Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TOWNHOMES AT TIMBER CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 16-89N - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
ITEM NO. 5 MEETING DATE 8/19/99 A STAFF Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Townhomes at Timber Creek, Preliminary P.U.D., #16-89N APPLICANT: Bueno Development, L.L.C. C/o Mr. Brad Massey Aller-Lingle Architects 748 Whalers Way, Building E, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Stromberger Land, Inc. C/o of Mr. Dave Brown 3030 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Preliminary P.U.D. 66 dwelling units on 5.16 acres. The site is located at the northeast corner of Timberline Road and Timber Creek: Drive. The parcel is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with two conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed land use and density are in conformance with the Timber Creek and Stetson Creek. O.D.P. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. The P.U.D. earns only 99 points on the Residential Uses Point Chart out of the required 100. A variance request has been evaluated and recommended for approval. Through design and buffering, the project is considered compatible with the surrounding area. The project is feasible from a traffic operations standpoint and provisions are made for bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • Townhomes at Timber Creek, Preliminary P.U.D., #16-89W August 19, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: H-C; Poudre Valley Hospital South Campus S: R-L, Existing single family homes (Timber Creek 1st Filing) E: R-L; Existing single family homes (Timber Creek 1st Filing) W: R-L; Existing single family homes (Harmony Crossing 1st Filing) The parcel was included in a larger annexation known as the "South Harmony Annexation" which was incorporated in 1986 and zoned "T," Transition. In 1989, the parcel was included in the 151 acre O.D.P., at the southeast corner of Harmony and Timberline Roads, known as Stromberger Farm and zoned I-P, Industrial Park, with the P.U.D. condition. In 1991, the parcel was included in a large rezoning from I-P to a new zone district, E-P, Employment Park, to implement the policies of the Harmony Corridor Plan. In 1993, the parcel was included in new O.D.P. which took the southerly 52 acres of the old Stromberger Farm and an additional new 82 acres to form the Rock Creek O.D.P. Then Rock Creek O.D.P. changed its name to Timber Creek/Stetson Creek O.D.P. to reflect the marketing names for the two residential neighborhoods being developed by Everitt Companies and Hartford Homes. It is the governing O.D.P. for the subject parcel. In March of 1997, the parcel was included in a city-wide rezoning to implement the policies of City Plan. The old E-P zone was converted to a new zone district now known as H-C, Harmony Corridor. 2. Rock Creek/Timber Creek/Stetson Creek O.D.P. As mentioned, the Timber Creek/Stetson Creek O.D.P. covers the two neighborhoods over an area of 133 acres. This O.D.P. designates the subject parcel as "Duplex, Patio Homes or Townhomes." Since the proposed P.U.D. is for 66 twnhomes on 5.16 acres, for a density of 12.8 dwelling units per acre, the P.U.D. is considered to be in conformance with the underlying O.D.P. • • Townhomes at Timber Creek, Preliminary P.U.D., #16-89W August 19, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 7 main portions of the structures. The maximum height above grade will be 35 feet. 7. Transportation: A. Vehicles Primary access to the site is gained from Timber Creek Drive, a collector street. The internal street is private. Timber Creek Drive aligns with Angelo Drive (local street) at the intersection with Timberline Road (standard arterial). Both Timber Creek Drive and Angelo Drive are controlled by stop signs at the Timberline Road intersection. With the expected trip generation (398 trip ends), and the existing geometry, operation at the Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo intersection is expected to remain within the acceptable range defined as Level of Service D or better. B. Bicycles and Pedestrians Externally, sidewalks are provided in all four directions, and tie into existing east, west and south) and future development (north). There are bike lanes on both sides of Timberline Road. Both Timber Creek Drive and Angelo Drive are wide enough to safely accommodate bicycles within a six foot bike lane. As future parcels to the east develop, there will be direct bicycle and pedestrian connections to both Traut Elementary and Preston Junior High Schools. Internally, sidewalks are safisfactorly provided to promote circulation within the project, except staff has requestes that the applicant make the changes that are diagramed in "Exhibit A". Consequently, Staff recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of submittal for Final P.U.D., the interior pedestrian sidewalk layout must reflect the addition of trees, addition of sidewalks, widening of sidewalks, and the addition of an enhanced pedestrian crossing as depicted in the diagram entitled "exhibit A." C. Transit The area is not presently served by Transfort as a fixed route. The area is, however, served by Dial -A -Ride for those eligible for the service. In the future, Transfort will have feeder service on Timberline Road. These routes are defined Townhomes at Timber Creek, Preliminary P.U.D., #16-89W August 19, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 8 as having 30+ minute service. The Timberline Road route will be within a quarter mile of the site. The P.U.D. is found to be feasible from a traffic operations standpoint and sidewalks are provided internally and externally to connect to the existing and future development in the surrounding area. 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Preliminary P.U.D., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.U.D. is a townhome project at 12.7 dwelling units per acre. This land use and density is in conformance with the Timber Creek and Stetson Creek O.D.P. B. The P.U.D. satisfies the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. C. The P.U.D. achieves a total score on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. of 99 points which is one point short of the minimum required to justify the proposed density at this location. D. A variance request to allow the P.U.D. has been evaluated and found to be justified based on the P.U.D. being equal to or better than a P.U.D. which would have earned the required number of points. Further, the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of the L.D.G.S. E. A neighborhood meeting was held. Through design and buffering, the P.U.D. is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. F. The design of the P.U.D. is residential in character. G. The P.U.D. is feasible from a traffic operations standpoint. Alternative modes are provided for with the provisions of sidewalk connections and proximity to future transit service on Timberline Road. I] 0 Townhomes at Timber Creek, Preliminary P.U.D., #16-89W August 19, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 9 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of granting the variance to meeting the required minimum number of points on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. based on the P.U.D. being equal to or better than a P.U.D. that would have normally achieved the required minimum of 100 points. Further, the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of the L.D.G.S. Staff recommends approval of Townhomes at Timber Creek, Preliminary P.U.D., #16-89N, subject to the following two conditions of approval: At the time of submittal for Final P.U.D., the rear elevations of the garage units E4,F5,F3, and K6,K4,L3, and M6,M4, and HA,A3 shall be indicated on the architectural character elevations and provide interest and variety and enhancement of the rear elevations. At the time of submittal for Final P.U.D., the interior pedestrian sidewalk layout must reflect the addition of several trees, the addition of several segments of sidewalks, widening of several sidewalks, and the addition of an enhanced pedestrian crossing as depicted in the diagram entitled "exhibit A." Comrliity Planning and Environmentakervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMO To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Troy Jones Re: Supplements to the Townhomes at Timber Creek Staff Report August 13, 1999 Slight changes were made to the Staff Report for Townhomes at Timber Creek. Please replace pages 1 and 2, and pages 7 through 9 of the Staff Report with these revised versions of these pages. Also, please add "Exhibit A" to the supplemental information in your packet for this project. These changes reflect slight design changes that staff requested of the applicant after the previous packet had already gone to the printer. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 j dk' J S�HooL J Hord op Harmony Road GO,, HC HC Qa(OLL a im c i v LMN LMN LMN VICINITY MAP 04/22/99 Townhomes at Timber Creek #16-89N Preliminary PU D LDGS 1"=600' aS'4'n*d A8VNIWI138d W.d NMtldO A33NO H38WIl �-9FL6 lOYOHd ld S3WOHNMOl 4mQ1449EL '3Ttl aova+aurev�i �xw�aA �rniado 5L509 0° 'SW1bJ !M°! � il»ir�xr� 9Yt LYl "NM �ew1.3YSS 5N:T n e,sw u i an.�ou ec a.w a�s°x iiw��w'i nv+Tr� m •ura�•uM vv � �v, Mi�Ai si�oa°rw+w.vra u usn _ vn.x �v. as°ro:srays aar.,r .ate,-s-.o .wwnie •v.o. °sew.+« uv s. • ]IOMi Vi Vlli ]I1IC NOI VVA -1 •J6.V91 KX1P a9 l .olp7 �°14 �fld4 � ` .rs.:vai'a ra rs�c� ZSI 9£t --- IL�_ dAiaa AMa9etrI O -n Z O O A K C-) m omc/) cn o'{ f l Y l S t -- a.,a,s.nn/ / LMAM Ewa WE NSA- I- oo..coo u.ic a"iw»+srwwr. �se..�o mn.iain isruswnsw+arw *x or�v ivi'w'`�,a�ia.:�'i n�i�v"�'iu �xnmi,nmr�a mvaorwu�.s n:m mvuvs no.w�v �u v .m-.mc • .i imm ss:wvry �n wo"'�"'is ioe aw �simo'eav'oa:" aa��� 'a and vYwwn3yd IN y YI.OnItipF,�i� , `431011 T':� Sfl � Wd.%°al 9WaVtR'iN[i /vYM°a.Tl1iV I " lx� s j, Jt I)✓ — — �ir I / m'.:mroxaa.a Y laVal l nww„mo Al MOM �V� 1 W9 NAAV80 U-LL-L 31W 9aL% 133mw EMOrl"L 131b HVId 3do?3@R, OLBt-CLL (O[6) =Laos � s,a„w LNa, O T Z Or�irncn Z 2 r—r ci ri s� c� rnKI M m l �` 0 3NV1 3NId 310d O n -.- --- :30 Ll 91 vaw JAN .r sxw.+wM� maraa,eeu 99WVLYM JYta 11�Ii.H �n,xw. Sara a®aaaaxaros asnae uaavaa gMcr w 3V �� .0-.01 • .I MAi m ara».�weea aranza .o-mi • .i N V-1 d iN� RlO ,a a n.a..'o.ow., ,rvu,;as3 a 9av a avow+ wwuzauwncwnaauaa W9q,a]aI:�YL Qa 9Y3Ax4}.rmO L'aa ` �? G 3 Car, raly m-r1" x�praoa, 9•JN1N/'Y N]I1tlQtI0d 1YJd/.1 wrro z.a -0—i?.L_V. uradmonua_...�, �ruan z!a,w of Yoau awtiewaa,naaw a., n,eu.m." x a+w ry u.cror saoca,n ow aax..saa..�n n yi.u,aw aot.lun obtAGao m,roitBwu vtb70o�ll a.q+o �r a uaiAl mnD 4119Yiw,®..lii�a,I TTmlmY Ylr®4L.3cI97rCN fi3,•kTt-l6d T.W, xLiw: r�c�.o. �u fHY: 9.,n31�4Y12-iartl�lYi ot w..,.w �� "1� wi, �a __— w wwrern axau.x. aaosa ue au xwx a;H. 9u uaae aama -. aim+aa ssmv m.+v.n ssr nan�rw, �. uaa wavr Aux a�� +M�� ew :ae.0 ww�r rroa aaa,anzav, aa»v ox auwa as ssmace.ea ra�ea aw sus aa,Hawa.s.wr of r,mueaoo -rwv ao iaa uaua axmwa v caa.. voaoioaa aam .g'+'r;. aawwuauawx onmma o, wiw w.m'.rn u�au.e Faun afro asa..�aa OM-rK�6�: 3nO�WI v3+ 9v.6b N �i' rm6 wii�].i9i.F?�v, Tv . amen iT. c3n x�ua•.�: aagar Sx Yr+w..c.r, Tv:9< r %6dv3ww NiAX3210J CHM1 LWU a;<ru"�aw1°iaoaaa`M"ari {�, Q �iu{ • b�•t 'Aadrmw _ ='rw 0ef311W'W n4T aaa,nro n.0 yroamsr as xoe: x. • ,0-.0E'.1 iP .: "Y a zsI I 9fi or d aw+u aNd / N --�— s� T ---------- • �nwe—1133N3 -—a3eNt1— - � � aa� w r � 1 ► � ° 'cif i� lT '��� i � _; p �i � �s� / ,� �• s; � art < i� ,,� ' �, aQ � I� �• tip.. �`, ., d►y - ���`p_ a=- ,���aPA, -'A,,. • No Text 11 E WR TYPE •C-3' WR TYPE 'A' LNR TYPE 'B TYPICAL b-FLEX n SIDE ELEVATION TYPICAL 4-C4R DETACHED GARAGE BLD /1 FRONT ELEVATION El Y LLI W cc U O c W cc In O �wo ~=z CnYO W U 2 F- =O LL 3110 (AL 'ROW t�LLER.Lf�GLE CaRC4ITECTS CC >M WM4fR5 NAY eicc c, wrtc aao rom eTo)L�izi-e xo as i�pCf� 6-PlE>< 6mE ELEve*id TP.4{AQ GARKaE E PRWEGi 91',6 DATC 6.7I-99 DRAWN BAh GDfpMEp .ECH M P:MED DN'M WERE PCf91ELE GN-PR;F4E' ENW.fE BNE tTPE . C0.M WBOOWB uY ODL. NBA. DLAZK.. DEGDFATi�T NGWLVERl. MALIgi4 N6JLATEG nil dE NAI®EOMp 3 CAI¢ GARdlf DGJR WIt TYPE'C-3' INR TYPE C-3' TTTMCAL 6-PLEX n FRONT ELEVATION PAVE_e D4 OB SNWM V GEL. NEUL. oEGOR/.TIVE i!. tWLL PEE mEOAI® i- VARRES ISEAR PATI- WIT TYPE M WIT TYPE T3' TTP'CAL 6-PLEX REAR ELEVATION L'4' I'-0' • SCHOOL PROJECTIONS Proposal: #16-89N Townhomes @ Timber Creek PUD - Preliminary Description: Single famiy Residentail on 5.19 acres Overall Density: 112.72 /du/ac (gross) General Population: 66 (single-family units) x 3.2* (persons/unit) = 211 School Age Population: Elementary: 66 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 26.14 Junior High: 66 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 12.21 Senior High: 66 (units) x .166 (pupils/unit) = 10.96 TOTAL= 49.30 *Figures assume a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom single-family residential units. singleprojAs (ZLEQ-J( CLE IQC4TECTS PC. 748 WHALERS WAY • BLDG E. SUITE 200 • FORT COLLINS. CO 80525 (970)223-1820 General M Statement of Planning Objectives March 24, 1999 The proposed Townhomes at Timber Creek is a single-family attached development to be located on a 5.19 acre site in southeast Fort Collins. The site is located at the northeast corner of Timberline Road and Timber Creek Drive, approximately %. mile south of Harmony Road. The site has been designated for duplexes, patio homes, or townhomes as a part (Tract "B") of the Timber Creek P.U.D. overall development plan (O.D.P.). The tract was then, incorrectly, zoned RL - Residential Low Density during the implementation of City Plan. After discussions with the City planning staff, and as a part of this planning process, the tract's zoning has been changed back to reflect the originally intended uses in keeping with the O.D.P. Further, since the Timber Creek O.D.P. build -out has exceeded 20%, the submission for the Townhomes at Timber Creek has been cleared for processing under the (old) Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.). An original conceptual review meeting was held on June 30, 1997, under the name, "Hamlet at Timberline." A neighborhood meeting for the Townhomes at Timber Creek was held on January 20, 1999, at Preston Junior High School. Approximately 10 persons attended. All units will be for -sale marketed and will be conveyed on individually -platted lots. The completed development will be controlled by a homeowners association formed under declarations and covenants drafted and recorded in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCOIA). Land Use The project design incorporates sixty-six (66) two-story townhomes in 4- and 6-plex building configurations, for a gross density of 12.7 units/acre. Proposed are twenty-six (26) three -bedroom units with attached single -car garages; and forty (40) two -bedroom units with single -car detached garages contained in buildings of two, three, or four garages. Each unit will be conveyed on an individually platted lot, with zero lot lines at the common walls. Each detached garage building will sit on a platted "out -lot", with individual garage use designated and conveyed to an assigned dwelling unit by, "exclusive use of Limited Common Element... ". The remainder of the site will be platted as common elements for green belts, utility easements, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas and private streets. Design Concepts Building designs are proposed to be traditional, stick -built units, employing conventional residential materials. Finished square footage range from a 1,130 s.f. 2-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath townhome to a 1,350 s.f. 3-bedroom, 2-1 /2townhome. Design elements include 90%-efficient furnaces, direct -vent gas -fired fireplaces, covered entry porches, large double -pane windows, and gable -end vents. Exteriors will be constructed of horizontal hardboard siding with lap exposure widths decreasing from 8" at the base to approximately 4" at some second level locations. Roofs will be of Class A fiberglass or asphalt shingles with a standardized color and profile used throughout entire development. Exterior color schemes will be primarily earth tones for siding and trims, with brighter accent colors employed for entry doors, gable -end vents, and other architectural accents. Overall height and scale of the living structures has been reduced through the use of steep roof pitches at certain locations, offsetting the shallower pitches used to cover long spans of the main portions of the structures. The maximum structure height above grade will be 35'-0", including exposed foundations. Wherever possible, second floor bedroom windows have been oriented to face inward (toward the project) rather than directly into the backyards of adjoining, existing single-family residences. Second floor balconies have been omitted to, again, enhance privacy. Detached garage buildings will be similarly constructed, with the same siding and roofing materials. Garage building roofs will be hipped to reduce their profile, and each garage stall will have a person - door allowing access/egress without use of the overhead door, and thus negating the need for residents to walk in or near the streets. Exterior lighting for the development has been designed to afford vision and security for homes, garages, walk, parking, and streets while maintaining unobtrusive levels for both private areas within the development as well as for adjoining single-family homes. Circulation and Parking All units and garages are served by a private street which is approximately 610' long with a 28'-0" flowline-to-flowline dimension. This aligns with the existing curb cut onto Timber Creek Drive. Turn- around bulbs are provided at the midpoint of the project and at the (east) end. The street is intentionally centered within the project to concentrate noise and light within the project and allowing the buildings themselves to serve as buffers to adjacent single-family homes to the east and south. Planning provides for 127 off-street parking spaces (66 in attached or detached garages, plus 61 in marked exterior stalls), including 2 handicapped accessible spaces. All detached garages are sited so no homeowner will have to cross the private street to reach their individual unit. Concrete sidewalks will provide complete internal circulation, connecting all living units to the private street and to the detached garages. Walkways will also provide access to Timberline Road on the west and Timber Creek Drive on the south. Bicycle/pedestrian paths, meeting City standards, will connect the development with Pole Pine Lane to the east and the Poudre Valley Hospital property to the north. Landscaping/Buffering The development will be landscaped in accordance with City site development standards, including minimum plant materials sizes. A minimum of 80% of the common open space will be landscaped with living plant materials and irrigated with underground sprinkler systems. The homeowners association will maintain all landscaped areas. Existing trees and shrubs along the Timberline Road and Timber Creek Drive frontages will be protected to the maximum extent possible during development and construction. Landscaping within Tract "D" to the east of the development will also be completed as a part of this development. • M Buffering along the south and east lines of the development, adjacent to existing single-family homes, will receive particular attention. Materials will be selected to provide both fast-growing coverage as well as effective and attractive year-round visual screening. Existing wood fencing in the areas, which has been installed by single-family homeowners, will remain but may need to be adjusted if drainage elevations have been adversely impacted. No additional fencing is proposed at this time. Splayed stone columns and intermediate wood fencing will be constructed on the east side of the development entry, to mimic that existing to the west. A lighted, monument -style entryway identification sign is proposed for the median within the entryway drive. Eye e_R t-TK PR Epp, v .,o Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion applicable? Will the criterio be satisfied? If no, please explain ' a E 4 .6 a a`< Yes No Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA 1.1 Solar Orientation 1.2 Comprehensive Plan �/ ✓ 1.3 Wildlife Habitat ✓ 1.4 Mineral Deposit 1.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas reserved reserved 1.e Lands of Aericultural Importance 1.7 Enercv Conservation 1.8 Air Quality,/ I ✓ 1.9 Water Qualitv I d I I ✓ 1.10 Sewace and Wastes / I I I ✓ 1.11 Water ( EYRL uA7-E"D A-r F HIV AL 1.12 Residential Density r. 2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY CRITERIAI I i 2.1 Vehicular, Pedestrian. Bike Transoortation �/� I ✓ 2.2 Buiidinc Placement and Orientation �/� I ✓ 2.3 Natural Features I ✓I I 2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking �/� ✓ 2.5 Emergency Access _ ✓ ✓ 2.e Pedestrian Circulation �/ I I I ✓ 2.7 Architecture 2.8 Building Height and Views I I ✓ 2.9 Shading ,/ ✓ 2.10 Solar Access 2.11 Historic Resources 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape 2.14 Sicns 2.15 Site Lighting ttcv'qTEA '-rT F,an� 2.16 Noise and Vibration 2.17 Glare or Heat 2.18 Hazardous Materials A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity 3.2 Design Standards ✓ 3.3 Water Hazards ✓ 3.4 Geologic Hazards I �/ Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised ch 1994 -61- U�fi D .l' T /''1 616-n ACTIVITY: Residential Uses DEFINITION: All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools•, public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. CRITERIA: The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the development plan. Yes No/N/A 1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY J,�, CHART H" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a ERR i&N e residential project shall be based on the following: Aea v EJ T 60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre 60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre 70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre 80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre 90 -100 percentage points— 9-10 dwellinQ units Der acre 100 or more percentage points = or more dwelling units per acre DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 40 Yes No N/A PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H" FROM BASE POINTS? Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Revised as per Ordinance No. 2, 1996. 0 • GCE 9 e-. U • �D. ` T ........... ::::Asa'.• '+� : � •':: .. .+f... ............. ........ .....:. :.::n}...+::•.v:::.:.r.........n.................}}`,::::::.: r. Kam, :ti;:{ FFF:•:4%4rv.C•:�+�kv+itv2{,N.�,[}r::ti::tj:itiriti:.'{'.•r�•'t'•r.,'}i4:?:::::::'{:::: Criterion I.axM:m Earned Credit ar 8 2000 feet of- existing neighborhood service cater, a a neighborhood savior center to be mn&..W n a pat 20% other project. (If the project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, such neighborhood service cents ? 'v:•,? must be constructed as a put of the phase for which approval is sought) 650 fed of an existing transit stop (applicable only to prgcds having a density of at lead six [6] dwelling units 20% per acre on a gross acreage berm) D >' C 4000 fed of an existing community/regional shopping omde , err a coa�mity/regiooal shopping carter to be 10% constructed as a put of the project. (If the project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, such H t1 Rn onr yto oomnwaityhegional shopping canter mud be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought) f CN os i- Ch &Ar [,• 3500 fed ofan existing neighborhood or eomazmRy park, or a community facility (EXCEPT GOLF COURSES); 20% or ------------------------------------------------------------------- O-- d 3500 fed of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community perk, or community facility GOLF COURSES) — -- 10% (EXCEPT or ,C M a M R ------------------------- y — P--=� ------------------------- --- --- ------ 3500 fat of a publicly owned golf eouae, whether developed or not low Q — e 2500 fat of an existing scbooL, mating all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education laws 10% PAR T A6 GA-Ev I r G ` S,z % t 1 3000 fat of as existing major employment neater, or a major employment center to be constructed as a put of 20% the prvjat (Iftbe project is proposed to be oorntruded m multiple phases, such major employment ardor must < ' z be constructed as part of the phase for which approval is sought) No building office or business park, or shopping cater which has served as the basis for "base" �] G a0 the claiming of credit under any other mteria of this Density Chart an also be used as the bans for claiming credit under this critaiao. 0 �4 K- R• i D 6E g 1000 fed of an existing child are center, or a child arc center to be constructed as a part of the projxt (If the 5% projod is proposed to be 00OWuded in multiple phases, such child are center must be constructed n a put of the O phase for which approval is sought) �?f "North Fat Collins" 20% Q IThe Central Busmess District 20% A project whose boundary is contiguous W existing urban developmett Credit maybe earned as follows: 30% 0°k For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 100/* contiguity; 10 - 15°i6 For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 200/9 contiguity, 15 - 20°.G For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 30% contiguity; 4 20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 400% 000tiguitr, 25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 50°.6 contiguity. If the project Wolains dwelling units ad aside for individuals caning SO°.6 or less of the median inoome of City 15% residents, as adjusted for family situ, and paying lea than 30% of their gross income for housing including k utr7itia ("Affordable Dwelling Uni ts"I alcul the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the pmjed and eta that percatage, up to a maximum of 15% (If the project is proposed to be arEMuted in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units mud b, constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain affordable for a period ofnat less than 25 yeses, the devehopw shall t+e= such protective covenants as maybe required by the City user Sea 29-526(Jx4} Criterion EarnedCredit +r 1 Fit an be demoastrittad that the project will refine noaremewable energy usage either though the application of alternative energy systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond tbose normally tnqu u red by City Code, a 5% boamay be /2-C&WLEO - EN 6i� J'Lok earned for 5% reduction in use. fI !,v4nYM _ 70 �� � /�oViOED Ent,-46i eeootd = 80 t.::::.. ;.?Z}?�:°:`•»> Ill Calculate a 1% bonze in every SO acres included the project. :k>> . :. .? r. Il Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. Eder 54 of that percentage as a bonus. 0 If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that mats the City's minimum requires calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a bonus. ffpwt of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not required by City Code, P enter a 2% bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested bb Q ffpart ofdm total development budget is to be sped on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise required by City invested Code, eder a 1 % bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit If the project oedams dwelling units set aside for individuals earning 900/6 or less of the median income of City residents, as adjusted j, for family size, and paying less than 30% of their gross income for housing, including utilities ("Affordable Dwelling Units"), alarlate the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the project and enter that percentage as a baser, up to a max®mm of 15% (If the project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units Mast be constructed as a part of the phase for which approval is sought) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain N > affadable for a period of not leas than 25 years, the developer shall record such protective covenants as maybe required by the City under Sec. 29-526(J)(4} If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units far Type "A"and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fart Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: T T 3 Type "A" .S x Tome "A" Units V Total Units In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30% "B" 1.0 x Tvne "B" Type Units Total Units If the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following; t 3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g environmental. lard use, aesthetic. economic and social factonX 3% For assuing that new drixtures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units; 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation and improvement in an appropriate mercer If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the building, or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as follows: U 9°R For providing 75% or more of the parking in a sbuch ; / 6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure; 3% For providing 25 - 496A of the parking in a structure. If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of l OS6 V If the applicant commits to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any W of the destination points described below, calculate the beaus as follows: S° For coonedicng to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane; °/. For mending to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this Density Chart; S% For connectingto an existingC bicycle mail which isad'acerrt to or traverses the 'ect TOTAL � �f Utilit* • light & power • stormwater • wastewater • water City of Fort Collins MEMO DT: 21 June 1999 FR: Doug Swartz, Utilities TO: Ted Shepard, Planning CC: Dave Brown, Bueno Development, LLC RE: ENERGY SCORE analysis for Timber Creek Townhomes project Dave Brown of Bueno Development asked me to review the energy analysis the for the proposed Timber Creek Townhomes project, which Bueno Development hopes to use to gain bonus points for development approval under the Land Development Guidance System. The target they have reportedly discussed with Planning is a 10% energy savings relative to the current Fort Collins Residential Energy Code minimum requirements. The ENERGY SCORE home energy rating system is being used to document energy use. Attached is the summary of results that indicates that all units will meet or exceed the 10% savings target, if they are built according to plans and specifications. This is done with no changes from typical Fort Collins building practice and is primarily a consequence of attached walls with no heat loss. Please be aware of the following issues: • Baseline "code minimum" ENERGY SCORE ratings are based on code compliance requirements outlined in "Systems analysis energy code compliance using ENERGY SCORE" (May 1997). The required score for each type of unit is based on its square footage. • A higher ENERGY SCORE means lower projected energy use per square foot. • The projected scores shown in the summary table are based on the plans analyzed for the ENERGY SCORE ratings. If the plans change, the scores may also change. • The ENERGY SCORE ratings were based on the following specifications provided by the builder. These are all typical Fort Collins building practice. If the specifications change, the scores may also change. — Ceiling roof: R-40. This slightly exceeds the prescriptive code requirement of R-38, but won't impact results significantly to change it to R-38. — Walls and rim joists: R-13 — Cantilever floors: R-30 — Basement walls: R-11 — Windows: Double glass / wood or vinyl frames — Air leakage: 0.50 air changes per hour. The appropriate number to use for this is a guesstimate, because homes tested by Utilities exhibit such a wide range of airtightness. Multifamily housing, on the whole, is not built as tightly as single family detached housing. think 0.5 air changes per hour is an adequately conservative number, assuming the builder 700 Wood St. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6700 • FAX (970) 221-6619 • FAX (970) 221-6593 • TDD (970) 224-6003 e-mail: utilities@ci.fort-collins.co.us • www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/UTILITIES pays reasonable attention to detail with air sealing. I have discussed this matter with them and encouraged them to build much tighter and have the homes blower -door tested to find out how tight they actually are. — Furnace seasonal efficiency: 80% AFUE — Water heater seasonal efficiency: 0.54 Energy Factor • ENERGY SCORE takes into account only space heating and water heating. Cooling and base load electrical energy use (lights, appliances) are not addressed. The Fort Collins Residential Energy Code at this time does not address cooling in a meaningful way either, simply requiring an air conditioning unit rated at 10.0 SEER or better (10.0 SEER is the federal minimum, so lower efficiency units are not available on the market). • The ENERGY SCORE ratings were made with units in the "worst case" solar orientation, meaning minimum wintertime solar gain. Any other orientation will score equal or higher. • I recommend that representative units be inspected when they are built, to ensure that the units are being built according to plans and specifications or that if changes have been made, the energy targets are still being met. • As we have discussed before, Utilities is available for technical support on energy analysis like this. The decisionmaking and enforcement responsibility lies with Planning. If you have any questions, please get in touch. hAdata\misc\KEMdmck.doc — 6/21/99 hAdata\misc\KEMtimck.xls -- 6/16/99 KEM Homes / Proposed Timber Creek Townhomes ENERGY SCORE analysis See issues raised in cover memo. Code minimums Target (for LDGS bonus) Projected from plans and s ecifications Based on residential code "systems analysis" requirements 10% savings on energy use Projected ENERGY SCORE, unit in worst case solar orientation ENERGY SCORE Energy use Energy use ENERGY SCORE Unit type Conditioned floor area ENERGY SCORE Meets 10% savings target 4-plex Plan C 1836 G-77 46.0 41.4 G-80 G-81 Yes 4- lex/6-plex Plan C3 2022 G-79 42.5 38.3 G-82 G-82 Yes 6 lex Plan A 1776 G-77 46.0 41.4 G-80 G-85 Yes 6-plex Plan B 1958 G-77 46.0 41.4 G-80 G-82 Yes "Energy use" is shown in kBtu/sf for space heating and water heating 40 • • G City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program • lb Version 2.0.4 ENERGY RATING RESULT RAM PLANS ******************************************************************************* Owner: KEM Reference #: 241251 Address: STOCK PLANS Data File: A:KEM-4-PX.DAT Zip: 4-PLEX Run Date: 03-29-1999 Phone: 223-4900 Year Built: 1999 a 4 Builder: KEM HOMES Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Model: 4-PLEX Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Devel: Rating Date: 3-27-99 ENERGY SCORE: * G - 82 G - 82 v v (Least-------------------------------�----I----I Efficient) G-0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 I 90 100 (Most Efficient) ******************************************************************************* This program is offered by the City of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing the energy efficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute any warranty, express or implied, as to the presence or lack of energy features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and its costs, or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house. City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4 DETAILED ENERGY REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING Owner: KEM Address: STOCK PLANS Zip: 4-PLEX Phone: 223-4900 Builder: KEM HOMES Model: 4-PLEX Devel: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Conditioned Space Area: 1836 sq ft Total Glazing Area: 105 sq ft Air Infiltration Rate: 0.40 AC/h Eff. Thermal Capacity: 3969 Btu/F Util. of Direct Solar: 0.70 BUILDING ENERGY SUMMARY Reference #: 241251 Data File: A:KEM-4-PX.DAT Run Date: 03-29-1999 Year Built: 1999 Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Rating Date: 3-27-99 ENERGY SCORE *********** * G - 82 *********** Load Efficiency Energy Consumed Fuel Cost Energy Cost ----------------- KBtu/sf % --------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu --------- $/MMBtu ----------- $/sf Gas Space Heat 17.3 80.0 21.7 39.8 4.24 0.09 Gas Water Heat 8.1 54.0 14.9 27.4 4.24 0.06 Building TOTAL 25.4 36.6 67.2 0.16 COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING Heat Loss Coeff Gross Heat Loss Useful Gains Net Heat Load --------------- Btu/hr-F --------------- °s KBtu/sf ------------ % KBtu/sf % ------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu Ceilings/Roofs 14.4 5 1.3 4 0.3 4 0.9 1.7 Frame Walls 78.9 27 6.7 23 0.7 9 6.0 11.0 Masonry Walls 3.7 1 0.3 1 0.1 1 0.3 0.5 Rim/Band Joists 9.4 3 0.8 3 0.0 0 0.8 1.5 Windows/Skylights 57.2 19 4.8 16 2.1 27 2.8 5.1 Sunspace - - - - - - - Doors 7.5 3 0.7 2 0.0 0 0.7 1.2 Foundation Walls 27.0 9 2.3 8 0.0 0 2.3 4.2 Frame Floors 0.4 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 Slab Floors 11.3 4 1.0 3 0.0 0 1.0 1.8 Crawl Sp/Unht Bsmt - - - - - - - - Infiltration 85.1 29 7.2 25 0.0 0 7.2 13.3 Envelope TOTAL 294.9 100 25.1 85 3.1 40 22.0 40.4 Active Solar Spc Ht - - - - - Internal Gains 0.0 0 4.6 60 -4.6 -8.5 Duct/Pipe Losses - - - - Furnace Losses 4.4 15 0.0 0 4.4 8.0 Space Heating TOTAL 29.4 100 7.7 100 21.7 39.8 COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING Gas 14.9 KBtu/sf = 27.4 MMBtu Solar - - Water Heating TOTAL 14.9 KBtu/sf = 27.4 MMBtu tic P • ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Date: 03-29-1999 1 Property Owner's Name Property Address Zip Code Telephone Number(s) Home Builder's Name Model Name or Number Development Name • Input Worksheet: A:KEM-4-PX.WS Reference Number: 241251 GENERAL INFORMATION 1 KEM 2 STOCK PLANS 3 4-PLEX 4 223-4900 Energy Rating Company Building Plan Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date Site Visit Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date 5 KEM HOMES 6 4-PLEX 7 8 RICHMOND ASSOCIATES 9 DONALD RICHMOND 10 3-27-99 11 12 2. BUILDING STRUCTURE Year Constructed 13 1999 Area of Conditioned Space (sq ft) 14 1836 Housing Type (1-5) 15 2 Apartment Only: Level Type (1-3) 16 0 Floors On or Above Grade (1-2) 17 2 Foundation Type(s) (1-7) 18 4 3. CEILINGS/ROOFS Ceiling/Roof Roof Entry Gross Area Insulation Ceiling Type Line # (sq ft) (R-Value) (1-2) [191 19a 620 19b 40 19c 1 [201 20a 0 20b 0 20c 0 [211 21a 0 21b 0 21c 0 4. RIM AND BAND JOISTS Area Joist Location Joist Insulation (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) 22a 122 22b 1 22c 13 23a 26 23b 2 23c 13 5. FRAME OR BRICK VENEER WALLS Wall Entry Gross Area Wall Location Wall Insulation Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) [241 24a 1080 24b 1 24c 13 [251 25a 104 25b 2 25c 13 [261 26a 0 26b 1 26c 0 [271 27a 0 27b 1 27c 0 Al r- P. 3 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-4-PX.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241251 6. MASONRY WALLS ABOVE GRADE Wall Entry Gross Area Const. Type Wall Location Wall Insulat Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (1-4) (R-Value) [281 28a 61 28b 1 28c 1 28d 11 [291 29a 0 29b 0 29c 0 29d 0 [301 30a 0 30b 0 30c 0 30d 0 Area (sq ft) 31a 34 32a 13.3 33a 14.7 34a 12 35a 31.3 36a 0 37a 0 38a 0 Area (sq ft) 43a 20 44a 20 45a 0 Construction Type (1-4) 46a 1 47a 0 48a 0 7. WINDOWS (INCLUDING DOOR GLAZING) Orientation Glazing Type Wall Entry (1-6) (1-21) Line #(24-30) 31b 3 31c 4 31d 24 32b 3 32c 11 32d 24 33b 3 33c 9 33d 28 34b 5 34c 11 34d 24 35b 5 35c 4 35d 24 36b 0 36c 0 36d 24 37b 0 37c 0 37d 24 38b 0 38c 0 38d 24 9. DOORS (OPAQUE DOOR AREAS ONLY) Door Insulation (R-Value) 43b 4.4 43c 44b 4.4 44c 45b 0 45c Storm Door (l.yes, 2.no) 2 43d 2 44d 2 45d Wall Entry Line # (24-30) 24 24 24 10. FOUNDATION WALLS BELOW GRADE Depth Length Below Grade Wall Location (ft) (ft) (1-2) 46b 72 46c 7 46d 1 46e 47b 0 47c 0 47d 0 47e 48b 0 48c 0 48d 0 48e Floor Area (sq ft) 49a 12 50a 0 51a 0 11. FRAME FLOOR Insulation (R-Value) 49b 30 4 50b 0 5 51b 0 5 Floor Location (1-3) c 3 c 1 c 1 Wall Insulat (R-Value) 11 0 0 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-4-PX.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241251 12. SLAB FLOORS (ON OR BELOW GRADE) Exposed Floor Area Perimeter Perimeter Insulation (sq ft) (ft) (R-Value) 52a 390 52b 72 52c 0 53a 0 53b 0 53c 0 Under Slab Depth Width of Insulation Insulation Below Grade Under Slab (R-Value) (ft) (ft) 52d 0 52e 7 52f 0 53d 0 53e 0 53f 0 13. INTERIOR FINISH Drywall Thickness (0.5 to 1 in.) 54 .5 Uncarpeted Floor Slab (l.yes, 2.no) 55 2 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Area (sq ft) 56 0 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Thickness (in.) 57 4 14. ADDITIONAL MASS Mass Type Mass Area Mass Thickness (1-3) (sq ft) (in.) 58a 0 58b 0 58c 0 59a 0 59b 0 59c 0 Volume of Cond. Space (cubic ft) 60 14384 Heating System Type (1-7) 63 1 15. INFILTRATION Type of Infiltration Measurement (1-3) 61 1 6 Infiltration Value (ACH or sq.in) .4 16. HEATING EQUIPMENT Heating System AFUE Furnace Input (o) (1000's Btu/h) 64 80 65 100 66 Electric Demand Control (l.yes, 2.no) 2 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-4-PX.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241251 17. DUCTS AND PIPES Duct or Pipe Area in Attic above Insulation (sq ft) 67 0 Attic Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 68 2 Duct or Pipe Area in Crawl Space or Unheated Basement (sq ft) 69 0 Crawl Space or Unheated Basement Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 70 2 18. DOMESTIC HOT WATER Water Heater Type (1-4) 71 1 Water Heater Efficiency (1) 72 54 Z-y C, je City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4 l��l ******************************************************************************* ENERGY RATING RESULT RATED FROM ************************************************************M*PLAW **** Owner: KEM Reference #: 241250 Address: STOCK PLANS Data File: A:KEM-6-C.DAT Zip: KEM-6-C Run Date: 03-29-1999 Phone: 223-4900 Year Built: 1999 Builder: KEM HOMES Model: KEM-6-C Devel: R- ,� i &-7 Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Rating Date: 3-27-99 ******************************************************************************* r ! ENERGY SCORE: * G - 83 (Least I ---- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ---- I Efficient) G-0 10 20 30 40 50 - 83 v 60 70 8f 90 100 I (Most Efficient) ******************************************************************************* This program is offered by the City of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing the energy efficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute any warranty, express or implied, as to the presence or lack of energy features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and its costs, or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house. L/C 3 G G 3 P. City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4 DETAILED ENERGY REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING Owner: KEM Address: STOCK PLANS Zip: KEM-6-C Phone: 223-4900 Builder: KEM HOMES Model: KEM-6-C Devel: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Conditioned Space Area: 2022 sq ft Total Glazing Area: 134 sq ft Air Infiltration Rate: 0.40 AC/h Eff. Thermal Capacity: 4365 Btu/F Util. of Direct Solar: 0.72 BUILDING ENERGY SUMMARY Reference #: 241250 Data File: A:KEM-6-C.DAT Run Date: 03-29-1999 Year Built: 1999 Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Rating Date: 3-27-99 ENERGY SCORE *********** * G - 83 *********** Load Efficiency ----------------- Energy Consumed Fuel Cost Energy Cost KBtu/sf o --------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu --------- $/MMEtu ----------- $/sf Gas Space Heat 17.3 80.0 21.6 43.8 4.24 0.09 Gas Water Heat 7.8 54.0 14.4 29.0 4.24 0.06 Building TOTAL 25.1 36.0 72.8 0.15 COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING Heat Loss Coeff Gross Heat Loss Useful Gains Net Heat Load --------------- Btu/hr-F --------------- % KBtu/sf ------------ o KBtu/sf % ------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu Ceilings/Roofs 18.3 6 1.4 5 0.3 5 1.1 2.2 Frame Walls 70.5 22 5.4 19 0.5 7 4.9 10.0 Masonry Walls 3.5 1 0.2 1 0.0 1 0.2 0.5 Rim/Band Joists 8.9 3 0.7 2 0.0 0 0.7 1.4 Windows/Skylights 71.3 22 5.5 19 1.9 27 3.6 7.2 Sunspace - - - - - - - - Doors 7.5 2 0.6 2 0.0 0 0.6 1.2 Foundation Walls 26.7 8 2.1 7 0.0 0 2.1 4.2 Frame Floors 5.5 2 0.4 2 0.0 0 0.4 0.9 Slab Floors 11.3 4 0.9 3 0.0 0 0.9 1.8 Crawl Sp/Unht Bsmt - - - - - - - - Infiltration 93.9 30 7.2 25 0.0 0 7.2 14.6 Envelope TOTAL 317.4 100 24.5 85 2.8 39 21.8 44.0 Active Solar Spc Ht - - - - - - Internal Gains 0.0 0 4.4 61 -4.4 -8.9 Duct/Pipe Losses - - - - - - Furnace Losses 4.4 15 0.0 0 4.4 8.8 Space Heating TOTAL COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING Gas 14.3 KBtu/sf = Solar - Water Heating TOTAL 14.3 KBtu/sf = 28.8 100 7.2 100 29.0 MMBtu 29.0 MMBtu yL 3 GC 3 2 21.7 43.8 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Date: 03-29-1999 • Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-C.WS Reference Number: 241250 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner's Name Property Address Zip Code Telephone Number(s) Home Builder's Name Model Name or Number Development Name Energy Rating Company Building Plan Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date Site Visit Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date 1 KEM 2 STOCK PLANS 3 KEM-6-C 4 223-4900 5 KEM HOMES 6 KEM-6-C 7 8 RICHMOND ASSOCIATES 9 DONALD RICHMOND 10 3-27-99 11 12 2. BUILDING STRUCTURE Year Constructed 13 1999 Area of Conditioned Space (sq ft) 14 2022 Housing Type (1-5) 15 2 Apartment Only: Level Type (1-3) 16 0 Floors On or Above Grade (1-2) 17 2 Foundation Type(s) (1-7) 18 4 3. CEILINGS/ROOFS Roof Entry Gross Area Line # (sq ft) Ceiling/Roof Insulation (R-Value) Ceiling Type (1-2) [191 19a 786 19b 40 19c 1 [201 20a 0 20b 0 20c 0 [211 21a 0 21b 0 21c 0 4. RIM AND BAND JOISTS Area Joist Location Joist Insulation (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) 22a 94 22b 1 22c 13 23a 46 23b 2 23c 13 5. FRAME OR BRICK VENEER WALLS Wall Entry Gross Area Wall Location Wall Insulation Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) [241 24a 856 24b 1 24c 13 [251 25a 264 25b 2 25c 13 [261 26a 0 26b 1 26c 0 [271 27a 0 27b 1 27c 0 GlG3 p3 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-C.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241250 Wall Entry Line # [281 [291 [301 6. MASONRY WALLS ABOVE GRADE Gross Area Const. Type Wall Location Wall Insulat (sq ft) (1-4) (1-4) (R-Value) 28a 50 28b 1 28c 1 28d 11 29a 10 29b 1 29c 2 29d 11 30a 0 30b 0 30c 0 30d 0 Area (sq ft) 31a 38.9 32a 18.4 33a 41.4 34a 20.7 35a 14.7 36a 0 37a 0 38a 0 Area (sq ft) 43a 20 44a 20 45a 0 Construction Type (1-4) 46a 1 47a 0 48a 0 7. WINDOWS (INCLUDING DOOR GLAZING) Orientation Glazing Type Wall Entry (1-6) (1-21) Line #(24-30) 31b 3 31c 11 31d 24 32b 3 32c 4 32d 24 33b 5 33c 4 33d 24 34b 5 34c 11 34d 24 35b 5 35c 9 35d 28 36b 0 36c 0 36d 24 37b 0 37c 0 37d 24 38b 0 38c 0 38d 24 9. DOORS (OPAQUE DOOR AREAS ONLY) Door Insulation Storm Door (R-Value) (l.yes, 2.no) 43b 4.4 43c 2 43d 44b 4.4 44c 2 44d 45b 0 45c 2 45d 10. FOUNDATION WALLS BELOW GRADE Depth Length Below Grade (ft) (ft) 46b 71 46c 7 46 47b 0 47c 0 47 48b 0 48c 0 48 Floor Area (sq ft) 49a 168 50a 0 51a 0 11. FRAME FLOOR Insulation (R-Value) 49b 32 4 50b 0 5 51b 0 5 If 3 4�3 Wall Entry Line #(24-30) 24 25 24 Wall Location (1-2) d 1 4 d 0 4 d 0 4 Floor Locatior. (1-3) c 1 c 1 c 1 Py Wall Insulat (R-Value) 11 0 0 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-C.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241250 12. SLAB FLOORS (ON OR BELOW GRADE) Exposed Floor Area Perimeter Perimeter Insulation (sq ft) (ft) (R-Value) 52a 392 52b 71 52c 0 53a 0 53b 0 53c 0 Under Slab Depth Width of Insulation Insulation Below Grade Under Slab (R-Value) (ft) (ft) 52d 0 52e 7 52f 0 53d 0 53e 0 53f 0 13. INTERIOR FINISH Drywall Thickness (0.5 to 1 in.) 54 .5 Uncarpeted Floor Slab (l.yes, 2.no) 55 2 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Area (sq ft) 56 0 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Thickness (in.) 57 4 14. ADDITIONAL MASS Mass Type Mass Area Mass Thickness (1-3) (sq ft) (in.) 58a 0 58b 0 58c 0 59a 0 59b 0 59c 0 Volume of Cond. Space (cubic ft) 60 15867 15. INFILTRATION Type of Infiltration Measurement (1-3) 61 1 6 Infiltration Value (ACH or sq.in) .4 16. HEATING EQUIPMENT Heating Heating System Type System AFUE Furnace Input (1-7) (%) (1000's Btu/h) 63 1 64 80 65 100 66 Electric Demand Control (l.yes, 2.no) 2 yC 3 (G 3 PS ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-C.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241250 17. DUCTS AND PIPES Duct or Pipe Area in Attic above Insulation (sq ft) 67 0 Attic Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 68 2 Duct or Pipe Area in Crawl Space or Unheated Basement (sq ft) 69 0 Crawl Space or Unheated Basement Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 70 2 18. DOMESTIC HOT WATER Water Heater Type (1-4) 71 1 Water Heater Efficiency (%) 72 54 City of Fort Collins &/ /V ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4 d (1 " a ******************************************************************************* RATE® ENERGY RATING RESULT FROM PLANS ******************************************************************************* Owner: KEM Reference #: 241249 Address: STOCK PLANS Data File: A:KEM-6-A.DAT Zip: KEM-6-A Run Date: 03-29-1999 Phone: 223-4900 Year Built: 1999 Builder: KEM HOMES Model: KEM- 6 -A (DPL 5-( Devel: PL-� R Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Rating Date: 3-27-99 ******************************************************************************* l / ENERGY SCORE: * G - 86 * �1 1 I G - 86 I v v (Least----------------------------I---�- -- -I ---- I Efficient) G-0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 �90 100 (Most Efficient) ******************************************************************************* This program is offered by the City of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing the energy efficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute any warranty, express or implied, as to the presence or lack of energy features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and its costs, or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house. G•g r. f City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4 DETAILED ENERGY REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING Owner: KEM Address: STOCK PLANS Zip: KEM-6-A Phone: 223-4900 Builder: KEM HOMES Model: KEM-6-A Deve1: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Conditioned Space Area: 1776 sq ft Total Glazing Area: 77 sq ft Air Infiltration Rate: 0.40 AC/h Eff. Thermal Capacity: 3834 Btu/F Util. of Direct Solar: 0.71 BUILDING ENERGY SUMMARY Reference #: 241249 Data File: A:KEM-6-A.DAT Run Date: 03-29-1999 Year Built: 1999 Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Rating Date: 3-27-99 ENERGY SCORE *********** * G - 86 *********** Load Efficiency Energy Consumed Fuel Cost Energy Cost ------- KBtu/sf ---------- % --------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu --------- $/MMBtu ----------- $/sf Gas Space Heat 11.6 80.0 14.5 25.7 4.24 0.06 Gas Water Heat 8.1 54.0 15.1 26.8 4.24 0.06 Building TOTAL 19.7 29.5 52.5 0.13 COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING Heat Loss Coeff Gross Heat Loss Useful Gains Net Heat Load --------------- Btu/hr-F --------------- o KBtu/sf ------------ o KBtu/sf o ------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu Ceilings/Roofs 13.8 7 1.2 6 0.3 5 1.0 1.7 Frame Walls 33.5 17 2.9 14 0.3 6 2.6 4.6 Masonry Walls 2.1 1 0.2 1 0.0 0 0.2 0.3 Rim/Band Joists 4.2 2 0.4 2 0.0 0 0.4 0.7 Windows/Skylights 43.2 21 3.8 18 0.8 13 3.0 5.3 Sunspace - - - - - - - - Doors 3.8 2 0.3 2 0.0 0 0.3 0.6 Foundation Walls 12.4 6 1.1 5 0.0 0 1.1 1.9 Frame Floors - - - - - - - Slab Floors 6.7 3 0.6 3 0.0 0 0.6 1.0 Crawl Sp/Unht Bsmt - - - - - - - - Infiltration 82.3 41 7.2 35 0.0 0 7.2 12.8 Envelope TOTAL 202.0 100 17.7 86 1.4 23 16.3 28.9 Active Solar Spc Ht - - - - - Internal Gains 0.0 0 4.7 77 -4.7 -8.4 Duct/Pipe Losses - - - - Furnace Losses 2.9 14 0.0 0 2.9 5.1 Space Heating TOTAL 20.6 100 6.1 100 14.5 25.7 COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING Gas 15.1 KBtu/sf = 26.8 MMBtu Solar - - Water Heating TOTAL 15.1 KBtu/sf = 26.8 MMBtu ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Date: 03-29-1999 0 Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-A.WS Reference Number: 241249 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner's Name Property Address Zip Code Telephone Number(s) Home Builder's Name Model Name or Number Development Name Energy Rating Company Building Plan Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date Site Visit Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date 1 KEM 2 STOCK PLANS 3 KEM-6-A 4 223-4900 5 KEM HOMES 6 KEM-6-A 7 8 RICHMOND ASSOCIATES 9 DONALD RICHMOND 10 3-27-99 11 12 2. BUILDING STRUCTURE Year Constructed 13 1999 Area of Conditioned Space (sq ft) 14 1776 Housing Type (1-5) 15 3 Apartment Only: Level Type (1-3) 16 0 Floors On or Above Grade (1-2) 17 2 Foundation Type(s) (1-7) 18 4 3. CEILINGS/ROOFS Roof Entry Gross Area Line # (sq ft) [191 19a 592 [201 20a 0 [211 21a 0 Ceiling/Roof Insulation (R-Value) 19b 40 20b 0 21b 0 Ceiling Type (1-2) 19c 1 20c 0 21c 0 4. RIM AND BAND JOISTS Area Joist Location Joist Insulation (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) 22a 58 22b 1 22c 13 23a 8 23b 2 23c 13 S. FRAME OR BRICK VENEER WALLS Wall Entry Gross Area Wall Location Wall Insulation Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) [241 24a 496 24b 1 24c 13 [251 25a 32 25b 2 25c 13 [261 26a 0 26b 1 26c 0 [271 27a 0 27b 1 27c 0 rA P 3 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-A.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Numher: 241249 6. MASONRY WALLS ABOVE GRADE Wall Entry Gross Area Const. Type Wall Location Wall Insulat Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (1-4) (R-Value) (281 28a 41 28b 1 28c 1 28d 11 [291 29a 0 29b 0 29c 0 29d 0 [301 30a 0 30b 0 30c 0 30d 0 Area (sq ft) 31a 14.7 32a 20.7 33a 41.4 34a 0 35a 0 36a 0 37a 0 38a 0 Area (sq ft) 43a 20 44a 0 45a 0 Construction Type (1-4) 46a 1 47a 0 48a 0 7. WINDOWS (INCLUDING DOOR GLAZING) Orientation Glazing Type Wall Entry (1-6) (1-21) Line #(24-30) 31b 5 31c 9 31d 28 32b 5 32c 11 32d 24 33b 5 33c 4 33d 24 34b 0 34c 0 34d 24 35b 0 35c 0 35d 24 36b 0 36c 0 36d 24 37b 0 37c 0 37d 24 38b 0 38c 0 38d 24 9. DOORS (OPAQUE DOOR AREAS ONLY) Door Insulation (R-Value) 43b 4.4 43c 44b 0 44c 45b 0 45c Storm Door (l.yes, 2.no) 2 43d 2 44d 2 45d Wall Entry Line #(24-30) 24 24 24 10. FOUNDATION WALLS BELOW GRADE Depth Length Below Grade Wall Location (ft) (ft) (1-2) 46b 33 46c 7 46d 1 46e 47b 0 47c 0 47d 0 47e 48b 0 48c 0 48d 0 48e Wall Insulat (R-Value) 11 0 0 CA P y ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-A.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241249 12. SLAB FLOORS (ON OR BELOW GRADE) Exposed Floor Area Perimeter Perimeter Insulation (sq ft) (ft) (R-Value) 52a 195 52b 33 52c 0 53a 0 53b 0 53c 0 Under Slab Depth Width of Insulation Insulation Below Grade Under Slab (R-Value) (ft) (ft) 52d 0 52e 7 52f 0 53d 0 53e 0 53f 0 13. INTERIOR FINISH Drywall Thickness (0.5 to 1 in.) 54 .5 Uncarpeted Floor Slab (i.yes, 2.no) 55 2 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Area (sq ft) 56 0 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Thickness (in.) 57 4 14. ADDITIONAL MASS Mass Type Mass Area Mass Thickness (1-3) (sq ft) (in.) 58a 0 58b 0 58c 0 59a 0 59b 0 59c 0 Volume of Cond. Space (cubic ft) 60 13912 Heating System Type (1-7) 63 1 15. INFILTRATION Type of Infiltration Measurement (1-3) 61 1 6 Infiltration Value (ACH or sq.in) .4 16. HEATING EQUIPMENT Heating System AFUE Furnace Input (o) (1000's Btu/h) 64 80 65 100 66 Electric Demand Control (i.yes, 2.no) 2 • • ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-A.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241249 17. DUCTS AND PIPES Duct or Pipe Area in Attic above Insulation (sq ft) 67 0 Attic Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 68 2 Duct or Pipe Area in Crawl Space or Unheated Basement (sq ft) 69 0 Crawl Space or Unheated Basement Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 70 2 18. DOMESTIC HOT WATER Water Heater Type (1-4) 71 1 Water Heater Efficiency (o) 72 54 a4 '. ' . City of Fort Collins �� 1 ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4 {J`T)�� ******************************************************************************* ENERGY RATING RESULT RATED NS :Rom PLAI Owner: KEM Reference #: Address: STOCK PLANS Data File: Zip: KEM-6-B Run Date: Phone: 223-4900 Year Built: Builder: KEM HOMES Rating Firm: Model: KEM- 6 -B -&FLC, Plan Rater: Devel : PL-At,3 � Rating Date 241248 A:KEM-6-B.DAT 03-29-1999 1999 RICHMOND ASSOCIATES DONALD RICHMOND 3-27-99 ******************************************************************************* ENERGY SCORE: (Least Efficient) r * G - 83 *********** - 83 v v G-0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 18m 90 100 (Most Efficient) ******************************************************************************* This program is offered by the City of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing the energy efficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute any warranty, express or implied, as to the presence or lack of energy features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and its costs, or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house. c 95 �• • City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program -- Version 2.0.4 DETAILED ENERGY REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING Owner: KEM Address: STOCK PLANS Zip: KEM-6-B Phone: 223-4900 Builder: KEM HOMES Model: KEM-6-B Devel - BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Conditioned Space Area: 1958 sq ft Total Glazing Area: 157 sq ft Air Infiltration Rate: 0.40 AC/h Eff. Thermal Capacity: 4230 Btu/F Util. of Direct Solar: 0.69 Reference #: 241248 Data File: A:KEM-6-B.DAT Run Date: 03-29-1999 Year Built: 1999 Rating Firm: RICHMOND ASSOCIATES Plan Rater: DONALD RICHMOND Rating Date: 3-27-99 ENERGY SCORE *********** * G - 83 *********** BUILDING ENERGY SUMMARY Load Efficiency Energy Consumed Fuel Cost Energy ----------- Cost ----------------- KBtu/sf o --------------- KBtu/sf MMBtu --------- $/MMBtu $/sf Gas Space Heat 17.1 80.0 21.4 41.9 4.24 0.09 Gas Water Heat 7.9 54.0 14.5 28.4 4.24 0.06 Building TOTAL 25.0 35.9 70.3 0.15 COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING Heat Loss Coeff Gross Heat Loss Useful Gains Net Heat -------- Load --------------- Btu/hr-F --------------- o KBtu/sf ------------ % KBtu/sf o KBtu/sf MMBtu Ceilings/Roofs 15.6 5 1.2 4 0.3 3 1.0 1.9 Frame Walls 71.0 23 5.7 19 0.6 8 5.1 9.9 Masonry Walls 3.5 1 0.3 1 0.1 1 0.3 0.5 Rim/Band Joists 8.8 3 0.7 2 0.0 0 0.7 1.4 Windows/Skylights 82.6 26 6.6 22 2_7 33 3_9 7_7 Sunspace 3.8 1 0.3 1 0.0 0 0.3 0.6 Doors Foundation Walls 25.5 8 2.0 7 0.0 0 2.0 4.0 Frame Floors 0.4 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0_9 0.1 1_8 Slab Floors 11.4 4 0.9 3 0.0 Crawl Sp/Unht Bsmt - Infiltration 92.1 - 29 - 7.4 - 25 .0 0 Envelope TOTAL 314.8 100 25.1 85 3 .6 45 1.4 2.6 42.4 .3 Active Solar Spc Ht 0.0 0 4.4 55 -4�4 -8_6 Internal Gains Duct/Pipe Losses 4.3 15 0.0 0 4.3 8.4 Furnace Losses Space Heating TOTAL 29.4 100 8.0 100 21.4 41.9 COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING Gas 14.5 KBtu/sf = 28.4 MMBtu Solar - Water Heating TOTAL 14.5 KBtu/sf = 28.4 MMBtu ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Date: 03-29-1999 • Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-B.WS Reference Number: 241248 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner's Name Property Address Zip Code Telephone Number(s) Home Builder's Name Model Name or Number Development Name Energy Rating Company Building Plan Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date Site Visit Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date 1 KEM 2 STOCK PLANS 3 KEM-6-B 4 223-4900 5 KEM HOMES 6 KEM-6-B 7 8 RICHMOND ASSOCIATES 9 DONALD RICHMOND 10 3-27-99 11 12 2. BUILDING STRUCTURE Year Constructed 13 1999 Area of Conditioned Space (sq ft) 14 1958 Housing Type (1-5) 15 2 Apartment Only: Level Type (1-3) 16 0 Floors On or Above Grade (1-2) 17 2 Foundation Type(s) (1-7) 18 4 3. CEILINGS/ROOFS Roof Entry Gross Area Line # (sq ft) [193 19a 668 [203 20a 0 [213 21a 0 Ceiling/Roof Insulation (R-Value) 19b 40 20b 0 21b 0 Ceiling Type (1-2) 19c 1 20c 0 21c 0 4. RIM AND BAND JOISTS Area Joist Location Joist Insulation (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) 22a 114 22b 1 22c 13 23a 25 23b 2 23c 13 Wall Entry Line # [243 [253 [263 [273 5. FRAME OR BRICK VENEER WALLS Gross Area Wall Location (sq ft) (1-4) 24a 1012 24b 1 25a 100 25b 2 26a 0 26b 1 27a 0 27b 1 Wall Insulation (R-Value) c 13 c 13 c 0 c 0 ri 05 P, 3 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-2.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241248 6. MASONRY WALLS ABOVE GRADE Wall Entry Gross Area Const. Type Wall Location Wall Insulat Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (1-4) (R-Value) [281 28a 59 28b 1 28c 1 28d 11 [291 29a 0 29b 0 29c 0 29d 0 [301 30a 0 30b 0 30c 0 30d 0 Area (sq ft) 31a 49.1 32a 23 33a 49.7 34a 20.7 35a 14.7 36a 0 37a 0 38a 0 Area (sq ft) 43a 20 44a 0 45a 0 Construction Type (1-4) 46a 1 47a 0 48a 0 7. WINDOWS (INCLUDING DOOR GLAZING) Orientation Glazing Type Wall Entry (1-6) (1-21) Line #(24-30) 31b 5 31c 11 31d 24 32b 5 32c 4 32d 24 33b 3 33c 4 33d 24 34b 3 34c 11 34d 24 35b 3 35c 9 35d 28 36b 0 36c 0 36d 24 37b 0 37c 0 37d 24 38b 0 38c 0 38d 24 9. DOORS (OPAQUE DOOR AREAS ONLY) Door Insulation (R-Value) 43b 4.4 43c 44b 0 44c 45b 0 45c Storm Door (l.yes, 2.no) 2 43d 2 44d 2 45d Wall Entry Line #(24-30) 24 24 24 10. FOUNDATION WALLS BELOW GRADE Depth Length Below Grade Wall Location (ft) (ft) (1-2) 46b 68 46c 7 46d 1 46e 47b 0 47c 0 47d 0 47e 48b 0 48c 0 48d 0 48e Floor Area (sq ft) 49a 12 50a 0 51a 0 11. FRAME FLOOR Insulation (R-Value) 49b 30 4 50b 0 5 51b 0 5 Floor Location (1-3) c 3 c 1 c 1 Wall Insulat (R-Value) 11 0 0 C is P. 41 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-B.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241248 12. SLAB FLOORS (ON OR BELOW GRADE) Exposed Floor Area Perimeter Perimeter Insulation (sq ft) (ft) (R-Value) 52a 398 52b 68 52c 0 53a 0 53b 0 53c 0 Under Slab Depth Width of Insulation Insulation Below Grade Under Slab (R-Value) (ft) (ft) 52d 0 52e 7 52f 0 53d 0 53e 0 53f 0 13. INTERIOR FINISH Drywall Thickness (0.5 to 1 in.) 54 .5 Uncarpeted Floor Slab (l.yes, 2.no) 55 2 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Area (sq ft) 56 0 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Thickness (in.) 57 4 14. ADDITIONAL MASS Mass Type Mass Area Mass Thickness (1-3) (sq ft) (in.) 58a 0 58b 0 58c 0 59a 0 59b 0 59c 0 Volume of Cond. Space (cubic ft) 60 15574 15. INFILTRATION Type of Infiltration Measurement (1-3) 61 1 6 Infiltration Value (ACH or sq.in) .4 16. HEATING EQUIPMENT Heating Heating System Type System AFUE Furnace Input (1-7) (%) (1000's Btu/h) 63 1 64 80 65 100 66 Electric Demand Control (l.yes, 2.no) 2 Co 05 'r,-s ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: A:KEM-6-B.WS Date: 03-29-1999 Reference Number: 241248 17. DUCTS AND PIPES Duct or Pipe Area in Attic above Insulation (sq ft) 67 0 Attic Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 68 2 Duct or Pipe Area in Crawl Space or Unheated Basement (sq ft) 69 0 Crawl Space or Unheated Basement Duct Insulation (l.yes, 2.no) 70 2 18. DOMESTIC HOT WATER Water Heater Type (1-4) 71 1 Water Heater Efficiency (%) 72 54 18 BUENO Development, LLC A Colorado Limited Liability Company 3000 South College Avenue, Suite 103 Telephone: (970) 223-4900 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fax: (970) 223-4901 June 22, 1999 Mr. Ted Shepard Chief Planner City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Variance Request, Townhomes at Timber Creek Preliminary P.U.D. Dear Ted: Following up on our previous discussions and efforts regarding Bueno Development's submission for points under the Bonus portion of Residential Point Chart H of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS), we are requesting a variance for (1) additional Bonus point which might be earned under Criterion "W' of the Chart. Provision (3) of Section K (Variance Procedures) of the LDGS provides that the Planning and Zoning Board (may) grant variances provided such granting would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of (the LDGS), and if the applicant demonstrates: "(3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which the variance is requested." [Preliminary to the actual variance request, and in reference to Criterion "L" of the Chart, I understand that you have now received an Energy Score analysis for the buildings within the project, along with supporting data, from Doug Swartz from Utilities. My understanding is that, based upon this analysis, the proposed project should earn 10 (bonus) points under Criterion "L", in that an overall energy savings of at least 10% has been demonstrated. These 10 points would put the total for the project at 99 of the required 100.] We believe that the intent and purposes of the LDGS and points process have been very substantively met, as demonstrated by the 78 Base points already earned. Further, the project did not gain additional possible points under: Criterion "B", 20 points — While there is no TransFort stop presently in the neighborhood, we believe it is both reasonable and practical to assume there (soon) will be, given the PVH development immediately north, the other higher density residential development in the surrounding area, and the (other) commercial development already underway to the north along Timberline. • to Mr. Ted Shepard Page 2 June 22, 1999 Criterion "E", 2 (additional) points — Because all of the project does not fall within the 2500 foot requirement, only 8 of 10 possible points were earned. Criterion "G", 5 points — By virtue of its location being (a few hundred) feet beyond the 1000 foot requirement, relative to the Harmony Christian School and Childcare Center at Harmony and Timberline. The point of the above is that with slightly different interpretation of the point criteria and/or some slight leeway on footage/distances, the project might have earned as many as 27 more base points, for a total of 105, more than the required 100. In other words, we believe the validity of the following variance request is only enhanced in that the point total is but one point shy of that required and that the point total is (otherwise) so close to sufficient. We specifically request a variance for an additional one point under Criterion "W° on the basis of three pedestrian/bicycle connections, which we believe, as submitted, is equal to or better than any plan incorporating the provision for one such connection. The project presently has earned 5 points for pedestrian and bicycle connections. We ask an additional point in that the project provides three such connections: one to the PVH property to the north (placement of which has been coordinated development of that ground); one to the east to connect with the public sidewalk on Pole Pine Lane (through the present Tract "D" of Timber Creek P.U.D., which tract will be replatted as part of the proposed P.U.D.); and a third to connect with the sidewalk along Timberline Road immediately west of the proposed P.U.D. Once again, thank you for your patience and support along the way. We believe very strongly that the proposed project is extremely compatible with both the original planning intent for the subject property and with the present development within the vicinity. We believe the granting of this variance (granting 1 additional credit) is certainly compatible with the intent and purposes of the LDGS. Sincerely, David S. Brown Project Manager, Bueno Development, LLC • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Townhomes at Timbercreek P.U.D. DATE: January 20, 1999 APPLICANT: Dave Brown, Kem Homes and Bueno Development Stan Everitt, Everitt Companies CONSULTANTS: Brad Massey, Aller-Lingle Architects Tricia Kroetch, Northstar Engineering PLANNER: Ted Shepard The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. The project consists of 68 townhomes on 5.12 acres located at the northeast corner of Timberline Road and Timber Creek Drive. The townhomes would be divided among 26 three -bedroom units and 42 two -bedroom units. All units would have a one -car garage. Some garages would be attached to the units while others would be free-standing. The townhomes would be on individually platted lots with a master association to maintain common open space, parking lot and drives. Until these lots are platted, the current legal description is Tract B, Timber Creek P.U.D., First Filing. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicants or consultants. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. I live in the single family homes directly to the south. How high will these townhomes be? Will there be windows looking out directly over my backyard? Will these units be similar in height to the rest of the neighborhood? A: The units will be two -stories in height similar to the single family homes in the neighborhood. The height will be about 26 feet above grade. There will be two roof pitches for variety. The main roof will feature a 5:12 pitch while the dormers will feature 8:12 pitch. The number of windows facing south onto the backyards of existing homes has been minimized by design to preserve as much privacy for the existing homes as possible. 2. Will you put in mature landscaping? A: Yes, the City will require that deciduous shade trees be a minimum of two inches in caliper and ornamental trees be no less than 1.5 inches in caliper. Evergreen trees are required to be a minimum of six to eight feet in height and all shrubs must be no less than five gallons in size. When these plants first go in, they look pretty small and it takes a few growing seasons to get established. Any plant material that dies must be replaced or we will be in violation of the P.U.D. What about the trees along the perimeter? A: This will be an important component the P.U.D. in order to establish an attractive transition between the existing homes and the proposed townhomes. A mix of deciduous and evergreen trees are planned along the perimeter. We need to be careful not plant trees in the drainage swales. 4. What about drainage? Your project looks fairly dense with a lot of roofs and hard surface. Where will all the water go? Will our homes be impacted? A: The drainage plan for Tract B of Timber Creek First Filing was accounted for in the earlier plans for the single family homes. The stormwater from this project will drain into a network of swales to the stormwater detention pond located downstream to the southeast. We are not allowed to drain north into the existing ditch. We are not allowed by the City to impact any adjacent homes. About two-thirds of the project will drain south onto Timbercreek Drive and then into the existing storm drainage inlets. The other one-third will drain east into the Pole Pine Court cul-de-sac, then east to an existing storm drainage inlet. According to our original drainage study for the subdivision, the existing streets, inlets and stormwater detention pond have the capacity to accept this new drainage. 5. Will the conveyance channel into Pole Pine Court be an open swale or enclosed pipe? A: At this time, we are planning for an open swale. 6. I have a concern about your drainage plan. I live on Lot Three on Timber Creek Drive. After a rainstorm, water backs up into my driveway. There appears to be too much water for the street and inlet system. This water stands and does not drain and blocks the sidewalk. After awhile, we get left with a mud/silt combination which we have to shovel. A: This does sound like a problem. We will look into whether the inlets and storm sewers are clogged. These systems may need to be "jetted -out." 7. What about erosion control during construction? I do not like to have mud tracked off construction sites and onto our neighborhood streets. A: This is a legitimate concern. As a rule Bueno Development works with our sub- contractors to keep this from happening but, as you can guess with a construction site, it is not always possible. We usually put down some gravel or roadbase at the construction site entrance so mud is not tracked directly onto the pavement. Erosion control is required by the City's Stormwater Department and public streets required to be kept clean by the City's Engineering Department. Please call us if there is a problem. 8. Will there be any brick on the units? A: We do not know yet. 9. What about the roof? What kind of roofing material will be used? A: We expect to use a high -profile, "shadowline" asphalt/fiberglass shingle. 10. Will there be a separate homeowner's association for this project? A: Yes, there will be a separate sub -association for just the townhomes but it will be under the overall master association for the Timber Creek neighborhood. This sub - association will have proportional representation in the master association and will participate in the obligation to maintain common areas and greenbelts. 11. Why not stub a street connection to the north and tie into the Poudre Valley Hospital future loop road? It looks like you are dumping too much traffic onto Timber Creek Drive. A: It is our understanding that this loop road is to be a private drive. We will discuss this with the City's traffic engineer. Please be cautioned, however, that if this connection is made, travel is two-way and it may bring in more traffic as well from the hospital campus. This is similar to the situation at Parkwood East Apartments where neighborhood traffic was cutting through a private parking lot to get to public streets like Riverside Drive and Prospect Road. Our internal streets are private and we are not sure how mixing public and private traffic will work. 12. It looks like you need more green space. The project looks dense. You need more elbow room. 13. I find it difficult to believe that the Level of Service at the Timberline Road/Timber Creek intersection will be "C" as stated in the traffic impact study. My experience is that turning left to go south on Timberline is delayed will only get worse. A: This is the intersection of an arterial and collector. As such, it will be eligible for a signal when warranted. 14. The project appears to be dense. Is this level of density allowed or do you need some kind of variance? A: Our density is about 13 dwelling units per acre, as calculated on a gross acreage basis. This density is allowed under the Land Development Guidance System if you score more than 100 points of the Residential Uses Point Chart which we think we do. You are allowed 10 dwelling units per acre and up if you score over 100 points so we are within the guidelines for density. 15. I am concerned about the building closest to my house at the entry. Could you delete this building? It appears very close to my side yard property line. It looks like I'll be "boxed -in." A. We have maintained a 30 foot setback from your side yard. Why don't we stake this building in the field so you can get a feel for where it will sit? 16. What is your timeframe for construction and occupancy? A: We expect a plan review process of two to three months after we submit. Then, we expect to break ground for overlot grading in July or August. Then, we hope to build out the project as soon as possible depending on the market. We may phase the project in terms of street construction so we may build the west half first and east half second. 17. What is the price range for the townhomes? A; We are targeting the units to start at $115,000. 18. Will there be second floor decks looking over our backyards? A: No. 19. Are you thinking about a perimeter fence? A: No, we would rather not fence the perimeter. We would rather landscape the perimeter and try to blend in with the neighborhood. We recognize that some of the adjacent homes have fences while some do not. That, of course, will always be an option for our neighbors but, at this time, we are not thinking about a privacy or security perimeter fence. 20. Will you be installing an entry sign at your street entrance? If you did, you could balance the existing entry sign. A: This is a good idea. That way, the private drive intersection with Timber Creek Drive is balanced with attractive signage. 21. Would you match the existing brick and stone? A: Yes, it would be our intention to match the existing quality of the sign. I • • CC) MEMORANDUM CO LO O CO • o TO: Dave Brown, KEM Homes p LO a) Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer Fort Collins Planning Department Cc 0 0 � FROM: Matt Delich _Vwn(> o DATE: January 18, 1999 z Q SUBJECT: The Hamlet at Timberline traffic study 'o (File: 9802ME02) J • �p > O N The Hamlet at Timberline is a 68 dwelling unit multi -family 0 (0 residential development, proposed to be located east of Timberline z T Road and north of Timber Creek Drive in Fort Collins. The Hamlet at aTimberline consists of a number of multi-plex buildings. Access is proposed to Timber Creek Drive approximately 200 feet east of z W Timberline Road. This memorandum is an addendum to "South Timberline _J o Properties Site Access Study," September, 1993. City staff requested p a brief technical memorandum rather than a detailed transportation N r__ N impact study. N In the cited site access study, this parcel was proposed to have 20 single family dwelling units. With the proposal considered in this memorandum, there will be a net increase of 207 daily trip ends, 15 morning peak hour trip ends, and 16 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The Hamlet at Timberline will not increase the traffic very significantly over that considered for the approved land use. The public street network in the area is being completed. Timberline Road is designated as an arterial street. Timber Creek Drive is designated as a two-lane collector street. Angelo Drive is considered to be a local street. Timberline Road is built from the Uj Battle Creek/Stetson Creek intersection north to Harmony Road. Q. Timber Creek Drive is built east of Timberline Road. It lines up z with Angelo Drive on the west side of Timberline Road. There is stop w sign control on both Timber Creek Drive and Angelo Drive. There is W a continuous sidewalk along the east side of Timberline Road to V Harmony Road. There are gaps in the pedestrian facilities along JW z Harmony Road. There are sidewalks along Timber Creek Drive. The W o existing sidewalks meet the design criteria of the city. The gaps Q in the pedestrian system will be completed when the adjacent properties in the area are developed. Development proposals on the o adjacent properties to the north are currently under review by the z City. a Figure 1 shows the peak hour traffic counts on Timberline Road W just north of the Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo intersection. Since this area is currently being developed, detailed intersection counts a were deemed not to be relevant. Given the geometry at the F. Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo intersection, this intersection Q Fcc - operates acceptably. Acceptable operation is defined as level of service D or better. This area is not served by the Transfort Bus System. There are on -street bike lanes on both sides of Timberline Road. The wide shoulders along Harmony Road provide a safe environment for bicycles. Future bike lanes on Harmony Road are part of street designs associated with future development proposals to the north. These lanes are part of the existing Fort Collins bikeway system, providing both east/west and north/south connectivity throughout the city. Timber Creek Drive and Angelo Drive do not have striping. Both of these streets are wide enough to safely accommodate bicycles. When it is appropriate, bike lanes will be striped on Timber Creek Drive in accordance with Fort Collins standards. Trip generation for the Hamlet at Timberline is shown in Table 1. Trip ends were calculated using Trip Generation 6th Edition, ITE. The calculated trip generation from the previous use is also shown on Table 1, along with the calculated difference. A simple comparison indicates that the proposed Hamlet at Timberline will generate slightly more peak hour trip ends than reflected in the "South Timberline Properties Site Access Study." It should be pointed out that the absolute difference in trip generation is very small. Figure 2 shows the short range peak hour traffic at the Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo intersection. This forecast includes the existing traffic, traffic from the recently approved developments to the south (Willow Springs), continuing development east and west of Timberline Road, an increase in "other" traffic, and from the Hamlet at Timberline. This intersection will operate acceptably in the respective peak hours, as indicated in Table 2. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. Operation in the long range future will not be significantly different than that reflected in the cited traffic study. As mentioned earlier, Timber Creek Drive is a collector street. Based upon the new street standards, the cross section provides one travel lane in each direction and a 6 foot bike on each side. Between Timberline Road and the access to the Hamlet at Timberline, parking is not recommended. This site will connect directly to the bike lanes on Timber Creek Drive, which connect directly to the bike lanes on Timberline Road. There are no "priority destination areas," as defined in the "Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual," within 1320 feet of the site. A Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix B, which indicates that this site meets the base connectivity requirements. Sidewalks will be built within the site. They will connect to the existing sidewalks on Timber Creek Drive, providing pedestrian access to Timberline Road. It will also provide pedestrian access to the commercial uses that will be along Harmony Road. As the remainder of the Timber Creek residential area develops to the east, pedestrian facilities will be completed connecting to the system in the Wild Wood area. A Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix B. This area falls into the location area termed "other" and "school walking area." It is within 5280 feet of Preston Junior High School. As noted on the Pedestrian LOS Worksheet, when the sidewalk system is completed to the east, this site will meet the guidelines for school access. There will be two future destination C� areas within 1320 feet of the Hamlet at Timberline. The pedestrian level of service to these areas will be acceptable. There are no other known destination areas that would interact with the proposed land use. In the future, Transfort will have feeder service on Timberline Road. These routes are defined as having 30+ minute service. The Timberline Road route will be within a quarter mile of the site. Pedestrian facilities will/do connect directly to Timberline Road. Harmony Road will be an enhanced travel corridor. The Hamlet at Timberline will meet the transit level of service guidelines. It is concluded that the "South Timberline Properties Site Access Study" addresses the traffic impacts with the proposed Hamlet at Timberline. The trip generation forecasted for this proposal is in line with that forecasted in the site access study. Operation at the key intersections will be acceptable. Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle level of service criteria will be met. m CD RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ON TIMBERLINE ROAD AM/PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. Figure 1 18 • Land Use The Hamlet at Timberline 68 Townhome D.U. (Rate) Previous Use 20 Single Family D.U. (Rate) Difference Table 1 Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak Trips Trips Trips In Out 398 (5.86) 191 (9.57) 207 Table 2 5 25 (0.07) (0.37) 4 11 (0.19) (0.56) 1 14 P.M. Peak Trips Trips In Out 24 12 (0.36) (0.18) 13 7 (0.65) (0.36) 11 5 Short Range Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection am Em Timberline/Timber Creek/Angelo (stop sign) EB LT/T C C EB RT A A WB LT/T C C WB RT A A NB LT A A SB LT A A Overall A A m n d O CD Ln 100/65 NOM. ANGELO I� l� 5/5 TIMBER CREEK DRIVE /� 1 /� DRIVE f 50/30 -� NOM. - Ln o Ln 5/5 Ln � 0 Ln CD SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC AM/PM Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles. Figure 2 0 APPENDIX A • • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCAMSR.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) timberline (E-W) timber creek/an elo Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis......... 17/99 Other Information........ am pm short range Two-way Stop -controlled In section ----------------------------------- - Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI (0 SU/RV's (g) CV's (a) PCE's ------------ 1 2 < 0 N 5 390 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 35 327 15. .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 ---------------- 0 > 1 1 5 1 100 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 ---------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 50 1 5 .95 .95 .95 0 11.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 • • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCAMSR.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 208 180 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1086 1122 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1086 1122 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 0.90 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 416 360 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1025 1099 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1025 1099 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.96 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 816 810 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 363 366 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 347 349 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 800 806 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 326 323 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.95 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.96 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 282 309 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95°s Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) ------- ----- (sec/veh) -- -------- EB L ------ 6 ------ 309 ------ > 314 ------- 11.7 0.0 C EB T 1 349 > 4.0 EB R 116 1122 3.6 0.3 A WB L 58 282 > 283 16.0 0.8 C WB T 1 347 > 14.9 WB R 6 1086 3.3 0.0 A NB L 6 1099 3.3 0.0 A 0.0 SB L 41 1025 3.7 0.0 A 0.3 Intersection Delay = 1.5 sec/veh 9 • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCPMSR.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) timberline (E-W) timber creek an elo Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 1/17/99 Other Information ......... am pm short range Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ----------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI M SU/RV's (o) CV's M PCE's ------------ 1 2 < 0 N 5 288 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 110 408 60 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 0 > 1 1 5 1 65 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 ---------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 30 1 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 • • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g TLTCPMSR.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 154 246 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1157 1039 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1157 1039 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 ------------ 0.93 ------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 308 492 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1171 933 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1171 933 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.89 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 918 890 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 317 329 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 281 291 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 856 886 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 300 287 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.88 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.91 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.90 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 253 260 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) ------- (veh) ------- - (sec/veh) -------- EB L ------ 6 ------ 260 ------ > 264 14.0 0.0 C EB T 1 291 > 4.6 EB R 75 1039 3.7 0.1 A WB L 35 253 > 254 16.5 0.5 C WB T 1 281 > 14.6 WB R 6 1157 3.1 0.0 A NB L 6 933 3.9 0.0 A 0.1 SB L 128 1171 3.5 0.3 A 0.7 Intersection Delay = 1.3 sec/veh • • APPENDIX B Multimodal Transportation Level_ of Service 1Vlanual P. LOS Standards for Development Review - Bicycle Fig -tire 7. Bicycle LOS Worksheet level of service - connectivity nm�rrnun actual prupused base connectivity: specific connections to priority sites: description of applicable destination area within 1,320' including address '� destination area classification (see text) • City of fort Collins Transportation Master Plan f -Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual _ LOS Standards for Development Review - Pedestrian Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet P. 18 project location classification: ScAaae. WA i-K 14UGRSAA -r u e*Q (enter as many as apply) El IN IN If© description of applicable destination area within 1,320' including address J 14 s 14ARWAIII VJLI.AQ9F ��uTcJIZ�> PVH PµoPEAT Y Chu rug destination area level of service (minimum based on project location classification) classification (see text) lre mess au nu7 « ^L gs P �isu.l 1 Se ty {meuuft xk���rn nminuan a 8 -inte—�s 1 C- B actual A I MIA IA11A JAIIA proposed d I A I I A A n,cinnrtn G I G C 4 11 AIIA �J A proposed I 4 11 A 11 C A mnmrnan I I C O�FrCF' actual proposed A I A moonnnn actual proposed M EN �M 0 City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan