The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOPPERLEAF (FORMERLY 3425 SOUTH SHIELDS) - PDP - PDP160026 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSMEDIUM DENSITY MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN) Purpose: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. r1 ivpical Medium Deny rty A -tired -Use i�leigl'd�nr;°;o�;d Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1 - Density Housing in new Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. The minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be seven (7) dwelling units per acre. Policy LIV 29.2- Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood -serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods may include the following: Principal uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots (Lnder 6,000 square feet), duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live -work units, and multi- family housing. Supporting uses: Non -retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks and recreation facilities; schools; small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed -and -breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units stacked above retail or office space; and live -work units. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. Policy LIV 29.3 - Neighborhood or Community Commercial District Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed - Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street. Policy LIV 29.4 - Mix of Housing Types Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood's transitional, higher -activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate low- and medium -cost housing with higher -cost housing and non-residential uses. Policy LIV 29.5 - Transitions Encourage non-residential uses and larger buildings of attached and multiple -family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods. 80 CITY PLAN FA M& � -.. , A- . A6 cUiLDINC3 5'WALK RETAINING PERGOLA DRAINAGE WFOOT EXISTING WALL CHANNEL PRIVACY RESIDENCE FENCE _ 40' FROM BUILDING +I- 15' FROM -- Tn P nPPP ] I INg PIiflGFRTV I INF 0 11 I I Attachment 14 36. How much new traffic is expected for this project? A. Our traffic study based on the number of proposed units is that there would be an estimated 600 new trips generated by these apartments. Approximately 10%, 60, would be entering the roadways during the peak times. 37. We have another congestion problem during peak time — northbound Shields traffic that wants to turn left (west) onto Richmond does not have enough stacking capability. Left turn vehicles then que back and block the inside northbound through lane. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of this condition. Our observations are that this only occurs during peak time. Please note that it is not feasible to lengthen this turn lane due to the volume of northbound traffic on Shields during peak. 38. What can be done about the congestion during peak times? I see lots of near - misses. The congestion needs to be addressed. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Congestion during peak times is an issue on a city-wide basis. Every year the City widens various intersections to include new auxiliary turn lanes. For example, as we speak, right turn lanes are being installed on both north and southbound Shields at the Drake intersection. We advise that if possible, avoid travel during peak times or find an alternative route that you may find to be less stressful. `i Attachment 14 29. For the building facing north, how many units will face north? A. As noted, this building will feature two stories on the ends and three stories in the middle. With one unit per floor, there will be seven units facing north (two on each end and three in the middle). 30. We live on the north and our stormwater flows south. And, our backyard fence is in really bad shape. Would you consider building us a new fence? A. We may consider a fence such as a typical six foot solid wood that you see in most neighborhoods but I can't commit tonight. 31.Will you be raising the grade of the site? A. We are not in the floodplain and we are not planning on basements so the only grade work will be to raise the first floor one to two feet to achieve positive drainage away from the foundation. 32. Will the developer be required to build a southbound right turn lane on Shields? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: No, a southbound right -turn lane will not be needed. 33.1 live in Kingston Woods. With the City not willing to install a signal at Shields and Richmond, from what I gather, if we want to go north on Shields, we are being encouraged to take our local streets to Horsetooth and then turn east to the Shields / Horsetooth intersection in order to then turn north. Is that correct? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Yes, that's correct. This is because there is considerably less volume on Horsetooth (west of Shields) than on Shields (north of Horsetooth). Also, as you know, Kingston Woods is also served by Seneca Street which provides access north to Casa Grande which takes you to the existing signalized intersection with Shields. These are the two ways to go north on Shields during peak times. 34. Having said that, we need more green time for Casa Grande. 35. Does the City have crash data that includes when R.M.H.S. is in session? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Yes, we have crash data on a year-round basis for Shields and Horsetooth. Our goal is to have an overall traffic system that benefits the entire City based on traffic volumes. For this reason, we must prioritize the through traffic using Shields as a north -south arterial street by giving this traffic flow more green time than Casa Grande. We can make some slight adjustments to the green phase for Casa Grande but we must do some analysis first before committing to a solution. 0 Attachment 14 A. At this time, we estimate about 620 square feet (plus or minus). 21. Is there a demand for student -oriented housing this far south? A. As noted, we are not targeting CSU college students. 22. What do you mean about the lack of a construction defects law? A. In the last several years, there has been an unusually high number of class action lawsuits statewide brought by condo ownership governing boards against builders and developers of condo buildings. Consequently, insurance companies have raised their rates for condo projects to a level that is cost -prohibitive. The state legislature has tried to address this issue in the past two years with no result. Consequently, several Denver Metro communities have passed their own construction defects law but Fort Collins has not. The issue is acute as the percentage of condo construction on a statewide basis has dropped significantly. Our company will not construct a condo project until this problem has been addressed. 23.What are your lease rates? A. At this time, we estimate that a one -bedroom will be $950 and a two -bedroom will be $1,150 per month. 24. Will the north -facing units on the north building include balconies? A. We plan on some units, but not all, having balconies. As to the north elevation of the north building, we don't exactly know yet. 25. How high are the floor levels of the second and third floor? A. The second floor will be about 12' — 14' feet and the third floor will be about 18' — 20' feet above grade. 26_ Will you keep the existing cottonwoods? A. We will try to keep the healthy ones. 27.On what side of the building are the entrances? A. All buildings will feature two breezeways that run the entire width of the building. This allows access from both sides. In reality, the side facing the parking lot will likely be the most heavily used. 28. I'm concerned about privacy. I like to keep our windows open in the summer and now I'll have to close them. 5 Attachment 14 rent units within this particular project. Such families will be pre -disposed to finding an alternative project in which to rent an apartment. 14. What is the distance of Building One from the north property line? A. Approximately 25 to 30 feet. 15. We live to the north and have been in our house for 17 years. The lots along your north property line are small with small backyards. It seems intrusive to put a three story building in such close proximity to our houses. I'm concerned about privacy and your tenant looking down on us. It concerns me that as we enjoy our backyards, we will be disturbed by your tenants. A. We understand your concerns. Please note that the building in question will only be three stories in the middle. The east end will be reduced to two -stories to match the houses. As mentioned, we will try to keep as many existing mature trees as possible to help with privacy concerns. 16.Our neighborhood already bears the brunt of traffic associated with Rocky Mountain High School. In addition, the Fort Collins Housing Authority is proposing a new multi -family development on West Horsetooth Road just west of Kingston Woods near Seneca Street. The traffic is already heavily congested and this project (and others) will just make it worse and will change our way of life. We need a new traffic signal at Shields and Richmond. And, you need to know that in order to get out of our neighborhood to go north, the signal timing at Shields and Casa Grande is such that we have to wait at least two minutes to get the green light. This proposal has me very concerned. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Since the intersection of Shields and Richmond is so close to the intersection of Shields and Horsetooth, the City will not install a new signal at Richmond. Such a signal would totally disrupt the north -south traffic flow on Shields which carries far more volume than Richmond. An alternative to using Shields / Richmond would be to take Richmond to Horsetooth. 17.1 would like to see a project that is age -restricted to those 55 and older. 18.1 would prefer that the project be constructed for owners, not renters. 19.Are three story buildings permitted by zoning? A. Yes, the site is Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (M-M- N) which permits three story buildings. 20. What would be the square footage of the one -bedroom apartment? 4 Attachment 14 storm flows are held back until the storm subsides and then the water released slowly over a period of time so as to not cause any downstream flooding. All sites that are redeveloped in such a way as to increase the amount of impervious surface (parking lots, drives, rooftops, etc.) are required to construct stormwater detention ponds with controlled release rates. Ponds are typically sized to accommodate the 100-year storm and then release the water at rate that does not exceed the pre -development historic release rate. The stormwater system is reviewed by the City's Stormwater Utility. 8. Can the pond be placed anywhere? I see an open space benefit to the pond be strategically placed to help buffer the existing houses. A. No, the pond must be located at the low spot where the water naturally flows. Otherwise, you can't get the water to drain downstream. 9. 1 would like to see families accommodated so the project is attractive to more than just college students. If you provide an active playground, perhaps you would attract families with children. A. Our target tenant is not college students. We have constructed student -oriented apartments near campus and such buildings require a much different design. These apartments are designed for young professionals and others who are post college. 10. 1 live along the north property line and would encourage you to put as much open space, and an active playground, along the north. 11. In contrast to the previous comment, I also live along the north and would prefer that you not put an active playground along the north. I prefer a solid fence. 12. Have you considered building condos versus apartments? Across Shields are condos called Five Oaks Village. Your project would be more compatible if they were for owners, not renters. A. We have indeed considered condos but the timing is not right. We are constrained by first time buyers being required to have larger down payments relative to their incomes. We are constrained by the lack of a construction defects law which helps mitigate the trend in class action lawsuits being filed against developers of condominiums. We see the for -rent market as being the most viable at this time. 13.1 see a lot of asphalt and parking lots. You have provided no place for kids to play. I would like to repeat that you need a playground for children. A. Thank you for your comment. Our marketing research indicates that we will likely not have a significant number of families with young active children choosing to 3 Attachment 14 Questions, Comments, Concerns 1. Would bikes be able to go south to the convenience center via Richmond? A. Yes, there is connecting driveway that provides direct access from our site south to Richmond Drive. 2. We live north of the site and there are existing mature trees that help block the traffic noise from Shields. Will these trees remain? A. We are aware of the existing trees. Our intent is to save the healthy trees along the property lines that will not conflict with the proposed buildings. 3. I'm concerned about providing an excessive amount of landscaping that will require heavy irrigation. As a community located in a semi -arid environment, we need to be sustainable and not waste water unnecessarily. A. We intend to plant only those types of trees and shrubs that have proven to be suited to our local climate. By using drip irrigation, we think we will be using water wisely and yet still be able to establish a proper level of landscaping that we have all come to expect from new development and to comply with the Land Use Code requirements. 4. I'm not seeing a lot of open space. Will you be providing a play area for children? A. We intend to provide an area for grilling and dog -walking but no playground equipment. 5. Will you be installing an earthen berm along Shields? A. No, we are not planning on a berm. Instead, per the City requirements, we will be installing street trees in the parkway (area between the curb and sidewalk). 6. Will you be removing the existing house and outbuildings? A. Yes. We have already received permission to remove these buildings by the Historic Preservation staff as these buildings have no historic significance. 7. What do you mean by "detention area?" A. A stormwater detention pond refers to the low spot on the site where stormwater runoff will be directed. This pond will store the rainwater temporarily, or detained, not permanently in which case the water would be retained. These detained 2 Attachment 14 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 3425 South Shields Multi -Family LOCATION: 3425 South Shields DATE: July 20, 2016 APPLICANT: Mr. Scott Ranweiler, Brinkman Partners CONSULTANTS: Jim Doyle, TB Group Chad Arthur, Infusion Architecture Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer Project Description The project consists of developing a parcel of land that is currently being used for outside storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, R.Ws, etc. at 3425 South Shields Street. As proposed, the project consists of 94 apartments divided among three buildings on approximately 2.89 acres. The number of parking spaces at this time is estimated to be 151. The parcel currently contains an existing house and outbuildings all of which would be removed. The easterly building would be three stories. The westerly two buildings would be a combination of two and three stories. Access would be gained from Shields Street and Richmond Drive. The parcel is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. 1 ALSO FOUND #5 REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP, LS 32444 N7724'26"E 0.40' FROM LOTI, BLOCK2 ACCEPTED CORNER POSITION CHAPARRAL PUD TRACTB CHAPARRAL PUD 5.05' w F �I'D S64 4529 F L20 L25 IO YOH pl O JaZ I� 3 m�w in a �jw col w, I O to coW CD' °pI la o avi� acnZ al a0Of IN O Q O ZI T P Z i 00 2� m LOT2, BLOCK2 CHAPARRAL PUD S Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned owner(s) of the following described land: 8y._ A parcel of land being part of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of Section Twenty—seven (27), (no Township Seven North (T.7N.), Range Sixty—nine West (R.69W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City of Fort Collins, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described NOTAR as follows: STATE COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of said Section 24 and assuming the East line of said SE1/4 as bearing North 00'11'18" West, as monumented as shown on this plat, being a Grid Bearing of the COUNT Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2653.32 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto; fo THENCE North 00'11'18" West along the East line of said SE1/4 a distance of 663.23 feet; of THENCE North 89'55'34" West a distance of 30.00 feet to a line parallel with and 30.00 feet Westerly of, as measured at a right angle to the East line of said SE1/4 and to the POINT OF BEGINNING; My car THENCE North 89'55'34" West a distance of 504.63 feet; Witness THENCE North 00'11'18" West a distance of 257.86 feet; THENCE South 89'55'34" East a distance of 504.63 feet to a line parallel with and 30.00 feet Westerly of, as measured at a right angle to the East line of said SE1/4; THENCE South 00'11'18" East along said parallel line a distance of 257.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. . . . (which above described tract contains 2.987 acres, more or less) for themselves and their successors in interest BCS, LLC have caused the above described land to be surveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as 3425 SOUTH SHIELDS SUBDIVISION, subject to all easements and riqhts—of—way now of record or existinq 12 8'-4" a.f.f. Truss Bearing 0'-0" a.f.f. IT First Floor Elevation Garage door Typ. j IIIIIII Iw, 1 Attachment 9 Would you please provide me with a link or a description of the status of this project? I tried to use the development status database but got no results searching on the project name "3525 South Shields ...." which was the proposal's name on your July 6 document informing residents in the affected area about a neighborhood meeting. Again, my concerns for this project: 1. Three floor apartments would need to be configured in a way that did not infringe on existing single family home privacy. 2. Every effort should be taken to encourage residents to utilize mass transit and active modes of transportation to reduce the impact of increased motor traffic noise in our neighborhood. This needs to involve pro -active marketing (not reactive) of Transfort services, as well as increased level of service for routes 12 and 19 which service the Shields and Horsetooth corridors. Residents adjacent to this project are justifiably concerned about the impact of yet another 100 unit housing development in our neighborhood (Village on Horsetooth is another project under review in the same neighborhood). We are concerned about the likely deterioration of our property values by poorly developed projects. Thank you for your consideration. Frank Schwende 3314 Sharps Court 2 Attachment 9 Ted Shepard From: Sarah Burnett Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 4:37 PM To: 'Frank and Kathy Schwende' Cc: Ted Shepard Subject: RE: Project Status for: 3525 South Shields Street Multi -Family Res. Dev. Mr. Schwende, Thank you for providing your feedback regarding the proposal for a multi -family development near your home. I'm including Ted Shepard, Chief City Planner, who is coordinating review of the proposal in case he has additional information for you, and so that he is aware of your comments. When the applicant submitted their application, they used the name "Copper Leaf'. The site is located at 3425 South Shields Street. The applicant formally submitted their initial set of proposed plans on August 25, 2016, and staff provided comments after reviewing the plans. The applicant then submitted a revised set of proposed plans for staff review. Staff provided comments back to the applicant for the revised set of plans in mid -September. The applicant will need to submit a third set of plans for staff review; these have not been received yet. The documents submitted in the first two rounds of review are available at http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?vid=185&cmd=search&scope=doctype&dt=SUBMITTAL+DOCUMENTS&dn=Current+Planning &q=PDP160026. The final seven documents are from the second submittal; the rest are from the first submittal. Additional information regarding the project is available by using the search tool at http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals/ , and entering "Copper Leaf' or "3425" or" 160026". Thanks, Sarah Sarah Burnett City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Development Review Liaison 970-224-6076 sburnett[cXcgov.com Your neighbors are connecting online. Have you joined NextDoor yet? -----Original Message ----- From: Frank and Kathy Schwende (mailto:wttyy2010@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:40 PM To: Sarah Burnett Subject: Project Status for: 3525 South Shields Street Multi -Family Res, Dev. Dear Ms Burnett, Attachment 8 - Denotes Lane Site Access ` f f ` II T V1 y N C N O (.52 Q y w � j d m c a� � m � U a) L N (/7 E E 0 U Cunningham Richmond A& N SHORT RANGE (2021) GEOMETRY Figure 10 —/I_LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 —7,f [—ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 TABLE 3 Short Range (2021) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of ServiceAM PM Shields/Richmond (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT F F WB LT/T/RT F F NB LT B C SB LT B B OVERALL A B Shields/Cunningham (stop sign) WB LT/RT C DSB LT B B OVERALL A A Richmond/Commercial Center- Grease Monkey (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A OVERALL A A TABLE 4 Short Range (2021) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Richmond (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT F F WB LT/T/RT F F NB LT B C SB LT B B OVERALL A D Shields/Cunningham (stop sign) WB LT/RT C DSB LT B B OVERALL A A Richmond/Commercial Center- Site Access (Grease Monkey) (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LTlf/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A OVERALL A A Shields/Site Access (RT-in/RT-out) RT B C OVERALL A A —/I t—DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 [—ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 AM/PM I N Y O Q d d N « Cp � d 0 2/3 f 20/20 11/11 M 4 CM N fD o rn +u N Co 04 N O N JN 1� CO / 1 ON Cunningham r ,/Richmond 0/1 f 13/17 t 26/30 N I o 0/0 — 0 u.) 1/1 O N 27/32 z o, y cM V N � m � N L E E 0 U SHORT RANGE (2021) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N Figure 8 --// L—DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Attachment 13 • AM/PM 20/20 11/11 I" I Q t N *- C (CDM O ti M Cunningham 0!1 1 1 � r 13/17 / Richmond 26/30 NI h 0/0 �I h h 1/1 O N 27/32 z� �•- chi co 0 d M M C oU � 2 C L a L (n m SHORT RANGE (2021) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 --/I L—DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 �— AM/PM Site Access 5/23 1/4 N Y C U lU U E E 0 U SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Go Cunningham 0 co c0 Jv 14/8 t 0 c0 co I Richmond 16/10 � _ll 6/4 c14 N Figure 7 —// L—DELICH —7,1 [—ASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment 8 0 O c SITE 9ha� Richmond v d L 10% WIN 30% Horsetooth 0- 0 O N SCALE: 1 "=400' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 -// LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 - ,1 f=ASSOCIATES Attachment S TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Richmond (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT E F WB LT/T/RT E E NB LT B B SB LT B B OVERALL A A Shields/Cunningham (stop sign) WB LT/RT C C SB LT B B OVERALL A A TABLE 2 Trip Generation for the Shields Apartments Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate t Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartment 94 D.U. EQ 694 EQ t0 EQ f4uO EQ 45 EQ 24 —/,/ t---DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -7i rASSOCIATES Attachment tt Cunningham 00 N N Cf)00 N 24/17 IN rn c i �— 0/1 J � � 10/1 Richmond 13/17 0/0 —� 27/32 N LO N 04 N (n T N t En --wAM/PM N RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FACTORED TO REFLECT A SCHOOL TIME CONDITION Figure 5 ---// L—DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -71 rASSOCIATES Attachment M ti n LO ` N 12/10 N Co O N N r cM CM M N Co � 24/17 -4 0) m 0/1 10/1 13/17 t r 0/0 rn an 27/32 00 00 v d L --a*- AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Cunningham Richmond N Figure 4 -JI f DELICH -71 rASSOCIATES Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 Attachment tt I — Cunningham Richmond W L - Denotes Lane EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY N Figure 3 _--/I I--DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -7,f [—ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 . uv r• .wu — ��—ru J I I I—n 17 Site N SCALE: 1 "=100' III I � M. Mft Quo. 'B!�■�!!I�i a 6 In L Cn SITE PLAN Figure 2 _--// I DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 —7,1 [—ASSOCIATES M. Mft Quo. 'B!�■�!!I�i a 6 In L Cn SITE PLAN Figure 2 _--// I DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 —7,1 [—ASSOCIATES Attachment tt Shields Apartments 3 0 net Richmond Horsetooth `T c a� co y d L SCALE: 1 "=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 -/I I DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -71 [-ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 Pedestrian Level of Service The Shields Apartments site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Shields Apartments site. The Shields Apartments site is located within an area termed as "all other areas," which sets the pedestrian level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories. There are six destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Shields Apartments: 1) the commercial area to the south of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site, 3) the residential neighborhood to the north and northwest of the site, 4) the residential neighborhood to the east of the site, 5) the commercial area to the southeast of the site, and 6) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Destination area 6 (Skyline Acres) was developed in Larimer County. It is a large lot residential area, whose residents choose not to have sidewalks along Richmond Drive. The continuity measure would be achieved when sidewalks are built in this area. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are no destination areas within 1320 feet of the Shields Apartments site. However, Rocky Mountain High School is approximately 0.5 miles from this site. There are bike lanes on Shields Street, which conveniently connect this site to that school. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 19 along Shields Street and Route 12 along Horsetooth Road. Routes 12 and 19 operate with 30 minute headways in the morning peak (z7am to 10am) and in the afternoon peak (z2:30pm to 5:30pm). The headways are 60 minutes during midday and evenings. The transit service is acceptable. There is a bus stop near the Shields/Richmond intersection for Route 19 and a bus stop near the Shields/Horsetooth intersection for Route 12. These bus stops are accessible via the existing and future sidewalks. Conclusions It is concluded that the Shields/Richmond, Shields/Site Access, Shields/ Cunningham, and Richmond/Commercial Center -Site Access (Grease Monkey) intersections will operate acceptably with recommended geometry and control. No further transportation analyses are required at this time. —// LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -7,1 [-ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 Trip Generation/Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment These apartments will be marketed to the general public. They are not intended for specific client types (students, elderly, etc.). Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation for the Shields Apartments. From this reference, the equations for Apartment (Code 220) were used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 2. The trip generation resulted in 694 daily trip ends, 50 morning peak hour trip ends, and 69 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip distribution for the Shields Apartments is shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows the site generated peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Background/Total Traffic Projections Background traffic projections for the short range (2021) future horizon were obtained by factoring the Figure 5 traffic volumes on Shields Street by two percent per year. Figure 8 shows the short range (2021) background peak hour traffic at the Shields/Richmond, Shields/Cunningham, and Richmond/Commercial Center -Grease Monkey intersections. The volumes at the Richmond/Commercial Center -Grease Monkey intersection were synthesized based upon the various land uses that access Richmond Drive. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed Shields Apartments were added to the background traffic volumes to produce the total traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2021) future. Figure 9 shows the short range (2021) total peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Operation Analysis Table 3 shows the short range (2021) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections. The Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. Table 4 shows the short range (2021) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Shields/Richmond, Shields/Site Access, Shields/Cunningham, and Richmond/Commercial Center -Site Access (Grease Monkey) intersections. The key intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. Geometry Figure 10 shows a schematic of the short range (2021) geometry. According to Figure 8-4, LCUASS, a right -turn deceleration lane is not required at the Shields/Richmond intersection or the Shields/Site Access intersection. --/y LDELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Attachment tt median lane. At the Shields/Richmond intersection, Richmond Street has all eastbound and westbound movements combined into single lanes. The posted speed limit in this area of Richmond Street is 25 mph. Richmond Drive is approximately 47 feet wide, with parking. The Richmond Drive approaches at Shields Street can allow right -turning vehicles to bypass left -turning vehicles, depending upon the location of the left -turning vehicle. Existing Traffic/Operation Recent peak hour traffic counts at the Shields/Richmond and Shields/ Cunningham intersections are shown in Figure 4. Traffic counts at the key intersections were obtained in July 2016. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Since the traffic counts in Figure 4 were obtained during the summer, the traffic volumes on Shields Street were factored to reflect a school time condition and are shown in Figure 5. Historic traffic counts at the Shields/Horsetooth and Shields/Casa Grande intersections were used to develop the factors used to adjust the traffic on Shields Street. Using the volumes shown in Figure 5, the current peak hour operation at the Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The Shields/ Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection techniques from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM). A description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) is also provided in Appendix C. This site is in an area termed "low density mixed -use" on the Fort Collins Structure Plan. At unsignalized intersections in areas termed "low density mixed -use, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service D overall and level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/collector, arterial/local, collector/local, and local/local intersection. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. As can be seen in Table 1, the Shields/Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry. Accidents Accident data was obtained from the City of Fort Collins for the Shields/ Richmond intersection for a five year, eight month period (6/3/10 to 2/3/16). At the Shields/Richmond intersection, there were 25 reported accidents: nine rear -end accidents, ten accidents involving turning vehicles, three right-angle accidents (one accident involved a bicycle being struck by a vehicle), two side -swipe accidents, and one accident involving a vehicle striking a fixed object (DUI involved). The number and type of accidents at the Shields/Richmond intersection are typical for these volumes and this traffic control. This intersection is not considered to be a "high" accident location. —/I t--DELICH Shields Apartments TIS, August 2016 -7,1 [—ASSOCIATES Attachment 8 DELICH ASSOViATES Traffic& Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax. (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Ranweiler, Brinkman Partners V- Cathy Mathis, TB Group Nicole Hahn, City of Fort Collins ' '< ® 01 FROM: Matt Delich �tb DATE: August 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Shields Apartments Transportation Impact Study (File: 1661 ME01) This memorandum constitutes a transportation impact study for the Shields Apartments. The Shields Apartments site is located west of Shields Street and north of Richmond Drive, and is shown in Figure 1. The current site plan for the Shields Apartments is shown in Figure 2. The Shields Apartments is proposed as 94 apartment dwelling units. Access to the Shields Apartments site will be via a right-in/right-out access to/from Shields Street, approximately 350 feet north of Richmond Drive and to/from Richmond Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Shields Street. The scope of this memorandum was discussed with Nicole Hahn, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations. Since the trip generation is expected to be low, a memorandum analyzing impacts was requested. A base assumptions form and related information is provided in Appendix A. Existing Streets Shields Street is to the east of (adjacent to) the proposed Shields Apartments site. It is a north -south street classified as a four -lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Shields Street has a four -lane cross section adjacent to the Shields Apartments site. The existing geometry at the Shields/ Richmond and Shields/Cunningham intersections is shown in Figure 3. There is a raised median in Shields Street, between Richmond Drive and Cunningham Drive. At the Shields/Richmond intersection, Shields Street has northbound and southbound left - turn lanes and two through lanes in each direction. The Shields/Richmond intersection has stop sign control on Richmond Drive. At the Shields/Cunningham intersection, Shields Street has a southbound left -turn lane and two through lanes in each direction. The Shields/Cunningham intersection has stop sign control on Cunningham Drive. The posted speed limit in this area of Shields Street is 40 mph. There are bike lanes along Shields Street. Richmond Drive is to the south of the proposed Shields Apartments site. It is an east -west street classified as a collector street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Richmond Drive has a two-lane cross section with no center Attachment 7 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN) purpose: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate -intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. A typical Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1- Density Housing in new Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas. The minimum density for parcels 20 acres or less will be seven (7) dwelling units per acre. 80 Policy LIV 29.2 - Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood -serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods may include the following: • pn'nclpa/uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots ('under 6,000 square feet), duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live -work units, and multi- family housing. • SupporUng uses: Non -retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks and recreation facilities; schools, small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed -and -breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units stacked above retail or office space, and live -work units. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. Policy LIV 29.3 - Neighborhood or Community Commercial District Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed - Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street. Policy LIV 29.4 - Mix of Housing Types Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood's transitional, higher -activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate low- and medium -cost housing with higher -cost housing and non-residential uses. Policy LIV 29.5 - Transitions Encourage non-residential uses and . larger buildings of attached and multiple -family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods. CITY PLAN EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN I �l 7 PLAZA WITH PATIO / ! TABLES & BBQ GRILLS RETAINING / ///'�� PERGOLA WITH RETAINING WALL WALL / BENCHES _.._.. p....._.. ....._ ,.,...�_ _ 11 BIKES 0 N 63.6' O Y C Q LU LU c u> 169.4' C � GARAGE 3 O c 13.0' c c c O 6' SIDEWALK 0 ri 10.6' 17.0' 0 N �I �r DECIDUOUS \ DECIDUOUS 27" Caliper 27" Caliper Mitigation Required: 1.5 Mitigation Required: 0 REMOVE DEAD DECIDUOUS 25" Caliper Mitigation Required:3 REMOVE DECIDUOUS 26.5" Caliper Mitigation Required: 1.5 REMOVE DECIDUOUS 38" Caliper Mitigation Required: 2.5 REMOVE #13 Ulmus oumila DECIDUOUS 18" Caliper Mitigation Required: 0 RETAIN #19 Populus deltoide \ I DECIDUOUS GARAGE 35" Caliper 6 Foot Privacy Fence 4 X 6 CEDAR POST, TYP. 1 X 6 CEDAR TOP AND BOTTOM TRIM TYP. 1 X 6 CEDAR PICKETS W/1/8" GAP BETWEEN BOARD, TYPICAL STONE COLUMN W/ FAUX STONE TO ° _ ,- MATCH BUILDING T-6" MAX FRONT (OUTSIDE) 2" MAXIMUM BETWEEN FENCE ELEVATION POST AND COLUMN, TYP. Dog Park Fence REAR (INSIDE) ELEVATION 2"x2"IPE KEY FOB 3" x 5" ONE WAY GATE HINGE. WOOD SLATS ACCESS CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SPACED 4" ON READER- SHOP DRAWINGS TO BE CENTER HID MINI APPROVED BY OWNER OR PROX OWNERS REP READER 4 X 6 CEDAR POST, TYP. 2 X 6 PRESSURE TREATED TOP AND B01 SUPPORT TYP. SCREWED INTO CEDAR F TYP. 2 X 4 PRESSURE TREATED CENTER SUP 1 X 6 CEDAR PICKETS W/1/8" GAP BETWEEN BOARD, TYPICAL 4" x 4" WOOD POST NOTES: 1. POST SIZE DEPENDS ON FENCE HEIGHT AND WIND LOADS. SEE MANUFACTURER POST S171Nr. CHART TRANSFORMER TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE Attachment 4 The granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified and the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose 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 for the following reasons: Although the project technically does not have 10,000 square feet of highly visible park space formed by streets, the plan achieves the following: - An outdoor plaza containing a pergola with picnic tables and bbq grills nad seating areas - A centralized dog park with outdoor seating and shade structure - Connecting walkway and pathways throughout the site • Rossborough Park is located ''/2- mile away, however other single family homes in the area are the same distance away • The project size of 2.9 acres barely meets the threshold of needing to meet the code standard. • The project provides 2,600 sq. ft. of qualitative outdoor passive space. 4 Attachment 4 • The project provides adequate off-street parking, which is desirable and necessary for the residents. The off-street spaces help reduce on -street parking demand, therefore reducing potential impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. • The intent of the required 55 foot maximum length is to add visual interest and avoid long blank walls. The rear walls of the garages will be articulated with a band of vertical 2 x 6 lap siding painted in a contrasting color. Modification to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(a Code Language: Section 3.8.30(C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development projects shall be located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter ['/41 mile) of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development, which distance shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street. Such parks, central features or gathering places shall contain one (1) or more of the following uses: (1) Public parks, recreation areas or other open lands. (2) Privately owned parks, meeting the following criteria (a) Size. In development projects greater than two (2) acres in gross area, such private parks must be a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. In development projects with a gross area of two (2) acres or less, such private parks must be a minimum of six (6) percent of the gross site area. (b) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. (c) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. (d) Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple -use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to utilize. (e) Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the City, be acquired by the City (through dedication or purchase) or be privately owned and maintained by the developer or property owners' association. (f) Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park. Requested Modification: The property is located within an infill site, surrounded on three sides by existing residential development and a major arterial street on one side,. Due to unique challenges with the shape of the site, meeting the requirement for 10,000 square feet of park, central feature or gathering areas is infeasible. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a modification. Justification 3 Attachment 4 • The 1-story garages with pitched roofs are 20' wide and are set back 5', de facto creating the 25' buffer. • Full tree stocking has been added to the south side of Building C using and combination of ornemental trees, columnar spruce and shrubs. In addition, there will be a 6' solid privacy fence. • The project is maintaining the 25' buffer yard on the north property line abutting the single family homes and is providing enhanced shrub and tree screening to mitigate the impacts to the neighbors. The intent of the required 25' buffer yard us ro protect single family dwellings from potentially large multi -family buildings towering over properties, blocking views, etc. However, in this case, the single family attached homes are 35' from the proposed Building C, almost twice the required buffer distance. Modification to Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) Code Language: 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages To add visual interest and avoid the effect of a long blank wall with no relation to human size, accessibility needs or internal divisions within the building, the following standards for minimum wall articulation shall apply: (1) Perimeter Garages. (a) Length. Any garage located with its rear wall along the perimeter of a development and within sixty-five (65) feet of a public right-of-way or the property line of the development site shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in length. A minimum of seven (7) feet of landscaping must be provided between any two (2) such perimeter garages. Requested Modification: The applicant requests that the rear walls of all garages be longer than 55 feet Justification The granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified and the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose 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 for the following reasons: 2 Attachment 4 Mr. GROUP landscapearchilecbre I planning I illusbabor October 25, 2016 Re: Copperleaf Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.8.30(F)(1), Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) and Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code. Background The 2.987-acre site is located at 3425 South Shields. The proposed use is for the construction of three multi -family apartment buildings containing 93 units in one and two bedroom configurations. The site is zoned MMN and the project will be subject to a Type II Planning and Zoning Board review. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) Code Language: 3.8.30(F) Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings. (1) Orientation and Buffer Yards. Buffer yards along the property line of abutting property containing single- and two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet. This provision shall not apply to structures within the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district and the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) district. Requested Modification: The property is located within an infill site, surrounded on two sides by existing single family homes and townhomes. Due to unique challenges with the narrow site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required 25' buffer to the north, drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and buildings. Because of these factors, the landscape buffer yard along the south property line is 17.9' wide south of Building C and 5' wide south of the proposed Garage 5. Further, Garages 1 and 2 on the north property line, are also within 5' of the property line. Given the above, the applicant requests that Building C and Garages 1, 2 and 5 be located closer than 25' to the existing single family attached property to the south and closer than 25' to the existing single family property to the north. Justification The granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified and the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose 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 for the following reasons: 444 Mountain Ave. Ta 970.532,5891 BerthoW,C080513 wEs TBGroup.us Attachment 3 (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The rationale behind the project is to prove a for -rent project targeting an product that the market desires. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. The submitted documents reflect the applicable criteria for the proposed apartment use. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. See (ii) above. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concernfissue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. The neighborhood meeting was held on July 20, 2016. (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project is called 3425 South Shields Street PDP. At the PDR meeting, the project was called 3425 S Shields St - Multi -family - Preliminary Design Review, PDR160006, Round Number 1. Page 4 Attachment 3 The project incorporates 3 different building types for variety in the streetscape. Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District. Policy LIV 29.1 — Density Policy LIV 29.4 — Mix of Housing Types The 3425 South Shields PDP has a density of 30.8 d.u./acre, which meets the minimum density. The project provides a mix of housing types within the overall neighborhood context, which contains single family, townhomes, duplexes, multi -family and commercial. The residential apartments provide a lower cost housing choice for Fort Collins. Transportation Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles will be promoted. Policy T 8.1 — Support Active Transportation Policy T 8.2 — Design for Active Living Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 —Transit Stops Policy T 10.6 — High Frequency Transit Service Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities The location of this project is convenient for alternative modes of transportation. There are on -street bike lanes on Shields Street and transit stops on nearby Casa Grande and Seneca Streets. Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. There are several mature existing trees currently on the site. An on -site meeting was held with the City Forester and a tree inventory and mitigation plan is included with the submittal. Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. The residential units will be owned by the building developer/owner and will be for rent units. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. n/a Page 3 Attachment 3 Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: The 2435 South Shields PDP meets the following applicable City Plan Principles and Policies: Econom/c Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.2 — Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment The project, although not in a Targeted Redevelopment Area, will provide a compact urban redevelopment project that is in an ideal location and is within walking distance to many destinations. Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 6: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 6.1 — Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Policy LIV 6.2 — Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods The project provides an opportunity for redevelopment of an existing underutilized site and the design of the buildings will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 — Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations The PDP provides much -needed multi -family rental housing to give residents an option for affordable living. Principle LIV 10: The city's streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 — Incorporate Street Trees The project will provide an attractive streetscape with street trees and attached sidewalks. Principle LIV22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community. Policy LIV 22.1 — Vary Housing Models and Types Page 2 Attachment 3 ir= GROUP WdK Wn August 24, 2016 3425 South Shields Statement of Planning Objectives The 2.987-acre site is located at 3425 South Shields. The proposed use is for the construction of three multi -family apartment buildings containing 93 units in one and two bedroom configurations. The site is zoned MMN and the project will be subject to a Type 11 Planning and Zoning Board review. The unit breakdown is as follows 70 one -bedroom apartments 23 two -bedroom apartments 145 parking spaces required 146 parking spaces provided Approx. square footage: 1 bed average = 644 square foot 2 bed average = 848 square foot 70 one -bedrooms @ 644 = 45,080 sq. ft. 23 two -bedrooms (cD 848 = 19,504 so. ft. Total 64,584 sq. ft. Vehicular access for the project will be from Shields Street via a private 24' drive that loops through the site. The buildings are organized around the perimeter of the drive. The site design will incorporate pedestrian access and connectivity. It will utilize landscaping to enhance the buffers between buildings and the surrounding neighborhoods. Uses surrounding the property consist of the following: South: Existing duplexes and Grease Monkey West: The Casa Grande Condos North: The Chapparal Subdivision East: Shields Street and Willow Grove Village at Cunningham Corner The project will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as required by the City Code. Architectural compatibility will be achieved by incorporating design elements from the surrounding neighborhood such as building materials, horizontal lap siding, vertical siding and board and batten siding in contrasting colors. In addition, there will be stone veneer accents. The roofs will consist of asphalt shingles. Page 1 444 Marten Are. Ta 970.532.5891 BedioLd,0080513 I w® TBGroup.us No Text Attachment 1 A. Yes, and the buildings will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 38. Do you allow pets? A. Yes, with rules and regulations. We require a picture of all pets so we know which ones are allowed. We provide pet waste stations in the common areas. 39. Will there be an H.O.A.? A. No, we are the single owner, these are not condos. 40.Is you management staff on -call? A. Yes, as noted, on a 24-7 basis. 41.You will need at least one space per bedroom. A. Our ratio comes in at 1.33 spaces -per -bedroom. 42. What about tenants squeezing in more people to split the rent? A. We monitor this very closely. We find that our tenants are diligent about reporting these extra occupants as it may impact parking. We are very strict and such a situation constitutes a violation of the lease and the risk of eviction. As a result, we don't seem to have a problem with this. 43. What is your typical lease term? A. 12 months. Response to the Two Options. - The group of property owners to the immediate north and northwest of the Building B appreciate the two options that have been presented. Thank you for giving us the time to discuss and arrive at a consensus. As noted, there are pros and cons to each option. While we are concerned that there is an active area that accompanies the 40-foot setback option, we see a greater benefit gained by the extra setback distance. We think that the activity will be relatively normal and generally at the level that would be comparable for other neighbors. If a party gets out of control, we can call the 24-7 management staff. The pergola and privacy fence will help buffer the expected activity. By reducing the height to two stories, at a 40-foot setback, the project is less impactful than before. As a group, we support the 40-foot setback with outdoor amenity area as proposed. A. No, we have found this not to be necessary. In lieu of on -site management, we have a management service that is on call 24 — 7. As we have emphasized, we are not marketing to college students. Our location, amenities and pricing are not geared towards college students. Rather, our tenants are active professionals who are attracted to the outdoor Colorado lifestyle. Our projects tend to attract lots of single people. In terms of management, we will staff a leasing office during business hours and we have property management staff tending to matters on a daily basis. 30.1 think you'll find that price is not a deterrent for college students. 31.Thank you very much for presenting us with the two options. You have explained the rationale behind each scenario given the site constraints and needing to comply with City standards. Perhaps we can give you a definitive response towards the end of the meeting. In the meantime, there may be more questions. 32. How is the number of parking spaces determined? A. We are required to provide 1.5 spaces for every one -bedroom unit and 1.75 spaces for every two -bedroom unit. Based on our bedroom mix, we are required to provide a minimum of 145 spaces. We are providing 147. As noted, 25 spaces will be in the five garages. 33. What about a two -bedroom unit with two occupants, both of which have a car? A. Our experience is that while that may be the case for some of the two -bedroom units, it is not true for all. For example, we have a number of two -bedroom units leased by a single person who wants the extra room for an office. 34. What is your construction schedule? A. We would like to begin site work in May followed by vertical construction. All told, it will take 12 to 14 months from start to finish. 35. Is construction activity restricted by hours? A. Yes, we must comply with the nuisance section of the City's Code. Hours are restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 7: p.m. 36. What are your lease rates? A. We are anticipating that a one -bedroom would lease in the range of $600 - $1,000. A two -bedroom would lease for about $1,200. 37. Will you be constructing fire walls between the units? 7 Two Options - Area North of Building B: In designing the site, and considering the public input, the design team offers two options on how best to treat the area north of Building B. Here are the two options and feedback is needed on how best to proceed. Option One: This option preserves a 40-foot setback between Building B and the north property line. Please note, however, that this option includes a patio, pergola, grilling area and benches. We are showing two grilling stations and two patio tables, four chairs per table. These components are primarily due to comply with the requirement that, as a multi -family project, we must provide a central feature or outdoor gathering area. (Exhibit provided showing 40-foot setback.) Option Two: This option shifts Building B 15 feet to the north so that the setback is reduced to 25 feet but there would be no outdoor gathering features. If desired, we are willing to increase the fence height to eight feet. (Exhibit provided showing the 25-foot setback.) (Note: the response to these two options was not immediate and was the focus of the most of the remaining discussion. Ultimately, the response favored Option One.) 25. How big would this patio be? A. The patio would not be as large as previously shown. Per our latest site plan, the patio is not a perfect rectangle but measures 63' x 23' for a total 1,450 square feet. The north side of the patio is screened by pergola and by the proposed six- foot high solid wood fence (with stone columns at the property corners consistent with previous plans.) 26. Will this patio area be illuminated? A. We can adjust the lighting so that it does not spill across the property line. 27. Do you have experience with these patios in your other projects? A. Yes, our experience is that our tenants enjoying grilling during the warmer months but then take their food back to the unit. We do not see tenants hanging out for extended periods and we do not see partying. 28. Do you have a rule in the lease about late night partying? A. Yes, we have provisions in our lease about not disturbing fellow tenants. 29. Do you have 24-hour on -site management? 0 17.Thank you for removing the trash enclosure in the northwest corner. Has it been relocated elsewhere on the site? A. No, it has not been replaced. We will provide two trash and recycling enclosures but we will have to increase the frequency of pick-up service to compensate. 18. Can you restrict the hours of pick-up? A. Yes, we can set the timeframe for pick-up with the hauler so it is during normal business hours. 19.1 appreciate reducing the height of Building B and preserving the 40-foot setback at the same time. This will benefit us who live across the property line to the north. 20. Will there be any parking on the north side of Building B? A. No. 21. Will there be six dwelling units per floor facing north in Building B? A. No, we have re -arranged the units so that only five units per floor will face north, not six per floor. 22. Will these units have entrances facing north? A. No, the north side of Building B is totally enclosed. Unlike the other two buildings, there will be no common breezeways facing north. Entrances will be internal to the building. This will reduce the activity level facing the neighbors to the north and northwest. 23. I'm concerned that your tenants would not be willing to pay extra for the garage spaces leaving garages unused and then you won't have enough surface parking. A. We will price our garage spaces to make sure they are fully utilized. We will have our management staff monitor usage so that the surface parking is not impacted. Our experience is that the garage spaces will be fully leased. 24.Along the west property line, Casa Grande has a decorative concrete wall that is leaning. Would you consider joint funding for the necessary repair? A. Yes, we will consider this. 5 12. What is the L.O.S. at Swallow and Shields — it seems very congested? A. We are aware that there is heavy traffic during times when the high school is in session. 13.1 recall from the November P & Z that all buildings were to be reduced to two - stories? A. That is not our recollection — only Building B was recommended to be reduced in height, and, as mentioned, one member offered that Building A could go to four - stories. 14. The project is still too dense. The dwelling unit per acre ratio is too high for the neighborhood. A. We are aware of your concern. Our thinking goes back to the fact that the property is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The property is along an arterial, at the edge of the neighborhood, and next to a commercial area zoned N-C, Neighborhood Commercial. Our parcel is only 2.98 acres which is relatively small for a parcel zoned M-M-N. Finally, as we have been discussing here tonight, we think our project has been revised to mitigate the impacts associated with multi -family housing. For example, the garages are placed at the perimeter which effectively blocks light, noise, and traffic. All the surface parking is interior to the site. We are a local developer and our projects are well -managed and well -maintained. 15. When was the property zoned M-M-N? A. Response from City Planner: The site was zoned M-M-N in 1997 as part of a city-wide rezoning to implement City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. I have handed out an explanation of the purpose of the M-M-N zone, along with an excerpt from the Cites Principles and Policies that describes how these zones are distributed city-wide. Generally, as noted in the preceding response, these districts are intentionally located along arterial streets, on the edge of neighborhoods and in close proximity to commercial areas. Being along a transit route provides an opportunity to use the bus instead of a vehicle. Multi -family housing offers an opportunity for residents from a variety of socio-economic levels to live in all parts of the City. 16. For a big picture perspective, what is the volume of traffic on Shields Street? A. City Traffic Engineer: About 25,000 trips per day. 10 6. Will the building facing Shields be three-story? A. Yes, and you may recall from the November P & Z hearing that one board member suggested that if Building B were reduced to two -stories, he would have no objection if Building A increased to four -stories. 7. Will there be a southbound Shields right -turn lane into your site? A. No, but our driveway width will be wider than normal to accommodate cars turning from a through lane. 8. Does the estimated number of southbound right -turns trigger a right -turn lane? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: No, based on the number and type of proposed dwelling units, the number of southbound right -turns (12 during peak) does not meet the threshold for constructing a right -turn lane (40 during peak). 9. How are these estimated numbers derived? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: These numbers are based on data derived at the national level by the Institute of Traffic Engineers based on years of sampling. 10.Are there any proposed improvements to the Shields / Horsetooth intersection? A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: No, the data indicates that the overall impact from this project, as proposed, on the intersection is less than 1 % of the total trips during peak time. And, we've looked at crash data and this metric remains constant after entering in the number and type of proposed dwelling units. 11. With the proximity of Rocky Mountain High School, the traffic on Shields feels very congested. During peak times, turn lanes are backed -up. A. City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of the conditions related to high school traffic. Since the last neighborhood meeting, we have been monitoring the Shields / Horsetooth intersection and we find that it currently meets the City's adopted Level of Service standards (rated on a scale of A — F). In addition, please note that we have factored in the trip generation from the Village on Horsetooth (one-half mile west on Horsetooth) as well as our standard estimated increase in city-wide background traffic. Based on these factors, the proposed project does not impact the Level of Service at this intersection. 3 1. Changes Made Since November: • The number of bedrooms has been reduced from 115 to 110. • Building B has been reduced to two -stories, not a combination. • The shadow lines of Building B have been reduced. • The north elevation of Building B will have five units, not six. • There are no breezeways or unit entrances on the north side of Building B. • The trash enclosure in the northwest corner has been deleted. • The scope of the outdoor amenities along the north property has been reduced. • Two options are presented with regard to the setback from the north property line of Building B. 2. Can you review the status of the trees? A. The trees have been inspected and evaluated by the City Forester. As you are aware, being an outdoor storage lot, the trees have been neglected for decades and some are dead or dying. There are 24 existing trees on site. We will presence eight existing trees. Eleven trees will be removed with mitigation and five will be removed with no mitigation. We will plant 68 new trees. For any of the existing trees that are to be removed and have been determined to have value per the City Forester, 21 new trees will be up -sized as mitigation. The other 47 new trees will be planted at the standard caliper sizes required by the City. 3. Will you be keeping the three Siberian Elms along the north property line? A. Yes, even though these are not considered an attractive species, their height and spacing creates shade and helps buffer Building B. 4. Is the access to Richmond Drive paved? Is it a public street? A. Yes, it's paved, and no, it's a private access easement, not a public street. 5. Will it be re -paved to accommodate the new project? A. No, not at this time as the pavement appears to be in good shape. Brinkman will enter into a maintenance agreement with Grease Monkey, the underlying property owner to address long term maintenance. 2 SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Copperleaf Apartments P.D.P. LOCATION: 3425 South Shields DATE: January 3, 2017 APPLICANT: Mr. Scott Ranweiler, Brinkman Partners Mr. Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners CONSULTANTS: Cathy Mathis, TB Group Randall Johnson, Infusion Architecture Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer Project Description This is the second neighborhood meeting. The project consists of developing a parcel of land that is currently being used for outside storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, R.Ws, etc. at 3425 South Shields Street. The project has been revised since it was continued from the November P & Z hearing. As now proposed, the project consists of 94 apartments divided among three buildings on approximately 2.89 acres. There would be 110 bedrooms. The number of parking spaces is 147. The parcel currently contains an existing house, outbuildings and outside vehicle storage (including R.Ws, campers, boats, etc.) all of which would be removed. The easterly and southerly buildings would be three stories. The northerly building has been reduced to two-story. Access would be gained from Shields Street and Richmond Drive. The parcel is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. Agenda Item 4 garages are residential in character, one-story, pitched roof and articulated in a manner that exceeds the standards required in Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(b). D. With regard to Section 3.8.30(C) - Access to Central Feature and Gathering Place - staff finds that granting the Request for Modification to allow 2,600 square feet versus 10,000 square feet would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, the Modification would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that would otherwise comply. This is because given the size of the project at 2.98 acres; the amount of common area and amenities are commensurate with the number of residents being served. Also, the residents are located within a distance of a public neighborhood park that is comparable with other residents within the square mile section. E. With regard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Orientation and Buffer Yards - staff finds that granting the Request for Modification to allow a building setback of 17.9 feet Building C and a range of 5.0 to 5.9 feet for Garages 1,2 and 5 would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, the Modification would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that would otherwise comply. This is because along the south property line, the nearest dwellings are 35 feet setback from the shared property line and the extent of landscaping and fencing provides a transition that accomplishes the buffering envisioned by the standard. For Garages 1, 2 and 5, these structures are well -designed, residential in character and style and are setback from the property lines a distance that is equal to the minimum sideyard setback in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board make a motion to approve Copperleaf #PDP160026, based on the Findings of Fact of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial - Big Picture (PDF) 2. Aerial - Close -Up (PDF) 3. Applicant's Planning Objectives (PDF) 4. Applicant's Modifications (DOC) 5. Copperleaf Landscape Set (PDF) 6. Copperleaf Site Plan (PDF) 7. City Plan M-M-N Purpose & Policies (PDF) 8. Transportation Impact Study(PDF) 9. Citizen Comment E-Mail (PDF) 10. Architectural Elevation - Building A (PDF) 11. Architectural Elevation - Building C (PDF) 12. Garage Elevations (PDF) 13. Copperleaf Plat (PDF) 14. First Neighborhood Meeting - July 20, 2016 (DOCX) 15. Architectural Elevation - Building B (PDF) 16. Two -Story Cross Section 1-3-16 (PDF) 17. Shadow Study (PDF) Item # 4 Page 13 Agenda Item 4 and the existing structures, combined with the proposed fencing and landscaping, the P.D.P. as proposed, would be equal to a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. D. Section 3.8.30(F)(2-7) — Variation Among Buildings, Color, Entrances, Roofs, Facades and Walls, Colors and Materials This standard requires that for projects containing at least three buildings there must be at least two distinctly different building designs. All buildings must comply with architectural requirements pertaining to entrances, roofs, facades and walls and colors and materials. The P.D.P. consists of three buildings. The buildings are evaluated per the standard in the following manner: • Two buildings, A and C are full three-story. Building B is two-story. All three buildings are essentially similar in footprint, size and shape. • All three buildings include breezeway entrances to hallways as there are no individual entrances to ground floor units. To comply with variation criteria, each building has a different breezeway entry feature. • All three buildings feature a palette of materials and colors that are residential in character. • Stone veneer is used as the primary accent material and its placement on all three buildings varies on a per building basis. • All three buildings include shallow pitched roofs in order to minimize the overall height but adds a more residential character than if the roofs were flat. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: Two neighborhood meetings were held with the most recent on January 3, 2017. The summary to the first meeting on July 20, 2016 is attached. A summary for the second meeting will be handed out at the work session. As expected, issues related to traffic, generated both by the project and at a larger neighborhood -wide scale, were raised. Concerns regarding building height, privacy, setbacks, landscaping, fencing and overall compatibility were discussed. 6. Conclusions and Findings of Fact: In evaluating Copperleaf P.D.P., Staff makes the following conclusions and findings of fact: A. Multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the M-M-N zone district and the P.D.P. exceeds the minimum required density for a parcel of less than 20 acres. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with three exceptions. C. With regard to Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) —Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages —Perimeter Garages, staff finds that granting the Request for Modification to allow the five perimeter garages to be 60 feet in length would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, the Modification would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that would otherwise comply. This is because the Item # 4 Page 12 Agenda Item 4 B. Section 3.8.30(E)(3) — Building Setback from an Arterial Street This standard requires that Building A be setback from Shields Street a minimum of 15 feet. Building A is setback from the Shields Street right-of-way 25.9 feet in compliance with the standard. C. Section 3.8.30(F)(1) — Orientation and Buffer Yards This standard requires that buffer yards along the property line of abutting properties that contain single and two-family dwellings be 25 feet. Along the north property line, Building B is setback from the property line by 40 feet and the two garages are setback by five feet. Along the west property line, the dwellings are multi -family (Casa Grande, P.U.D., Tract 1) and therefore the standard is not applicable. Along the south property line, there are five two-family dwellings so the standard is applicable. Building C is setback from the south property line by 17.9 feet and the garage is setback by 5.9 feet. As a result, a Request for Modification of Standard has been submitted for the following conditions: • Garages 1 and 2 along the north property line — 5-feet; • Building C along the south property line — 17.9 feet; • Garage 5 along the south property line — 5.9 feet. 1. The standard calls for the buildings to be setback by 25 feet. As noted, the affected buildings are setback by difference ranging from 7.1 to 20 feet. 2. The applicant has provided a justification which is attached. Briefly, the applicant contends that along the south property line, (Building C, and Garage 5) the adjoining five two-family dwellings to the south are setback from their north property line by 35 feet. With a 35-foot existing building setback combined with the proposed 17.9 foot setback, Building C would be separated from the five duplexes by 52.9 feet and Garage 5 would be separated by 40.9 feet. In addition, a new six foot solid fence combined with a dense mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs helps mitigate the transition between the existing and proposed uses. Given the context of the area, and the age of the five duplexes, the applicant contends that the proposed building setbacks are not detrimental to the public good and would be equal to or better than a plan that would be comply with the 25-foot setback but, perhaps would not be a densely landscaped. Along the north property line, the two garages are only one story in height and residential in character which results in a sensible transition that is as equally effective as a buffer yard. Combined with landscaping and a six foot solid fence, the proposed five foot setback fulfills the overall intent of the standard. 3. Staff has evaluated the Request for Modification. Staff finds that the five duplexes south of Building C and Garage 5 represent an under -developed condition given the M-M-N zoning on the parcel. Their age indicates that should re -development be considered, these structures would more likely be removed than renovated or enlarged. By being 35 feet from the shared property line, combined with the proposed 17.9 feet, there would be a total of 52.9 feet separating Building C from the duplexes. Garages 1, 2 and 5 are only one story and will be residential in character. Per the Landscape Plan, a six foot solid wood fence and a dense mix of trees and shrubs would provide an effective buffer. 4. For these reasons, staff finds that the granting of the Request for Modification to Section 3.30(F)(1) would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff also finds that with M-M-N zoning, the most realistic re- development scenario on the adjoining parcel to the south would indicate removal versus renovation or enlargement of the existing five duplexes. Further, with the 52.9 feet of separation between Building C Item # 4 Page 11 Agenda Item 4 4. Compliance with Section 3.8.30 — Multi -Family Development Standards: A. Section 3.8.30(C) — Access to Park, Central Feature, Gathering Place This standard requires that 90% of the units be within one -quarter mile of a public or private park. For projects that are greater than two acres, if a private park is the basis for compliance, then such park must be no less than 10,000 square feet. The site is 2.98 acres and is greater than one -quarter mile from Rossborough Park. The P.D.P. provides two common areas with various amenities that act as a private park and gathering place that total 2,600 square feet, well short of the 10,000 square feet required. A Request for Modification of Standard has been submitted and has been evaluated. 1. The standard calls for 10,000 square for projects over two acres. The P.D.P. provides 2,600 square feet, a difference of 7,800 square feet. 2. The applicant has provided a justification which is attached. Briefly, this justification is summarized by the fact that the site is a small, infill site that is less than one acre over the threshold of applicability for the standard. Since the standard does not include a sliding scale, small projects are treated as being equal to large projects. Asking a 2.98 acre parcel to provide a private park or central feature or gathering space that is the same as would be required for much larger projects is neither proportional nor practical. While the maximum distance allowed to a public park is 1,320 feet (.25 mile), the P.D.P. is 3,343 feet (.63 mile) from Rossborough Park, a difference of only 2,023 feet (.38 mile), as measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial. The applicant is providing a plaza with tables, benches, grills, and pergola on the north side of Building B. In addition, a dog park with pergola and benches is provided in the middle of the site. From this perspective, the applicant cites Section 2.8.2(H)(1) as justification. First, the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Second, the P.D.P. as submitted with its central features and gathering spaces is equal to a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. This is because central features and gathering spaces are roughly proportional, given the number of units served and the relatively small parcel size, as that found on larger apartment projects such as Trails at Timberline (18 acres), Foothills Apartments (12 acres) and Bucking Horse Apartments (23 acres). 3. Staff has evaluated the Request for Modification. The parcel is located on the east edge of the square mile section bounded by Drake Road on the north, Shields Street on the east, Horsetooth Road on the south and Taft Hill Road on the west. In accordance with the City's long-standing policy of providing one neighborhood park per square mile section, Rossborough Park was developed practically in the middle of the section thus providing all residents within the square mile section a walk of approximately one-half mile or less. Residents of the proposed project will also be within less than one-half mile of the park (as measured by street frontage). In fact, there are residents of the square mile section that are located further away from Rossborough Park than the subject site. Staff, therefore, finds that the residents of Copperleaf Apartments will have reasonable access to a fully developed public neighborhood park that is equal to or better than that of residents within the square mile section that do not live within the project. In addition, staff finds that features and spaces that are provided are suitable and roughly proportional as that found on larger apartment complexes. 4. For these reasons, staff finds that the granting of the Request for Modification to Section 3.30(C) would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff also finds that given the size of the parcel (2.98 acres) and its location (at the edge of the square mile section and along an arterial street), that the P.D.P., as proposed, would be equal to a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard. Item # 4 Page 10 Agenda Item 4 2. Applicant's Justification. The applicant contends that rear elevation of the detached garages will be articulated and varied to avoid monotony. This is accomplished by each garage featuring two wall plane projections with a pitched roof accent and vertical versus horizontal siding. In addition, the height of the garages is 13.25 feet which is equivalent to a one-story single family home. All garages are setback from the property line by a minimum of five feet which equals the minimum internal side yard requirement in the R-L, Low Density Residential zone district. Within this setback, there will be a variety of plant material all specifically designed to exceed six feet in height so as to be visible over the fence at the time of maturity. 3. Staff Evaluation. The placement of garages along the perimeter of a multi -family project is generally an effective site planning element since garages have a low profile and they screen surface parking lots. The five garages are only five feet out of standard. The rooflines and rear elevations are designed in a manner that exceeds the standard. The garages are distributed such that there are twc on the north, two on the west and one on the south so no one side will experience more than 120 feet of the rear elevation of the garages. As noted in the applicant's justification, architectural elements have been added to the rear wall of these garages in a manner that exceeds the standard in order to mitigate the extra five feet of rear wall length. Staff Finding. Staff finds that the rear elevations are well -designed and are not monotonous. Each garage is articulated by two wall plane projects, accented roof lines and two patterns of siding. This level of articulation exceeds the degree of architectural detail called for in Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(b). Staff therefore, finds that the request to extend the length of the five garages by five feet would not be detrimental to the public good. In addition, as proposed, the length of the garages, and their rear wall architectural elevations, will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan for which the Modification is requested. U. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study was submitted and is attached for reference. This study concludes: • The following intersections will operate acceptably with recommended geometry and traffic control: o Shields / Richmond o Shields / Site Access Private Drive o Shields / Cunningham o Richmond / Commercial Center Site Access (Grease Monkey) • Pedestrian Level of Service is rated as C for the six destinations identified within 1,320 feet (one - quarter mile) of the project. This rating is acceptable for this area of the City. • Bicycle Level of Service is not rated because there are no destinations areas (per the stated criteria) within 1,320 feet of the site. Rocky Mountain High School, however, is located approximately one-half mile to the north and there are bike lanes on Shields Street which conveniently connect to the high school campus. • The site is served by Transfort Route 19 along Shields Street and by Transfort Route 12 along Horsetooth Road. These two routes operate with 30 minute headways in the morning peak (7:00 — 10:00 am) and in the afternoon peak (2:30 — 5:30 pm). • The Route 19 bus stop is located near the Shields / Richmond intersection. • The Route 12 bus stop is located near the Shields / Horsetooth intersection. Item # 4 Page 9 Agenda Item 4 Q. Section 3.5.1(D) —Privacy Considerations As mentioned, the height of Building B, located closest to the north property line, has been reduced to two -stories to presence privacy in relationship to the nearest adjoining house. The applicant has provided a cross-section that illustrates the view lines from the homes to the north to Building B (see applicant's attachment). There is 40 feet from Building B to the north property line and the houses have approximately a 15 rear yard setback. Within Building B's 40-foot setback, there are mature trees that are being preserved, a pergola, landscaping and a six-foot high fence (with masonry columns at the property corners) along the property line. Staff finds that these features, combined with the distance, afford a reasonable level of privacy for the existing homes. R. Section 3.5.1(H) —Land Use Transition This section requires that when land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not possible, the P.D.P. must, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses. Staff interprets this standard in such a way as to find that the relationship between the proposed P.D.P. and the adjoining uses is most pronounced along the north property line. In response, the following mitigation measures will be provided: • Building B is setback from the north property line by 40 feet; • A six foot high privacy fence, with masonry columns, will be constructed along the north property line; • Building B has been reduced to two -stories, not a combination of two and three; • Landscaping along the north property line is designed to exceed the height of the privacy fence; • The placement of two one-story garages along the north property line will act as a lower -scaled transition of building height and mass; • Three existing mature trees will be preserved along the north property; • Two new shade trees will be planted between Building B and the north property line. S. Section 3.5.2(D) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking This standard requires that all multi -family buildings face onto and connect to the public street sidewalks to the extent reasonably feasible. Where the shape or size of the parcel precludes such orientation, then connecting walkways that do not exceed 200 feet must be provided. In compliance, Building A fronts on Shields Street. The two walkways are tied to the public sidewalk. Buildings B and C, while being 228 and 230 west of Shields Street respectively, remain well connected by the internal system of walkways that are direct and convenient. Staff finds that given the size and shape of the parcel (a deep rectangle with the short side facing Shields Street), that Buildings B and C comply with the standard to the maximum extent feasible. T. Section 3.5.2(G)(1)(a,b) — Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages These standards require that the rear walls of multi -family garages that are within 65 feet of a property line not exceed 55 feet in length and be articulated every 30 feet with an architectural expression. There are five garages located along three property lines that contain five spaces each. 1. Modification. Each of the five garages is 60 feet in length exceeding the standard by five feet. The applicant has submitted a Request for Modification which is attached. Item # 4 Page 8 Agenda Item 4 N. Section 3.2.5 — Trash and Recycling Enclosures There will be three trash and recycling enclosures, one per building. These are adequately sized, conveniently located and evenly distributed in compliance with the standard. O. Section 3.5.1(A)(B) —Building and Project Compatibility This standard requires that the project demonstrate compatibility with the established character of the area by using a design that is complementary and if there is no definitively defined character, then the design must set an enhanced standard of quality. As noted, the area is characterized by a mix of uses and styles in the following manner: North: Single family detached homes constructed in the 1990's South: Five, one-story, brick duplexes constructed in the 1960's South: Commercial buildings constructed in the 1980's. West: Single-family detached homes constructed in the 1990's With the variety of architectural styles, the proposed site development and buildings bear the burden of setting an enhanced standard of quality. This is accomplished by the following attributes: • The site preserves six mature trees, especially the three along the north property line; • A six foot high wood fence, with masonry columns, will be provided along the north and south property lines that adjoin the residential neighborhood; • The existing masonry wall along the west property line will be retained; • One-story garages, with pitched roofs, are placed along the perimeter; • Surface parking lots are placed in the interior and screened from view; • The northerly building will be two -stories; • The three buildings feature a mix of exterior materials, articulation, and have a residential character. P. Section 3.5.1(C) —Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale This standard requires that buildings must be either similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property or opposing block face or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection. In response, the applicant has provided architectural character elevations that include the following attributes: • All buildings are less than 40 feet in height; • Masonry (stone veneer) is provided as an accent material; • Horizontal siding is residential in character; • Two types of vertical siding adds interest and helps mitigate the bulk; • Roof lines are shallow -pitched to lower the overall profile of the mass. While the three proposed buildings would be the largest in the immediate surrounding area, their size, height, bulk, mass and scale are proportionally broken down and sufficiently articulated to be found compatible with the neighborhood. Item # 4 Page 7 Agenda Item 4 Section 3.2.2(C)(5) — Walkways As noted, there are three walkways out to the public sidewalk on Shields Street; two along the driveway and one south of Building A. As noted, there will be one connection south to Richmond Drive. J. Sections 3.2.2(6)(7) — Direct On -Site and Off -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations The 2.98 acre parcel represents an infill site with limited opportunities for connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. As a result, connections are provided where feasible. The three sidewalk connections to Shields Street are direct and convenient. As noted, the pedestrian connection to the south, however, is an off -site improvement located within the westerly 24 feet of the private access easement and will be four feet wide, on -grade, extended south to Richmond Drive and protected by a one -foot wide zone with raised delineators. K. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) — Required Number of Off -Street Parking Spaces The project consists of 78 one -bedroom units and 16 two -bedroom units which requires 145 spaces. The P.D.P. provides 147 parking spaces in a combination of surface (122) and garage (25) parking spaces. Compliance with the standard is achieved in the following manner: One -bedroom units Two -bedroom units Total Required Total Provided 78 x 1.5 = 117 16 x 1.75 = 28 = 145 = 147 Although not an applicable standard outside the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone, (T.O.D.), the Planning and Zoning Board has taken a keen interest in the ratio of parking spaces (147) to the total number of bedrooms (110). In this case, the ratio equals 1.33 spaces per bedroom compared to the requirement in the T.O.D. that this ratio be no less than .75 spaces per bedroom. L. Section 3.2.2(E) — Solar Access, Orientation, Shading This standard requires that the buildings be oriented so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm on December 21 s1. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis that indicates the 25-foot high hypothetical wall along the north property line in comparison to the shadow cast to the northeast and northwest by Building B in the morning and afternoon on December 21 s'. The comparison demonstrates that the building casts a shadow at both times of day that is less impactful than the shadow cast by the 25-foot high hypothetical wall. M. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting All pole and building -mounted lighting will feature down -directional and fully -shielded fixtures. In addition, pole -mounted lighting located along the perimeter of the site will include house -side shields as an extra measure to prevent illumination from spilling over the property line. At the time of Final Plan, the amount of illumination in the north -facing breezeway stairwells of Building B will be evaluated to ensure compliance with spillover lighting. Item # 4 Page 6 Agenda Item 4 Preserved 8 Removed with Mitigation 11 Removed with No Mitigation 1 Dead — No Mitigation 4 Total 24 As a result, per the mitigation schedule, the Landscape Plan will feature 21 new trees that are up - sized in caliper. F. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking - General Standard This standard requires that the parking and circulation system accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycle, pedestrians and transit throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently. The site is presently served by two access points, one off Shields Street and one off a private drive to the south that connects to Richmond Drive. Both of these access points will be retained with the notable restriction that the Shields Street driveway would be limited to right -in / right -out turns only. The internal parking lot system has been designed in conjunction with the Poudre Fire Authority to ensure proper emergency access to all three buildings as well as a second point of access. There are three connecting walkways to Shields Street and one to the private access drive. Due to existing development on three sides, there are no opportunities to connect to the adjoining residential neighborhoods except via the existing access easement that connects into Richmond Drive. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(1)(a)(b) - Development Standards - Safety Considerations These standards require that the access and circulation system be safe for all modes, and that there is sufficient safety to protect bikes and pedestrians from vehicles. As noted, the access to Richmond Drive is a private access easement, dedicated by Horsetooth Commons P.U.D. in 1987, that is 40-feet wide. The easterly 16 feet is for the benefit of Grease Monkey and serves as their only access and employee parking. The westerly 24 feet are for the benefit of Copperleaf and is designed to allow for two-way traffic and a second point of emergency access. Within this 24-foot wide drive, there would be four feet striped along the west edge for pedestrians with one extra foot for safe hit delineators (flexible plastic tubing). Due to existing constraints, this four foot walkway will act as a de -facto attached sidewalk but it will not be raised concrete. Signage and striping (thermoplastic not paint) will alert drivers that this is a pedestrian zone. As with all public local streets, there will be no separate bike lane as bikes are allowed to use the travel lanes on local streets due to the low volume of vehicles. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Parking For multi -family, the required minimum number of bike parking spaces is one per bedroom and that a minimum of 60% be covered with the remainder in fixed exterior racks. The P.D.P. will include a total of 110 bedrooms and 110 bike spaces are provided. These spaces are divided between 66 (60%) covered and 44 (40%) in fixed racks. The covered bicycle parking is provided by wall -mounted racks within the breezeways of each building. Item # 4 Page 5 Agenda Item 4 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection There are four existing shade trees along Shields Street (located behind the existing attached sidewalk.) One of these trees is dead. Three trees will be preserved and one tree added for a total of four trees along Shields Street in compliance with the standard. Since an attached sidewalk along an arterial street is no longer an acceptable standard, this sidewalk will be removed and replaced by a new 6400t wide detached sidewalk per the standard for a four -lane arterial street. If this new detached sidewalk were placed in accordance with LCUASS, it would be in conflict with three of the existing street trees. Instead, the new walk will be routed around the existing trees effectively doubling the parkway width to 21 feet. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) -Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities As mentioned, there are multi -family dwellings to the west and two-family dwellings and vehicle minor repair to the south. Along the north property line there are three single family detached dwellings that are part of the Chaparral Subdivision. While it is debatable that the juxtaposition between the proposed multi -family dwellings and the single family homes to the north does not rise to the level of being considered incompatible, the P.D.P. provides buffering in the form of landscaping and the placement of two one-story garages, with pitched roofs, at a setback that is equal to the side yard setback for a single family detached home. These garages will help screen the view from two of the houses. For the third house, Building B is setback 40 feet from the property line allowing two of the mature trees to be preserved as well as placement of new landscaping. Finally, Building B has been reduced in height from three to two stories to lower the profile that is exposed to the north. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a)(b) -Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The buildings are arranged such that the 110 of the 120 surface parking spaces are located interior to the site and well -screened from view from the surrounding properties and Shields Street. For the remaining 10 surface spaces (three on the north and seven on the west property lines), these are set back and landscaped in accordance with the standard. Note that with five garages, at five spaces per garage, there are 25 enclosed spaces located along the north, west and south property lines. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) -Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The interior parking lot features 10% interior landscaping, in the form of islands, thus complying with the requirement for parking lots with more than 100 spaces. E. Section 3.2.1(F) -Tree Mitigation The site includes 24 existing trees in a variety of species and condition. Because the site has been used for decades as an outdoor storage yard, many of these trees have been neglected and are in varying states of health. The City Forester has evaluated these trees and a mitigation schedule has been established and summarized as follows: Item # 4 Page 4 Agenda Item 4 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N R-L Single Family (Chaparral Subdivision) S N-C Neighborhood Convenience Center (Grease Monkey, Duplexes) E M-M-N Existing Multi -Family (Willow Grove at Cunningham Corner) W M-M-N Existing Single Family Attached (Casa Grande Condominiums) The site was annexed as part of the larger 48-acre Werner Annexation in 1980. There has been no development activity on the site. The R.V, boat and storage yard evolved over the years as a legal non- conforming use. There have been various projects regarding this parcel brought forward to Conceptual Review in the past but this is the first PDP submittal. 2. Compliance with Applicable M-M-N Zone District Standards: A. Section 4.6(D)(1) — Density This standard requires that for parcels 20 acres or less, the project must have an overall minimum average density of 7 dwelling units per net acre. With 94 units on 2.98 acres, the density equals 31.5 dwelling units per net acre. B. Section 4.6(D)(2) — Secondary Uses This standard requires that for projects that are less than 10 acres, the PDP does not have to provide a secondary use but, instead, must demonstrate how it contributes to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area. The immediate area is characterized by both commercial and residential land uses. To the south is a neighborhood convenience shopping center that includes vehicular minor repair, child care center, convenience store with fuel sales, medical office and two-family attached dwellings. To the west is multi -family and to the north is single family detached. The project contributes to this mix with the addition of a fourth housing type that will enrich the choice of housing options in the neighborhood. Further, the proposed apartments will create additional support for the convenience shopping center and transit. These factors comply with the following City Plan Principles and Policies: "Principle LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium -density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment District." (Page 80.) C. Section 4.6(D)(3) — Building Height This standard requires that buildings do not exceed three stories. The project includes two buildings at three stories and one building at a combination of two and three stories thus complying with the standard. Item # 4 Page 3 Agenda Item 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. complies with the applicable development standards of the M-M-N zone district. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with three exceptions. The first modification request is to allow the length of the garages to exceed 55 feet by 5 feet to 60 feet. The second request is to allow 2,600 square feet versus 10,000 square feet for a private park or central feature and gathering area. The third request is allow less than 25 feet of buffer along the south property line for Building C (17.9 feet) and Garage 5 (5.9 feet), and the north property line for (Garages 1 and 2 (5.0 feet). 1 inch = 600 feet Copperleaf Apartments ; Item # 4 Page 2 Agenda Item 4 PROJECT NAME COPPERLEAF PDP 160026 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a P.D.P. for a multi -family project that consists of 94 units on 2.98 acres. There would be three buildings. Two buildings are three -stories and one building is two stories. There would be a total of 110 bedrooms. There would be 147 parking spaces. The site is currently being used for outside storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, R.V.'s, etc. and includes an existing house and outbuildings all of which would be removed. Access would be gained from Shields Street but restricted to right-in/right-out only. Full access would be gained from Richmond Drive. The parcel is zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. There are three Requests for Modification. The first request is to allow the length of the garages to exceed 55 feet. The second request is to allow less than 10,000 square feet for a private park or central feature and gathering area. The third request is allow less than 25 feet of buffer along the north and south property lines. APPLICANT: Brinkman Partners TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud. CO 80513 OWNER: BCS, LLC. c/o Mr. Scott Ranweiler Brinkman Partners 3528 Precision Drive, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the three Requests for Modification and approval of the P.D.P. Item # 4 Page 1