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Under existing conditions, the study intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours, with the exception of the Boardwalk/ Landings intersection. At this intersection, the northbound traffic and the southbound left turns currently experience long delays. The City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff is currently considering the elimination of left turns at this location due to the recent signali.zation of the adjacent. intersection of Boardwalk and Tr mant#K- Elimination of minor street left turns will logically result in elimination of the minor street through traffic also. Subsequent analysis of the Boardwalk/ Landings intersection will assume that this restriction has been put into effect. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES As mentioned within the description of the street system, most of the study area currently has sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian flows. The pedestrian facilities within a 1/4 mile of the project site were examined. The existing sidewalks vary in location from being directly attached to the curb and gutter to being detached with a parkway separation between the roadway and the sidewalk. The width of the sidewalks vary from 2.5 feet to 7 feet. The M II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed description of the existing conditions within and near the project site. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study include land use, streets, traffic volumes, traffic operating conditions, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit service. EXISTING STREET SYSTEM As illustrated on Figure 1, Boardwalk Drive is a curvilinear minor arterial street. This roadway currently is built with two travel lanes, one in each direction. At most intersections, there are left -turn lanes. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. The Boardwalk/JFK Parkway intersection is signalized. The intersections of Boardwalk and the following locations are stop sign controlled: Landings, High Point Drive, and Troutman Parkway. There are sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of Boardwalk Drive, with the exception of no sidewalk along the site frontage. A variety of land uses exist adjacent to Boardwalk: near College Avenue are commercial/office uses, near Landings are the Fort Collins Post Office and other office uses, and the remainder of uses are primarily residential. There is also a neighborhood park located directly adjacent to Boardwalk across from Westshore Way. JFK Parkway is a north/south arterial street which exists between Monroe (adjacent to the Foothills Fashion Mall) and terminates to the south of Troutman Parkway. JFK Parkway will be extended to Harmony Road in the future. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. North 'of Boardwalk, JFK is currently striped to provide three travel lanes, two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. South of Boardwalk, JFK Parkway has four travel lanes and a center left - turn lane. There are bike lanes on both sides of JFK. The adjacent land uses include commercial, office, residential, and the Fort Collins Post Office. Landings Drive is a two lane, north/south minor arterial street between Horsetooth Road and Boardwalk Drive. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. The adjacent land uses include residential and office. Landings terminates at the driveway to the Fort Collins Post Office. Troutman Parkway is a east/west arterial street. This roadway is striped to accommodate two travel lanes and a center left -turn lane. There are sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of Troutman. The adjacent land use is commercial and multi -family residential. 5 9 A& N NO SCALE SITE PLAN 4 Figure 2 d EZ zi i ," = 2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 generated by proposed projects within the vicinity of the project site. Project Generated Traffic - The traffic generated by the proposed project will be determined. Total Traffic - Years 2000 and 2015 - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions with traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project added to the background traffic forecasts. The impacts of the proposed project on future traffic operating conditions can then be identified. The City of Fort Collins identified the following intersections to be'analyzed for the scenarios above: 1. Boardwalk Drive and JFK Parkway 2. Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive 3. 'Boardwalk Drive and High Point Drive (proposed access drive) 4. Boardwalk Drive and Troutman Parkway 5. Boardwalk Drive and the south access drive ORGANIZATION OF REPORT The remainder of this report is divided into six parts. Chapter II presents an analysis of the existing street system and traffic conditions for each of the study intersections. Also included in Chapter II are assessments of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the area. Forecasts of future background traffic: for Years 2000 and 2015 are provided in Chapt:e.r III. Traffic projections for the proposed project are discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents the total traffic projections for Years 2000 and 2015. The future intersection operating conditions and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service are presented in Chapter VI. Chapter VII provides a summary of the study results. 2 10 I. INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings of a transportation study conducted to evaluate the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs of the proposed High Point Office Park, located near Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an office park, which would accommodate approximately 55,000 square feet of office use. The project is located southwest of Boardwalk Drive and east of Landings. The site location is shown on Figure 1. Access to the proposed project would be from two access drives. The site plan is depicted on Figure 2. The north access drive would be aligned with High Point Drive. Both access drives are proposed to provide full access into and out of the site. STUDY SCOPE The scope for this study was developed in conjunction with the Fort Collins Transportation Engineering staff. The base assumptions, technical methodologies, and geographic coverage of the study were all identified as part of the study scoping meeting. The study is directed at the analysis of potential project generated traffic impacts along the existing and future street system. The following traffic scenarios are analyzed in the study: - Existing Conditions - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide a basis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an assessment of traffic volumes and operating conditions at the study intersections. - Background Traffic - Year 2000 - Future traffic conditions will be projected for Year 2000. The objective of this phase of the analysis is to project future traffic growth and operating conditions which could be expected to result from general growth and from related projects in the vicinity of the project site. Background Traffic - Year 2015 - Future traffic conditions for Year 2015 will be determined. The Year 2015 traffic projections will be determined by accounting for overall future growth in the city and for traffic 1 LIST OF FIGURES ' .Figure Page 1. Site Location ........................................ 3 2. Site Plan ............................................ 4 i j 3. Existing Peak Hour Traffic ........................... 8 4. Background Peak Hour Traffic - Year 2000 ............. 12 5.. Background Peak Hour Traffic - Year 2015 ............. 13 6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ..................... 16 i 7. Total Peak Hour Traffic - Year 2000 .................. 18 I8. Total Peak Hour Traffic - Year 2015 .................. 19 APPENDIX A Recent Traffic Counts B Description of Level of Service C Current Peak Hour Operation D Short Range Background Traffic. Operation E Short Range Total Traffic Operation F Long Range Background Traffic_ Operation G Long Range Total Traffic Operation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ........................................ 1 ProjectDescription ................................ 1 StudyScope .......................................... 1 Organizationof Report ............................... 2 II. Existing Conditions .................................. 5 Existing Street System ............................... 5 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 6 Intersection Level of Service Methodology ............ 6 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service ................. 6 Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 6 Bicycle Facilities ................................... 7 Transit Service ...................................... 7 III'. Future Background Traffic Projections ................ 10 Background Traffic - Year 2000 ....................... 10 Background Traffic - Year 2015 ....................... I.1. IV. Project Traffic Projections .......................... 14 Trip Generation ...................................... 14 Trip Distribution .................................... 14 Traffic Assignment 14 V.' Future Total Traffic Projections ..................... 17 Total Traffic - Year 2000 ............................ 17 Total Traffic - Year 2015 ............................ 17 VI. Transportation Impact Analysis ....................... 20 Traffic Analysis - Year 2000 ......................... 20 Traffic Analysis - Year 2015 ......................... 20 Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 21 Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 21 Transit Level of Service ............................. 21 VII. Conclusions .......................................... 25 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Existing Intersection Operation ...................... 9 2. Trip Generation ...................................... 1.5 3. Year 2000 Intersection Operation ..................... 23 4. Year 2015 Intersection Operation ..................... 24 DARK -'LALE -Forw�e_r I� HIGH POINT OFFICE PARK TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY . FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AUGUST 1997 Prepared for.: Lagunitas Company 3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION 1IEETING Did a°:o ificationAddr of this mecting? ss. Name - Address _.. - — . - - ...__. _.. _ zip — - - Yes No I Yesl SO — 11. Question: Can the project take access from Troutman Parkway to the south, across the ditch? Answer: That is not known yet. 12. Question: What is the view impact on the High Pointe residential neighborhood? Answer: That neighborhood will look at 2-story buildings. 13. Question: What is the height of the multi -family residential buildings? Answer: They will be 40' to the peak of the roofs. Some of the building will be below grade. 14. Question: What is the height of the office buildings? Answer: They will be 30' to 35' in height. 15. Comment: The Landings Bay project (64 residential dwelling units) will add traffic to Landings Drive. Response: There will be direct access to JFK Parkway, as well as access to Landings Drive, from that project. 16. Comment: Our biggest concern is the traffic on Boardwalk Drive. We are concerned about the kids at Landings Park. We would like to see a stop sign at the park and a signal is needed at Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive. The City should put this signal in. The traffic on Boardwalk Drive needs to be slowed down. Landings Drive is a short cut and is dangerous to cross. More physical deterrent, such as speed bumps, stop signs, etc., is needed. 17. Comment: The intersection of Boardwalk Drive and Troutman Parkway needs a four-way stop, like at JFK Parkway and Troutman Parkway. 18. Comment: Left -turn lanes are needed at Boardwalk Drive and Whaler's Way and at Boardwalk Drive and the 7-11 store. The City needs to deter and slow traffic. We are afraid that we are going to get rear -ended when making a left turn on Boardwalk Drive. We are looking forward to the traffic study for this project. 3. Comment: Traffic is too fast on Boardwalk Drive. 4. Question: How many families will move in? Answer: . That is not known yet. 5. Comment: The office portion of the project will have buildings that contain about 6,500 square feet each. They will be similar to the existing office buildings on the north side of Boardwalk Drive except that they will be 2 stories high, with a low roof. C:l, 7 N The residential portion of the project will have one single car garage per dwelling unit. Only 25% of the garages are in front of the buildings, which are 2 levels. Other garages will be 1-story, detached buildings that face the garages in the residential buildings, not the street. This project is not primarily to be for families with school -aged kids. Question: What is the price range of the residential dwelling units? Answer: They will be priced from about $130,000 to $160,000. Question: How many dwelling units will there be? Answer: There will be 52 to 56 dwelling units. Shared parking between the office and residential portions of the project is flexible at nights and on weekends. A cross -access easement for the parking would be needed. The residential parking is not flexible. Question: The traffic on Boardwalk Drive is too heavy and too fast. Will there be a left turn lane for Boardwalk? Answer: I think there will be a signal needed at Landings Drive and Boardwalk Drive to create some gaps, or access would be limited to a right-in/right-out. Comment: Without a left turn lane the traffic will back up. We need the protection. 10. Comment: We do not like the driveway access alignment with High Pointe. It will complicate things. City of Fort Collins Date: Applicant: City Planner: Location: Comm. Ly Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning Neighborhood Information Meeting Minutes for the PARK PLACE OFFICE and TOWNHOUSE COMMUNITY September 9, 1999 Lagunitas Company John Prouty Ted Shepard (for Steve Olt) offices of New Horizon Travel, 300 East Boardwalk Drive The applicant is proposing to develop an office and multi -family residential project, known as Park Place, on approximately 8 acres. The property is located on the southwest side of Boardwalk Drive between Landings Drive and Troutman Parkway. The existing Post Office is adjacent to the west and the existing High Pointe single family residential neighborhood is across Boardwalk Drive to the north and east. The density for the proposed residential portion of this project would be 13 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The property is in the E - Employment Zoning District. There were four (4) neighbors (affected property owners) present at this meeting. Also present were the developer and a representative from the City Current Planning Department. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. Comment: The intersection of Landings Drive and Boardwalk Drive has too much traffic. There is too much of a delay and the Post Office circulation is a problem. 2. Comment: There is a safety issue at Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive and the Post Office. The traffic circulation is a problem. There is too much delay on southbound Landings Drive to southeast Boardwalk Drive. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 parking stalls and signage to designate fire lanes, as was recently permitted in our similar mixed office -residential project immediately to the north (Landings Bay). Lastly, I would invite you to consider a thoughtful paradigm suggested to me by a staff member (thanks), which I think is relevant to this project and helps us explain and understand it conceptually: The residential community has three buildings (F, A and B) with reasonable street frontage. Behind these three buildings is a common backyard (park - courtyard), and to the rear of property garages, carriage house (E) and two alley buildings (D and C). These garages, carriage house and alley buildings cannot be served by the street, but are instead served by an alley -private drive. We respectfully ask for your favorable consideration and approval of our requested modifications. Thank you. Sincerely, , President Enclosure JP/kw Ltl and playgrounds to the south and Post Office, retail, and office to the north and west. e. Promoting excellence in design and construction of planned office parks, buildings, outdoor spaces, and streetscapes. Incorporating innovative architecture and planning concepts including: front and back roof step-down design; symbiotic relationship between small office and residential communities; central park -courtyard concept merging landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses; interesting building elevations; and aesthetic building frontages. g. Providing sense of community and quality of life, which are inherent in and flow from the essential elements of the project: a) small office park community with buildings juxtaposed relative to parking and each other, b) small residential community comprised of five residential buildings and a carriage house surrounding a central park -courtyard which merges landscape, hardscape, pedestrian and vehicle uses, and c) symbiotic relationship between the two. Modification Request #3 — Red Painted Curbs and White Painted Parking Stall Lines It is our strongest wish that the courtyard portion of the residential project be successful as an aesthetic pedestrian -friendly area integrating landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses. In addition to other design features, we feel it is imperative to not introduce -- - ugly, white painted parking stall lines into this scored colored concrete courtyard area and the environment we are creating. Zoning has approved alternative parking lot demarcation by means of three score lines. Also we do not want red fire lane lines to be painted in either the residential courtyard or the office parking lot. They are unsightly and unnecessary. The fire lane route will be just as apparent with signage but without the red curbs. The fact that the fire lane is not for parking is also naturally apparent, because the fire lane -travel lane will be a straight - through route on black asphalt in contrast to scored concrete parking - courtyard areas (in residential portion of project). Accordingly we respectfully request your approval to allow us to use variations in the parking lot scoring as our method for defining these 40 Introducing a new street connecting to Troutman is not possible because of separate ownership of the parcel to the south of the project which blocks access to Troutman. Furthermore, the "blocking parcel" contains a ditch that would require a bridge which would probably not be worth the expense. And also a street to the south would interfere with the required storm water detention pond location and design. An internal loop street was also investigated but does not look worthwhile in terms of space consumed vis-a-vis pedestrian connectivity gained, and it would result in a new intersection too close to Troutman. So, the only way to meet the standard would be to set the entire building program up along Boardwalk, either by stacking into taller, elevator buildings, or by eliminating any building program that isn't up along Boardwalk. Staff informs me that neither of these drastic changes to conventional building programs was ever intended for a lot like this one. Rather, staff tells me that the intent is to extend the street system and then arrange the building program around it, which again is not possible in this case. The lack of connecting walkways to "back yard buildings" C and D is compensated by the detailing of the drive and parking areas to be as comfortable and generous for pedestrians as possible while accommodating vehicles. In summary, the front buildings relate fairly directly to the street, and the rear buildings need to be considered as non -ideal rear -yard dwellings accessed by an enhanced alley -like drive. Furthermore our plan achieves the purposes and addresses community needs by: a. Providing for a community need for moderately priced housing. b. Providing housing immediately adjacent to offices in project and nearby to many other workplaces. c. Providing internal pedestrian connectivity and permeability by means of the central park -courtyard design integrating landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses. d. Providing pedestrian connectivity to the street sidewalks along Boardwalk, Landings and Troutman, which give access to parks 4 e. Promoting excellence in design and construction of planned office parks, buildings, outdoor spaces, and streetscapes. Incorporating innovative architecture and planning concepts including: front and back roof step-down design; symbiotic relationship between small office and residential communities; central park -courtyard concept merging landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses; interesting building elevations; and aesthetic building frontages. g. Providing sense of community and quality of life, which are inherent in and flow from the essential elements of the project a) a small office park community with buildings juxtaposed relative to parking and each other, b) a small residential community comprised of five residential buildings and a carriage house surrounding a central park -courtyard which merges landscape, hardscape, pedestrian and vehicle uses, and c) a symbiotic relationship between the two. Modification Request #2 — No Connecting Walkways The Residential Building Standards provisions of the LUC require that "every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a street sidewalk." [Section 3. 5. 2 (C) (1)] We hereby request that this standard be modified to allow dwellings with no connecting walkways for the reasons that a) the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of the LUC, b) our proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and the purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard, c) the granting of the modification would result in substantially addressing important community needs and d) the extraordinary physical conditions and situation unique to property would result in practical difficulty and undue hardship if standard is strictly applied. The unusual, difficult shape of this existing lot makes compliance infeasible in the rear portion of the lot. Any developer of this lot will have a big back yard area that can't relate directly to a street. This rear portion of the site cannot effectively relate to Boardwalk; it is more than 200 feet away. 3 meaning that office and multi -family developments sit between residential neighborhood development and the highway commercial corridor). This plan fits this context, and doesn't take a bite out of any significant employment opportunities. The 28% "excess" secondary use (53% vs. 25%) is only 1.42 acres of gross area and 25,648.56 square feet of building. This answers the standard of "no harm to the public good." We believe the proposed mix of housing and offices is as good or better than a mix with a little less housing. The mixed -use intent of City Plan and the zoning is achieved. We understand the standard and its origins in the Harmony Corridor Plan process. The housing is integral to an office park containing primary uses, as called for. Beyond this basic standard for the development plan, the housing is complementary to the larger mixed -use area that includes C Commercial as well as E Employment District areas. In other words, this is a good location for in -town housing close to several hundred non -retail and retail businesses within reasonable walking or cycling distance. Also, this odd -shaped E District infill property is strategically positioned between retail, office, bank and post office uses to the west, single family residential to the east and apartments to the south. Our plan will better achieve the objective of mixed use in this situation, coupled with sensitive transition between retail, banking and post office to the west, and existing residential to the east than would a plan, which was required to comply with the standard. In addition our plan achieves LUC purposes and addresses community needs by: a. Providing for a community need for moderately priced housing. b. Providing housing immediately adjacent to offices within project and nearby to many other workplaces. c. Providing internal pedestrian connectivity and permeability by means of the central park -courtyard design integrating landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses. d. Providing pedestrian connectivity to the street sidewalks along Boardwalk, Landings and Troutman, which give access to parks and playgrounds to the south and Post Office, retail and office to the north and west. 2 Lagunitas Promontory, Inc. 3307 S. College Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-226-5000 • FAX 970-226-5125 April 12, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Promontory/Modification Requests Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: Introduction Promontory is a unique transitional project encompassing five small office buildings, and six small residential buildings (7-8 units per building). The offices buffer the existing High Pointe residential neighborhood and provide a transition to Post Office and commercial uses to the west. Also, the offices provide supplemental parking spaces for the residences weekends and nights on an easement basis, however in all other respects the residential neighborhood is separate and autonomous from the office portion of the project. The property's zoning is E District (employment). Modification Request #1 — 25% Secondary Uses The land use standards for E District [Section 4.22 (D) (2)] require that residential uses shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. We hereby request that the residential uses (building coverage, parking and drives) proposed for this property be allowed to occupy approximately 53% of the total gross area of the development plan for the reasons that a) the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of the LUC, b) our PDP proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and the purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard, and c) the granting of the modification would result in substantially addressing important community needs. The ratio of 47% to 53% is as good as 75% to 25% because this is not a crucial E district set aside for important employment uses and it is the best -fitting zoning for a mostly pre-existing transitional area (transitional 5. Provide an attractive enclave of residential housing in town immediately adjacent and nearby to several hundred employers (the post office, Foothills Fashion Mall, The Square, retail along College, Harmony Market, Harmony Market Place, etc.) The ability to locate attractive housing adjacent to employment achieves the goals of reducing reliance on motor vehicles, encouraging the use of bicycles, and enhancing residents and employees overall quality of life. VII. Land Use Conflicts and Natural Area Disturbances This project eliminates the potential of major conflicts of land uses which could occur if certain possible E District uses were to be developed (strip retail, large multi -story offices, dense multi -story apartments, and most outrageously possibly even taverns, warehouses and light industrial) which uses would be immediately opposite existing single-family residential uses to the east. The transitional and complementary uses which this project embraces eliminate the potential for such land use conflicts. No natural area disturbances presently exist or are proposed. VIII. Neighborhood Meeting Concerns The primary neighborhood meeting concerns were that traffic on Boardwalk be minimized and slowed down, and that possible incompatible E District uses (strip retail, large multi- story offices, dense multi -story apartments, and most outrageously possibly even taverns, warehouses and light industrial) not occur. It was suggested that a traffic light at Landings and Boardwalk would help alleviate these problems and improve safety. The traffic from this project will be consistent with existing traffic patterns in the neighborhood and will have less impact than would be the case if certain other E District uses were to occur. Applicant is willing to meet with and assist existing neighbors in addressing matters of mutual interest and neighborhood concern, particularly the Boardwalk traffic problems. VIII. Name of Project Park Place 5 Statutory requirements with regard to condominium legal descriptions will be strictly followed. All residential front yards, backyards, side yards, private drives, sidewalks, courtyard, and detention pond open space will be maintained by the HOA. All public open space along Boardwalk shall also be maintained by the HOA. V. Number of Employees The estimated total number of employees for the office portion of this project is projected to be about 45, based on the number of employees in similar office buildings located at Landings Office Park (immediately to the northwest) and pursuant to covenants' use restrictions. VI. Rationale behind Assumptions and Choices 1. The office portion of project is designed to meet the needs of small office owners who need in the range of 3000-6000 square feet of office space and desire an aesthetic, upscale high quality office park environment. These needs are not being met elsewhere in the community. 2. Notwithstanding the property's E District zoning which possibly permits even such uses as light industrial, taverns and warehouses, it is very important that a thoughtful and sensitive transition occur between the retail, office, bank and post office uses to the west, single-family residential to the east, and apartments to the south. 3. Given the zoning of this property and its market value, it is a challenge to create a transitional use, which is mostly residential but still achieves the paramount objectives of economic feasibility and edifying aesthetics, as well as other LUC goals. These goals can be realized with development comprised approximately one-third of small office buildings and approximately two-thirds of innovative eight-plex residential buildings fronting on a central park -courtyard. 4. Project design should not be beholden to a priority requirement to meet the needs of vehicles. While the needs for vehicular access should be accommodated, the primary emphasis should be on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Accordingly, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle needs have been met by a concept, which merges park, mail kiosk, walkways, bikeways, vehicle ways, landscaping and hardscaping into an innovative internal park -courtyard with the park as the centerpiece and focal point. This benefits pedestrians, provides a sense of neighborhood, and enhances quality of life. 4 characterize the front of the residential buildings create an attractive and pedestrian - oriented streetscape, and variety and visual interest in exterior design, both from within the residential community and when viewed from Boardwalk. III. Open Space, Buffering, Landscaping, Circulation, Natural Areas The adjacent open space in the form of the Larimer County Canal #2 is an attractive visual amenity. The carriage house and garage buildings together with related landscaping buffer the residential portion of the project from the office portion to the north. The central park -courtyard and landscaping within the residential project buffer buildings and create a pedestrian -friendly environment. Furthermore this park -courtyard contributes to sense of community and enhances quality of life. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic through the project meanders around a pedestrian friendly, private drive -courtyard. Circulation internally between buildings, garages, mail kiosk and park is accomplished by a pedestrian -permeable courtyard, as well as interconnecting concrete sidewalks and crosswalks. Landscaping buffers project from Boardwalk and residential uses to the east. Landscaping, established large trees and ditch buffer project from Troutman and apartments to the south. Landscaping buffers project from post office open space and parking, while not blocking views of adjacent open space and mountains to west. IV. Ownership and Maintenance of Public and Private Open Space The office and the residential portions of this project will each have their own Owners Association and Covenants and will be totally separate, autonomous neighborhoods and entities except for the parking easement being granted by the Office Owners Association (OOA) to the Home Owners Association (HOA). Office ownership will be in the nature of townhouses with each building owner or half building owner owning the portion of the building pad under his building / half building. The balance of the office park will be owned in common by the OOA, which will be responsible for all maintenance, both private common and public (along Boardwalk). Residential building ownership will be the nature of condominium ownership with each eight-plex building owner owning an undivided interest in the underlying building pad. 3 a PARK PLACE STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES February 16, 2000 I. Introduction Park Place is a unique project comprised of five small office buildings, five small eight-plex residential buildings and one carriage house. The residential units are designed for ownership and all have attached or detached garages. The project provides a transition from retail, office, bank, and post office uses to the west, single family residential to the east, and apartments to the south. The offices provide supplemental parking spaces for the residential on an easement basis; however, in all other respects the residential neighborhood is separate and autonomous from the offices portion of the project. The residential project is characterized by its adjacency to the Larimer County Canal #2, unique open space - detention pond, innovative central park -courtyard, edifying design and aesthetics; and related sense of community. The residential buildings front onto a central park -courtyard, which aesthetically merges landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses and requirements. The park includes a mailbox gazebo, numerous small sitting areas for informal meetings and socializing, and mountain view across open space -detention pond area. Ill. City Plan Principles and Policies Achieved 1. Transitional This project is complementary to and transitional in relation to the adjacent uses (retail, office, bank and post office uses to the west, single-family residential to the east and apartments to the south). This transitional project involves a symbiotic balance of office and residential uses and is aesthetic, pedestrian -friendly, sensitive to topography and open space, economically feasible and creates unique infill development. 2. Mixed Use This project is a mixed -use project comprised of approximately one-third office and two- thirds residential. Proposal: Description: Overall Density: General Population School Age Population: Elementary: Junior High: Senior High: SCHOOL PROJECTIONS #32-99 Promontory PDP Muti family residential with 48 units on 5.08 acres 9.44 /du/ac (gross) 48 (multi -family units) x 3.5# (persons/unit) = 168 48 (units) x .074 (pupils/unit) _ 48 (units) x .027 (pupils/unit) _ 48 (units) x .026 (pupils/unit) _ TOTAL= 4.992 2.4 2.208 9.6 # Figures are based on a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom multi -family residential units. multiprojAs No Text PEUM ELCVAHUN twAA CLC VA IU/V arwu i,a. ra scwe.e' iv- r.v 6pL SIDE ELEVATION srwcenr-ra REAR ELEVATTON - 6 Car Game .vwrBra•-ra FRONT ELEVATION - 6 Car Garage Sa flr-rtv SIDE ELEVATION sc¢ane^-rn K PROMONTORY P.D.P. FORT COLL 4S COLORAM IMGM POINTE P.U.D. ZONING i NIGH POINTE P.U.D. N�, ZONING - RL yy - g ri �_4N- NOTES .— - +rw Vwsr.4 M.Y. an.r ..w rry.rws�r uw alr.0 ..T r.a fy. w._ r • c ! ar w 4 �. Y.I Na:Y M M iYV'11^.r 4 0.wv .iPr4„..^' % Y.s.. 10. .� • •••b�'+Y M'^'N b> � i�i.�M . M w w. Iw .wrr:v. u M�N_.g6Y W��wy.�4u.. sv�1�Y..�r~~MIN ufii v r Ye1o.�ail.Y.r..I lY•w.l_4 a Y�i W u ��arwrerau M u� aW /M w bs�w+w+ � � . rnwrt I.w v [.•aywr...4 wYaV. Y.rvNatlivab rm.Y y .rsuwY. Wryrrn. wr.p.r.Y �aw.r.W Wa4Y✓rve [s. Y n.s. e.w•w.w._u4gl �unYAa..0 ane..l wR h..rM1W .ru. e. rw.w w .' . r . •.r ••.M nvt +.rh w .wrr � ��brr 4lMTrr M.mY llNlrM1yb V.Yr.V.Y.. wln Y..w..n _ M.. r• w.a e_.n w qy..e r .evu. w wN..a �I.�V uaF V.w.W wI.AIV ..I9 n+a.vW Er LIST PLANT 1 >u• wrk\\ :tom. ."""r.0 if '> .. e \ lY y y I ..rr�.tl...rr ar _� ��• � lC � �� u.ew 1 i �- C_ _ r �jSy � 1 .\\, ,,\ Y.:Y. Yswmiiwm wY'.. �w�.e� m .w..•P.� o .R .. ORG4V4 W.Yr .IQ6 O 101 .MYM.Y itl[b 00 R.IAWb Y10/p [.bV YC9! ®ADM.IVQUl60.Q• . lYN OGOY.6 Emil O • • •• • • , PROMONTORY FORT COLLINS COLORADO HIGH POINTE P.U.O. ZONING — RL OCTLNT1OW ,r A PROMONTORY P.D.P. FORT COLLINS g�COLORADO o r m w S -1'•b' • •.�w.v eb.wr.ee�.0 .a ua.r m.er..b •mow. n. • .Renq:��a.m.vrm+zv o-+. +u. 1 YIO NID 4 t b Pc umE uNW �o uv M v 4a. s e, rwwa..a�io®m aweert r. a // � m am. beer o.•+v mv�x i m wo I bvw. qs M. M lu:� .E ibnM n ]iq Y e.bf men Munn .mnin m m.e+ci ue o v. TTOAL PARKINS STALL SOORINS OANM'S OMTIPIOATION AVMIN'STRATIVV APPROVAL LEGEND R .u� rpm Rry�LR 'ugc.1 .uv�c Stuff r' .un CuolW ��: KAID 40[4R ® w ceu o !M. M CpF[ LNM K.[ �fsm%�Ve PROMONTORY P.D.P. FORT COLMS COLORADO O Y YI W 6L�4I. 1• . •.A. No Text .t STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BMPLAYER John W. Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 Kim Kreimeyer Natural Resources Dept. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Ms. Kreimeyer: For l;rldlife- For People June 6, 2000 I have visited the red fox den at the northeast comer of Troutman Parkway and JFK Parkway in Fort Collins and do not consider this to be a wildlife movement corridor at this time. Foxes adapt very well to urban environments and make use of small and unusual areas for raising their young. This fox family should disperse as the summer progresses and will be finished using the den site by early fall at the very latest. It would be acceptable to discourage these foxes from using this small, marginal site in the future due to its proximity to traffic and human disturbance/feeding. There is plenty of good fox habitat elsewhere in Fort Collins. I can be reached at 970-416-6944 if you have any further questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, �l/,'1Gly �D3�lLZG� Nancy Howard District Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife 317 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Bernard L. Black, Jr., Chairman . Rick Enstrom, Vice -Chairman . PhIp James, Secretary Members, Tom Burke . Mark LeValley . Marianna Raftopoulos . Robert Shoemaker . Ofnre Valdez Ex-OfGdo Members, Greg Walcher and Don Amerk Y Subsequent to the initial submittals on the property, a family of red foxes established a den in the hollow base of a cottonwood tree next to the irrigation canal on the property immediately west of the Promontory site, on the northeast corner of Troutman Parkway and JFK Parkway. This fox den was very visible to passing motorists and pedestrians and became the subject of great interest this spring and early summer. At the Planning and Zoning Board worksession in early June, the question was raised as to the potential impact of the Promontory development on the red fox family, specifically whether the Larimer Canal # 2 was an "irrigation ditch that serves as a wildlife movement corridor" and whether the proposed project plan met the requirements of the Land Use Code for natural area buffer zones. The Code specifies a general buffer zone standard of 50 feet for irrigation ditches that serve as wildlife movement corridors. Because the issue was not fully resolved, the applicant voluntarily postponed consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board until the July 6, 2000 meeting. In the intervening time, Natural Resources staff have extensively reviewed the issues in order to reach the conclusions stated at the beginning of this memo. Our rationale for these conclusions is summarized below. The Land Use Code does not contain a definition of wildlife movement corridors and these features are not specifically mapped on our inventory of natural habitats and features. When the Land Use Code was drafted, there was never an intent to define all irrigation ditches as wildlife movement corridors. Our practice has been to evaluate the existence of movement corridors on a site by site basis relative to individual development proposals. We have defined wildlife movement corridors where: (1) the irrigation ditch clearly provides a path for connections between two or more natural habitats or features (i.e., rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, wet meadows, native grasslands, and other features listed in the code and included in our inventory), (2) there is sufficient width and natural cover remaining along the ditch to allow the easy passage of wildlife, and (3) we have evidence of a pattern of ongoing wildlife use. In this instance, the Promontory project is an infill site within an intensively developed portion of Fort Collins. The Larimer Canal # 2 goes underground for extensive distances at JFK Parkway only a few hundred feet west of the Promontory development site. The canal does not provide any connection to natural habitats or features west of this point. To the east, the canal does connect to Warren Lake, which is mapped on our inventory of natural habitats and features. With the exception of the Promontory site, lands both east and west of the site have already been developed. Where the canal remains above ground, the land adjacent to it has been developed to within 20 feet of the canal bank (the ditch maintenance easement) or less. Our records and observations in the area do not indicate any extensive, ongoing use of the canal as a wildlife movement corridor. Based on these characteristics, Natural Resources staff view this section of the Larimer Canal as having only marginal value as a corridor for wildlife movement: This does not indicate that no wildlife species use the canal area at all. Clearly, the presence of the fox family indicates that some use occurs and we would expect the occasional use by foxes, raccoons, skunks, mallard ducks, and similar species that are very tolerant of people and well -adapted to life in the urban environment. However, under existing conditions both east and west of the Promontory site, animals using this area are comfortable using the width of the 20-foot maintenance easement and the width of the canal itself, or adjacent developed areas. Memo regarding Promontury P.D.P. July 6, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Section 3.5.2(C)(1) sets forth the requirement that every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200' from a street sidewalk. The primary entrances to residential buildings "A," "B," and "F" do not face a connecting walkway. Staff supports this modification request. Staff finds that the project as submitted is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purpose of the LUC based on its compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Staff also finds the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard because the applicant has designed the project to include an enhanced pedestrian walkway system adjacent to the private drives through the site that will provide for a good separation between pedestrians and vehicles. If the P&Z Board agrees with the staff and chooses to grant this modification, a separate finding and vote must be conducted on the issue. Staff would like to offer the following finding and recommendation on this issue: FINDING: A. Staff finds that the project as submitted is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purpose of the LUC based on its compatibility with the surrounding land uses. B. Staff also finds the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard because the applicant has designed the project to include an enhanced pedestrian walkway system adjacent to the private drives through the site that will provide for a good separation between pedestrians and vehicles. A. Staff recommends approval of the request to modify Section 3.5.2(C)(1) of the Land Use Code to allow buildings "A," "B," and "F" to have a primary entrances that do not face a connecting walkway. Memo regarding Promontory P.D.P. July 6, 2000 Page 2 of 3 degradation of the ecological character or wildlife use of the affected natural habitats or features. (t) The project shall be designed to integrate with and otherwise preserve existing site topography, including but not limited to such characteristics as steepness of slopes, existing drainage features, rock outcroppings, river and stream terraces, valley walls, ridgelines and scenic topographic features. (g) The project shall be designed to enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site. If existing landscaping within the buffer zone is determined by the decision maker to be incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone, then the applicant shall undertake restoration and mitigation measures such as regrading and/or the replanting of native vegetation. (h) The project shall be designed to provide appropriate human access to natural habitats and features and their associated buffer zones to provide for passive recreational uses such as hiking, fishing, photography, nature observation and environmental education consistent with the goals and objectives of the Natural Areas Policy Plan and the General Management Guidelines for City -Owned Natural Areas and Open Spaces, provided that such access is compatible with the ecological character and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature. The Natural Resources Department has addressed each of these performance criteria in the June 30, 2000 memo to the P&Z Board, and has indicated that the criteria have been satisfied satisfactorily to allow a reduction in the buffer zone from 50 feet to 20 feet. If the P&Z Board agrees with the Natural Resources Department and chooses to grant this exception to the buffer zone, a separate finding and vote must be conducted on the issue. Staff would like to offer the following finding and recommendation on this issue: FINDING: A. Staff finds that the canal in the vicinity of Promontory PDP has marginal value as a movement corridor or wildlife habitat area., B. Staff finds that the project as proposed meets the performance standards contained in Section. 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code to allow a reduction in the buffer zone width. RECOMMENDATION: A. Staff recommends approval of the reduction of the buffer zone required in section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code from 50 feet to 20 feet. 2. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 3.5.2(C)(1) - The staff report addresses a request to modify section 3.5.2(C)(1) of the LUC with regard to the proposed buildings "C" and "D." The staff report did not mention the applicants request to modify this same section of the code with regard to building "A," "B," and "F." City of Fort Collins CommL y Planning and Environmental Current Planning MEMORANDUM Date: July 6, 2000 To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Troy Jones RE: Promontory PDP "vices There are 2 more issues (not mentioned in the staff report) that have come up that will need to be voted on tonight with a separate motion from the PDP itself: 1. NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE -Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the LUC specifies that the decision maker (in this case the P&Z Board) may modify any portion of the required 50 foot wide natural habitat buffer zone distance provided that the following performance standards are satisfied: (a) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development. (b) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural features, both within and adjacent to the site. (c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees and other significant existing vegetation on the site. (d) The project shall be designed to protect from adverse impact species utilizing special habitat features such as key raptor habitat features, including nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or in the Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or NAPP; prairie dog colonies over fifty (50) acres in size as included on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified in the NAPP; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified in the NAPP; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothill ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetland greater than one -quarter (114) acre in size. (e) The project shall be designed so that the character of the proposed development in terms of use, density, traffic generation, quality of runoff water, noise, lighting and similar potential development impacts shall minimize the 28"1 North College Avenue • PC. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 area for a workplace setting, while providing an additional residential complex that will serve as a viable transitional use between the existing residential neighborhoods and the community/regional shopping corridor along South College Avenue. The residential complex will also provide additional housing opportunities for potential employees in the commercial, retail, and office uses adjacent to it. ability to lay out the residential portion of the project with all primary entrances to all 6 buildings being within 200' of a street sidewalk is not feasible nor practical, due to the existing configuration of the property. The applicant has designed the project to include an enhanced pedestrian walkway system adjacent to the private drives through the site that will provide for a good separation between pedestrians and vehicles. " The standard located in Section 3.6.6(G) - Parking Control of the LUC. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the proposed signage to designate "No Parking — Fire Lane" drives, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it will protect the public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. The applicant will provide sufficient signage to ensure that the required unobstructed fire lanes are maintained throughout the site. The Poudre Fire Authority has been appraised of the applicant's intent and has indicated that the fire lane markings can work as proposed. C. The PROMONTORY, PDP meets the standards as put forth in Division 4.22 - Employment District of the LUC, with the following exception: The standard located in Section 4.22(D)(2) - Secondary Uses of ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land uses and their contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it will protect the public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. The site is located on a minor arterial street (Boardwalk Drive) to the north and east, and is adjacent to single family residential uses to the east (High Pointe), multi -family residential to the south (the Somerset Apartments), the Post Office to the west, and offices to the north (the Landings Office Park). The proposed development will be an extension of the existing Landings Office Park, providing a 6 building complex containing approximately 38,000 square feet of leasable floor Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 18 C. The PROMONTORY, PDP meets the standards as put forth in Division 4.22 - Employment District of the LUC, with the following exception: the standard located in Section 4.22(D)(2) - Secondary Uses of ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land uses and their contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it will protect the public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. D. The PROMONTORY, PDP is compatible with the surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for the modification of the standard as set forth in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway of the LUC. Staff recommends approval of the request for the modification of the standard as set forth in Section 3.6.6(G) - Parking Control of the LUC. Staff recommends approval of the request for modification of the standard as set forth in Section 4.22(D)(2) - Secondary, Uses of the LUC. Staff recommends approval of the PROMONTORY, Project Development Plan - #32- 99. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 17 development will be an extension of the existing Landings Office Park, providing a 5 building complex containing approximately 38,000 square feet of leasable floor area for a workplace setting, while providing an additional residential complex that will serve as a viable transitional use between the existing residential neighborhoods and the community/regional shopping corridor along South College Avenue. The residential complex will also provide additional housing opportunities for potential employees in the commercial, retail, and office uses adjacent to it. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for a modification to the standards. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The PROMONTORY, PDP contains uses permitted in the E - Employment Zoning District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. The PROMONTORY, PDP meets the standards as put forth in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation, with the following exceptions: The standard located in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway of the LUC. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land uses and their contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to the property the strict application would result in exceptional practical difficulties upon the owner. The standard located in Section 3.6.6(G) - Parking Control of the LUC. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the proposed signage to designate "No Parking — Fire Lane" drives, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it will protect the public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 14 It is our strongest wish that the courtyard portion of the residential project be successful as an aesthetic pedestrian -friendly area integrating landscape, hardscape, and pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses. In addition to other design features, we feel it is imperative to not introduce ugly, white painted parking stall lines into this scored, colored concrete courtyard area and the environment we are creating. Zoning has approved alternative parking lot demarcation by means of three score lines. Also, we do not want red fire lane lines to be painted in either the residential courtyard of the office parking lot. They are unsightly and unnecessary. The fire lane route will be just as apparent with signage but without the red curbs. The fact that the fire lane is not for parking is also naturally apparent, because the fire lane -travel lane will be a straight - through route on black asphalt in contrast to scored concrete parking - courtyard areas (in the residential portion of the project). Accordingly, we respectfully request your approval to allow us to use variations in the parking lot scoring as our method for defining these parking stalls and using signage to designate fire lanes, as was recently permitted in our similar mixed office -residential project immediately to the north (Landings Bay). As previously stated in this Staff Report, and as set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC, modification requests may granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the proposed signage to designate "No Parking — Fire Lane" drives, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that it will protect the public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. The applicant will provide sufficient signage to ensure that the required unobstructed fire lanes are maintained throughout the site. The Poudre Fire Authority has been appraised of the applicant's intent and has indicated that the fire lane markings can work as- proposed. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 13 Build -to Line. Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(c) states that: Buildings shall be located no more than 15' from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking. The facades of the three proposed buildings directly adjacent and oriented to Boardwalk Drive are set back 10' to 15' from the right-of-way line of the street, which complies with the requirement of the LUC. C. Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation The proposal satisfies the Transportation,and Circulation standards, with the exception of Section 3.6.6(G) — Parking Control. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements and Section 3.6.5 - Transit Facilities Standards Pedestrian level of service to and from the Promontory project is acceptable. The bicycle facilities are present within the entire study area, with the project's on -site facilities connecting directly to Boardwalk Drive. There currently is transit service to the study area that is operating at an acceptable level of service. It is anticipated that this level of service will be maintained or improved in the future.. A copy of the Transportation Impact Study is attached to this staff report/recommendation. Section 3.6.6(G) — Parking Control This section of the LUC requires that approved "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs shall be provided along curbs where parking could obstruct the minimum width and turning radius. Curbs in these areas shall be painted red. The applicant has submitted a request for a modification to the standard as set forth in Section 3.6.6(G), stating that: Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 12 The site is a relatively long, triangular piece of ground located between a minor arterial street (Boardwalk Drive) to the north and east and the U.S. Post Office to the west. A major irrigation ditch and Troutman Parkway is to the south. The ability to lay out the residential portion of the project with all primary entrances to all 6 buildings being within 200' of a street sidewalk is not feasible nor practical, due to the existing configuration of the property. The applicant has designed the project to include an enhanced pedestrian walkway system adjacent to the private drives through the site that will provide for a good separation between pedestrians and vehicles. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for a modification to the standard. Setback from Arterial Streets. Section 3.5.2(D)(1) sets forth the requirement that any residential building be set back 30' from an arterial street right-of-way. The closest residential building to. Boardwalk Drive will be set back a minimum of 30' from the ultimate right-of-way, thereby complying with the requirement of the LUC. Section 3.5.3 - Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings The proposal satisfies the Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking standards, more specifically: Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Section 3.5.3(B)(2) states that: Build -to lines based 'ori a' consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall be established by development projects, in order to form visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. The building facades in this office use project have direct pedestrian connections to the proposed public sidewalk along Boardwalk Drive. The one building on the west side of the office portion of the development plan, adjacent to the Post Office, has a direct sidewalk connection between the entryway to the building and the sidewalk along the street without any vehicular use between the building face and the street. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 11 As set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC, modification requests may be granted if the Planning and Zoning Board determines that the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Chapter; and that: (A) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (B) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic congestion or urban blight), and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (C) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided th4t`such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the land uses and their contextual compatibility with the surrounding land uses, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and that by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to the property the strict application would result in exceptional practical difficulties upon the owner. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 10 a. Providing for a'community need for moderately priced housing. b. Providing housing immediately adjacent to offices in the project and nearby to many other workplaces. C. Providing internal pedestrian connectivity and permeability by means of the central park -courtyard design integrating landscape, hardscape, and pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses. d. Providing pedestrian connectivity to the street sidewalks along Board Drive, Landings Drive, and Troutman Parkway, which give access to parks and playgrounds to the south, to the Post Office, and to the retail and office uses to the north and west. e. Promoting excellence in design and construction of planned office parks, buildings, outdoor spaces, and streetscapes. Incorporating innovative architecture and planning concepts including: front and back roof step-down design; symbiotic relationship between small office and residential communities; central park -courtyard concept merging landscape, hardscape, and bicycle and vehicle uses; interesting building elevations; and, aesthetic building frontages. g. Providing sense of community and quality of life, which are inherent in and flow from the essential elements of the project: 1) Small office park community with buildings juxtaposed relative to parking and each other. 2) Small residential community comprised of five residential buildings and a carriage house surrounding a central park - courtyard which merges landscape, hardscape, and pedestrian and vehicle uses. 3) Symbiotic relationship between the two. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 9 b) Our proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and the purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard. c) The granting of the modification would result in substantially addressing important community needs. d) The extraordinary physical conditions and situation unique to the property would result in practical difficulty and undue hardship if the standard is strictly applied. The unusual, difficult shape of this existing lot makes compliance infeasible in the rear portion of the lot. Any development of this lot will have a big back yard area that cannot relate directly to a street. The rear portion of the site cannot effectively relate to Boardwalk Drive, being more than 200' away. Introducing a new street connecting to Troutman Parkway is not possible because of separate ownership of the parcel to the south of this project, which blocks access to that street. The "blocking parcel" contains a ditch that would require a bridge: Also, a street to the south would interfere with the required storm water detention pond location and design. An internal loop street was investigated but does not look good in terms of space consumed versus pedestrian connectivity gained, as well as having a new street intersection too close to Boardwalk Drive. The only way to meet the standard would be to set the entire building program up along Boardwalk Drive, either by stacking into taller elevator buildings or by eliminating any building program that is not along up Boardwalk Drive. The lack of connecting walkways to "back yard buildings" C & D is compensated by the detailing of the drive and parking areas to be as comfortable and generous for pedestrians as possible, while also accommodating vehicles. In summary, the front buildings relate fairly directly to the street, and the rear buildings need to be considered as non -ideal rear -yard dwellings accessed by an enhanced alley -like drive. Furthermore, our plan achieves the purposes and addresses community needs by: Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 8 Office Buildings The building facade will consist of a stucco wall siding (earth tones) with a brick base 3' high (from grade). " The roofs will be constructed of random cut fiberglass shingles. These materials comply with the standard in Section 3.5.1(F)(1), which states: Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood, or, dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. The materials on the residential buildings will be similar to and compatible with those used on existing residential buildings in the area, the Post Office, the Landings Office Park, and the Landings Bay office/residential project under construction. Section 3.5.2 - Residential Building Standards The proposal satisfies the Residential Building Setbacks standards, except for Section 3.5.2(C)(1): Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Section 3.5.2(C)(1) sets forth the requirement that every front faoade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with'no primary entrance more than 200' from a street sidewalk. The primary entrances to residential Buildings C & D are 240' to 250' from the proposed public sidewalk along Boardwalk Drive. The applicant has submitted a request for a modification to the standard as set forth in Section 3.5.2(C)(1), citing the following reasons: a) The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good or,impair the intent and purposes of the LUC. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 7 Required number of parking spaces. The development proposal satisfies the parking requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) and Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) of the LUC for the residential and office uses in this project. * There are 72 proposed parking spaces (54 spaces in the attached and detached garages and 18 spaces outside) on the residential portion of this development plan, or 1.50.spaces per dwelling unit. All 48 units are to contain 1 bedroom. The minimum parking space requirement for 1- bedroom units is 1.50 spaces per dwelling unit [Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)] or, in this case, 48 x 1.50 = 72 parking spaces. There are 73 proposed parking spaces in the office portion of this development plan. The plam limits the total commercial (office) building square footage to 37,804 square feet in the 5 buildings. The amount of proposed parking equals 1.92 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) sets forth maximum parking requirements for non-residential land uses. They range from 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet for general office uses to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for medical office uses. Staff finds that the parking to be provided in both the residential and office uses portions of this development is in compliance with the requirements of the LUC. B. Division 3.5 - Building Standards Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility The PROMONTORY, PDP satisfies all applicable Building and Project Compatibility standards, more specifically: Building materials. The proposed structures will consist of the following building materials: , .. Residential Flats and Garage * The building facade will consist of a horizontal wood lap siding (earth tones) with a synthetic stone base and accent shingled wall material. * The roofs will be constructed of high profile asphalt shingles. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 6 Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking The proposal satisfies the applicable Access, Circulation and Parking standards, including the following: Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking is provided on site that meets or exceeds the required number of bicycle parking spaces, as well as the location, as defined in the following standard [Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a)]: A minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, equal in number to at least five (5) percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces provided by the development, but not less than one. Each of the 48 townhouse -flat dwelling units in the residential portion of the development will have an enclosed garage, either attached or detached, that will provide secure, inside bicycle parking for each unit. In the office use portion of the development there will be four bicycle,racks, each to accommodate approximately 10 bicycles, located near the entryways of the 5 buildings. This represents 54% of the total of 73 automobile parking spaces on the office use site. Directness and Continuity of Walkways. The development proposal satisfies the requirement in the LUC [Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a)] that walkways within the site be located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination. The walkway system in this development, for both the residential and office use portions, provides direct connections between and to building entries and to the public sidewalk system in the area. Street Crossings. This development plan provides for accentuated drive aisle and internal roadway crossings for pedestrians, in the form of scored, tinted concrete crosswalks in these locations, thereby satisfying the requirement as set forth in Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) of the LUC. Setbacks. Section 3.2.2(J) sets forth the requirement that the parking area as proposed along the west property line be set back a minimum of 5', with landscaping included in this setback. This tier of parking is set back 16' from the property line and landscaping meeting the requirements of the LUC is included in this setback. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 5 The second standard referenced (Section 3.2. 1 (E)(4)(b)] states that: Parking lots with 6 or more spaces shall be screened from adjacent uses and from the street. Screening from the street and all non-residential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of 30". Such screening shall extend a minimum of 70% of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also 70% of the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any non-residential use. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within 3 years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened. The screening for a portion of the west property line, adjacent to the one parking area, consists of deciduous shrubs that will provide screening at a height and massing to exceed the minimum 70% opacity requirement. The third standard referenced [Section 3.2.1(E)(5)] states that: Six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than 100 spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with 100 spaces or more shall be landscape areas. This development proposal meets the standard for Parking Lot Interior Landscaping, providing in excess of 6% interior landscaping in the 73 space parking area in the office use portion and several small areas, containing a total of 15 spaces, in the residential portion of the development. Screening. The proposal complies with the standard relating to the screening [Section 3.2.1(E)(6)] of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements (such as trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks, and blank walls) from off -site view. The trash enclosures in the residential portion of the development will be located internal to the site and placed between buildings. They will be constructed of materials to match the buildings and screened with plant materials. The trash enclosures in the office use portion of the development will be located in the landscaped islands in the parking area, internal to the site. They will be constructed of materials to match the buildings and screened with plant materials. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation. Further discussions of these particular standards follow. A. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection The proposal satisfies the applicable Landscaping and Tree Protection standards, including the following: Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of- way in connection with the development. Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees shall be planted at 35' to 40' spacing in the center of all such parkway areas [Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a)]. There will be shade trees spaced at 40' on -center in the 14' wide parkway between curb and 6' wide detached sidewalk along Boardwalk Drive, in accordance with the standard. Parking lot landscaping - perimeter and interior. Parking lot landscaping for this project is in accordance with the standards, including those related to Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping [Sections 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and (b)] and Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [Section 3.2.1(E)(5)]. The first standard referenced [Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a)] states that: Trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1 tree per 25 lineal feet along a public street and 1 tree per 40 lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. Trees may be spaced irregularly in informal groupings or be uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting patterns and organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in and should be integrated with the streetscape in the street right-of-way. There is one parking area, approximately 160' in length containing 30+ parking spaces, in the office use portion of the development that is adjacent to the Post Office parking lot. This area is set back 16' from the side property line (exceeding the minimum requirement of 5') and contains a sidewalk and shade trees spaced at 40' along the parking lot. Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RL; existing single family residential (High Pointe PUD) S: HC; existing commercial uses W: E; existing United States Post Office E: RL; existing single family residential (High Pointe PUD) This property was annexed into the City as part of the South College Properties Annexation in December, 1979. 2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION Section 2.2.2 - Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings The PROMONTORY, PDP contains proposed land uses that are permitted both as Type I uses (offices), subject to administrative review, and Type II uses (multi -family residential), subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. This type of development review does require that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to submittal of the project, and a meeting was held on September 9, 1999 at the offices of New Horizon Travel, 300 East Boardwalk Drive. There were 4 neighbors present at this meeting, as well as the developer and a representative. of the City's Current Planning staff. Primary concerns expressed at this neighborhood meeting centered around additional traffic that could potentially impact the streets in their neighborhood. There is too much traffic already and delays at intersections already exist. The intersection on Boardwalk Drive for the Post Office is a real problem. A copy of the minutes from the neighborhood meeting is attached to this staff report. 3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This PROMONTORY, PDP proposal meets the standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the LUC, except for the standards located in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway, and Section 3.6.6(G) - Parking Control. Of specific note are Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Promontory, Project Development Plan, #32-99 July 6, 2000 P & Z Meeting Page 2 the standards located in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway, and Section 3.6.6(G) - Parking Control. Requests for a modification of each of these standards, in accordance with Modification of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) in the LUC, have been submitted for consideration. * and the district standards located in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STANDARDS of the LUC (Division 4.22 E --Employment Zoning District), with the following exception: the standard located in Section 4.22(D)(2) - Secondary Uses. A request for a modification of this standard, in accordance with Modification of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) in the LUC, has been submitted for consideration. Offices and multi -family dwellings are permitted in the E - Employment Zoning District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review due to the inclusion of multi- family residential in the proposed development. The purpose of the E District is: To provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. This proposal complies with the purpose of the E District as it provides a mix of office and multi -family residential (at 17.5 gross dwelling units/acre) uses in multiple buildings located in a transition area between existing commercial/retail along South College Avenue and existing single family and multi -family residential along Boardwalk Drive. ITEM NO. 5 MEETING DATE 7-6-00 STAFF Steve Olt City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: PROMONTORY, Project Development Plan - #32-99 (Type II, Planning and Zoning Board Review in the Land Use Code) APPLICANT: Lagunitas Park Place, Inc. c/o Jon Prouty, President 3307 South College Avenue, #200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNERS: The City of Fort Collins. 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for a mixed -use development containing office and multi -family residential uses. The property is located on the southwest side of Boardwalk Drive, east of the Post Office, and north of Troutman Parkway. The applicant proposes to develop 48 1-bedroom residential flats (in 6 buildings) and a total of 37,804 square feet of leasable floor area for office uses (in 5 buildings) on a site that is 5.08 acres in size. The property is in the E - Employment Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code LUVC , more specifically: the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, with the following exceptions: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT