Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RIVERSIDE JUNCTION PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 13 92 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
ITEM NO. 23 MEETING DATE 4/27/92 STAFF Sherry Albertson -Clay PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Riverside Junction PUD, Preliminary and Final - #13-92 APPLICANT: Poudre Valley Hospital District c/o Robb, Brenner and Brelig 125 S. Howes Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Ethel McCurry 900 E. Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524 Poudre Valley Hospital District 1024 Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to construct a 113-stall parking lot for additional parking for the Riverside Junction Shopping Center, located south and west of Pennock Place. The site is 1.5 acres in size and is zoned NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Poudre Valley Hospital has purchased a portion of the Riverside Junction Shopping Center to house its Family Care Center and is proposing to provide additional parking spaces for the center on this 1.5 acre site. The proposed parking lot consists of 113 spaces, gaining access from the western end of Pennock Place. The proposed landscaping and fencing provides screening and buffering to adjacent land uses. This proposal has been reviewed under the All Development Criteria of the LDGS and the East Side Neighborhood Plan and is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. A condition regarding the development agreement and final plans is recommended. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins. 00 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT nY BAND 4 LIMITED ;%VK*rW *A- NV _ ..mom • .. 44 r441 --rm ema 1. m p..urna. wn r r.a.•....nu LN.e..r..�b<.\r.< . •II IrY<w .�•.. - µ�� w Nwe ew wl l r �m�aw .. f<�f.N t+[ b r M.ne! wll b V•we Y tlev eI fan 4111m [ YM. s. . rrw Iry\ .nll r r•MnY h•< w o MiA� rra. w \...\ rn rIMM1I. ew[e s :� w r011[ r e. ul Irberlq .Yn a olM.�re ro \r �.... 1 M IMwr�m n•x <YII r [•Y<0 •IN • Iw ��nM<nn ry[ n< r ..r��wr Y w t<b Y\wl Y<yn\ p[rrrry[. ti —IvG D44�0 IAN N.Wt.l"'I�A" IA4 DWb 09AFV ON WARD ¢GN64 POUIH iLwA'h4u ,Nw� Hr".fd' ' � w9 se>+L »M Ok LY+ 4i6•Y Yrr • y pl - 4'MIA 1,pM,�N61M1}IaN E�I6M,HIACYL / YPNL1 —. y.M6A 9-KLl 4NM NW 6IM 2-Mc Wm6w D 0WL->— -J -kLt w N'wN 1RAI6r—SP%pAt60 brM•-- uNN I-PIY [enervb enN I.MM 1-ee.e >._w 6N >eJ p•.M e � ivlbl MII illeee ie r /% Y� N o pow w w IHo RI\MM' • • n+IbeYNN16 _ _ a rr-u 10" °'IXI 4pNyN6f µn trr. 14L1WIN N°�{ °saxd N a�j1Ul [NIK PLkI. • L •. 46' _ ixK# 4LM lrai 1 MDW D4AeP ON 94Ar0 f6Nt, (66s NiA14� GxIdIJ4 I y 5 —Cr4N[, AMool4o � ur* 1Yp, N,ra rN.uR% w4mw NND— I IaN 4IR.I0S "wt rAta I u4Af ggTpN •[YN' Mx NR NxtJ I _ D Lm us Nq L-rwvw nuLw L— 7, I erj6N. WgINq 'iW16AL 6-461100 At 6OUi'N' WHO ' r 4LdL6 y;•br � � I GrW 8u>q Gxlvl'IJy I.m1 MX —I-iN PGNNOLK ?lA60 a —ItIMx6 MXA'hN . _ .. _______ _____ nw iNe,P I L WRbXI. � _ _ GKKY VAKKINd LPI 'i A .. 1.� , ! .. u pw�nM.. GNI.MhNq GUIWINq GxIN. CLod. —Cxk MWLN — M16.4LWw9 PbANt N1AIGRIAI�i I.I`1f � ', K%Y BfY I /ANMW NAM% ,ofA HAM% 1 60N pr G K%Kl"y o°r`%6 m" gYMNOALAP" 0"" bYer Gd. 146 M66 'I MAY"ALL's 6s0L66a KN rytlnlMUh NW.'NR6NALL'6 58601iss' ryY{'!K ee6 6N 'I bNVLIN HgKYLQLU6i 4LWIt61i 'ie A/�AN}IINr IN6NNIG 'ci[YLKs' yxy'!4 6.6 PDP pH o4 PIN, PINUb MMMA LA 4' N1 De, PNr II PINYON PIN% 71NU6 6PULI4 4'Ni MD OI: IY pIN(ALp JUNI/6} JNNrs{ui, e6DINe 'MUMK4' P dw /al. �,A, K t.K - I —, a 1-,rrg or il PLAN - PUP KtVeK--.,iPr-- JUNCTION PkKKING 1'*z 4o- PLAN - PUP KtVeK--.,iPr-- JUNCTION PkKKING 1'*z 4o- • rivpjtdkm YUNLftell Dun, ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the crdenon acojocaole0 Will the criterion be fansheai If no, please explain aO:F'�F'' ,�F�o Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatabdity 2. Neighborhood Character 3. Land Use Conflicts 4. Adverse Traffic Impact PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES ✓!< SAFETY 6. Street Capacity 7. Utility Capacity 8. Design Standards 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. Water Hazards RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Sloce Hazortl 13. Significant Vegetation k 14. Wildlife Habitat 15. Historical Landmark 16. Mineral Deposit 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality k 1)9 20. Water Quality X 21. Noise 22. Giore & Heat 23. Vibrations 24. Exterior Lighting X 25. Sewages & Wastes SITE DESIGN 26. Community Organization k 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features 29. Energy Conservation 30.Shadows 31. Solar Access 32. Privacy 33. Coen Space Arrangement 34. Budding Height 35. Venicular Movement 36. Vehicuiar Design X 37. Parking 38. Active Recreational Areas 39. Private Outdoor Areas 40. Pedestrian Convenience 41. Pedestrian Conflicts Y, I x1( 42. Landscaping/Open Areas 43, Lanoscapingt8w0dings 44. LonascapingiScreening 45, Public Access 46 Signs 4?-I"etk,. x Solo/ OViw1, k -12- kin 1' NI E ills] sm7: (GIIJ 1 O EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUMMARY 0.1 INTRODUCTION The East Side Neighborhood (ESN), which includes one of Fort Collins first urban residential area, is an important part of the community's heritage and continued vitality (Figure 1 indicates ESN Study Area boundaries). This Plan has been formulated as a tool to help in preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the East Side Neighborhood. The intent of this Plan is not to force any changes to existing residential or conforming non-residen- tial uses, but to promote stability in the ESN. The Plan, created through a lengthy process of Neighborhood meetings and extensive efforts of volunteer committees, includes policies and implemen- tation actions in identified areas of concern to the Neighborhood. The Neighborhood Plan, which is intended to address concerns of the wide variety of interests represented in the ESN, is consistent with all the previously adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. Adoption of the POLICY PLAN as an element of the Comprehensive a� represents another step toward a complete City planning program, and provides specific guidance in future public and Neighborhood actions. The major elements included in the East Side Neighborhood Plan can be summarized as follows: 0.2 POLICY PLAN SUMMARY 0.2.1 Land Use The Neighborhood can be divided into three general land use areas; the commercial "Fringe Areas" along College Ave., Riverside Ave., Lemay Ave., and Mountain Ave.; the predominantly residential "Preservation Area" that comprises the majority of the Study Area; and, the mixed use "Buffer Areas" between Preservation and Fringe Areas. Policies are included for the three land use areas regarding: - Review Criteria. The City with the assistance of the East Side Planning Advisory Committee shall work to create criteria for the review of development proposals affecting the ESN; - Historic District. Future land use conversions and architectural treatment of buildings in the Historic District should be an espe- cially important consideration in the review of development and redevelopment proposals. The City's Cultural Resources Board or the Landmark Preservation Commission should comment on development proposals affecting the historical character of the Neighborhood; - Signage. Design of signs in the ESN should be in character with the surrounding neighborhood; -7- Zoning. Changes to the existing B-L, Limited Business Zoning Dis- trict to specifically include residential uses, and the creation of new N-P Neighborhood Preservation, and N-B Neighborhood Buffer Zon- ing Districts are recommended (See Figure 4). The N-P, Neighborhood Preservation District generally would allow single family and low density multiple -family (up to four unit) dwellings, require at least administrative review by both the City and Neighborhood of most use conversions, and provide lot size and minimum yard requirements more in character with older residential areas. The N-B, Neighborhood Buffer District is intended for mixed use areas between existing residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. The zone would allow, with City and Neighborhood review, use conversions to multiple -family (up to 12 dwelling units per acre) and less intensive nonresidential activities. Compatibility with adjacent Preservation Areas is stressed in this zoning district; Use Conversions. Criteria for evaluating appropriate changes in use to be considered in the three land use areas are included. Commer- cial uses are anticipated to continue in the Fringe Areas; Single family and lower density multi -family uses are to be continued in the Preservation Areas (where conversions of most existing uses are discouraged); and, housing for groups having special needs, higher density housing, and office uses are acceptable in the Buffer Areas. Saving and renovating valuable existing structures and visual compatibility with the character of the Neighborhood is emphasized, especially in the Buffer and Preservation Areas; Traffic. Uses generating or needing exposure to high volumes of try c should be located on the perimeter of the Neighborhood. A Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan to minimize additional nega- tive traffic impacts on the ESN should be established; and Housing. The preservation and enhancement of the mix of housing types found in the East Side Neighborhood is a key element of this Plan. Policies include: Stabilizing the Preservation Areas, espe- cially the residential area north of East Mulberry Street; provid- ing opportunities for a wide variety of housing in the Buffer Areas; and, encouraging inclusion of residential uses in the Fringe Areas. H 0.2.2 Transportation The viability of the ESN as a residential area is directly affected by the impacts of traffic passing around or through the Neighborhood. To reduce future negative traffic impacts, policies are included regarding: - City Wide Capital Improvements. Improvements to the greater street system serving Fort Collins should be pursued that would provide through traffic with alternatives to Neighborhood streets. The Plan includes policies for higher use of Lemay Ave. and Riverside Ave. for north- and south -bound traffic; creation of a functional down- town truck bypass; improvements to Lincoln Ave, and Timberline Road; and completion of the Prospect Road - I-25 interchange; - Important Neighborhood Streets. Policies include future traffic control treatments of streets within the ESN as follows: * The Mulberry - College Ave. intersection capacity should be increased; * The future of the Mulberry corridor has not been decided as part of this Plan. Rather, the City and the community needs to develop and maintain a long range transportation plan for the next 20 years. The transportation planning effort should pay special attention to the policies within this Plan as well as impact on the Neighborhood; * Magnolia St., east of Mathews St., should remain a two-way local residential street; * Remington St. should be utilized as a north -south alternative to College Ave., but additional traffic should not be encouraged to use parallel local streets such as Mathews St. and Peterson St.; * Excessive additional traffic loads on East Elizabeth St. should be avoided through improvements to Lemay Ave, and Riverside Dr.; installation of entryway "curb bulges" along East Elizabeth St.; extension of Laurel Street to Pennock Dr.; and if warranted, signalization of the Pitkin-Lemay intersection; * Whedbee St. should not connect directly through to Willow St. and Cherry St.; * Additional traffic controls and special intersection treatments are recommended for Peterson St, to reduce traffic levels and speeds; * Laurel St. should not be used to provide primary access to the developing commercial areas along Lemay Ave. and Riverside Avenue, Laurel St, should be extended to east, run on the west side of the Riverside Shopping Center and then connect with the existing Pennock Drive. The design of the street should IM discourage non -neighborhood traffic including narrowing the width of the street east of Whedbee St, while allowing bike, pedestrian, and neighborhood vehicular and transit access only. Laurel Street shall not connect to Riverside Drive. Transportation Planning. The City needs to develop an understand- ing of what the transportation planning needs are and to define a wide variety of options indicating where the community should be in regard to transportation planning in the next 20 years; and Other Traffic Concerns. Special intersection treatments, a Neigh- borhood Parking Program, limitations on truck traffic, improved pedestrian circulation and school access, and enhanced alternative transportation modes are among the improvements that should be made toward better management of traffic in the Neighborhood. 0.2.3 Private Maintenance Maintenance of private properties, including general repair, routine maintenance, and major reconstruction needs are concerns in the City's older neighborhoods. Policies include: - The Housing Code should be reviewed and made more enforceable. The Code should be applicable to owner occupants as well as renters; - Tax deferrals, revolving loan programs, a volunteer assistance pro- gram, and/or other funding mechanisms should be created to relieve the financial burden of major maintenance items to elderly and low or moderate income property owners; and - An annual street tree replacement and enhancement program should be continued. 0.2.4 Historic Conservation Policies directed toward conservation of the Neighborhoods historic character include: - The City should establish preservation criteria for the review of "contributing" structures and identify alternatives to prevent unnecessary demolition; - Improvements to older structures should be made, to the extent pos- sible, according to applicable design guidelines; - Additional local incentives should be provided for renovation of r older structures; -10- The City and Neighborhood should explore "local designation" of the Laurel Street Historic District and/or the East Side Neighborhood; and Conduct a survey and develop criteria to assess all primary structures in the Neighborhood for their "contributing," "non-contributing," or "intrusive" value. 0.2.5 Open Space The major open space need of the ESN is the acquisition and improvement of a neighborhood park adjacent to the new Laurel School (as previously indicated in the adopted City of Fort Collins Open Space Plan). Policies include: - Identification of an eight to twenty acre park site; - Determining appropriate financing mechanisms; - Design and construction of the park improvements; and - Possible conversion of the existing Mountain Bell facility on Laurel Street to a "Senior" or "Neighborhood" Center. 0.2.6 Public Facilities/Infrastructure Policies call for the creation and funding of annual programs for improve- ments to the streets, walks, utilities, and storm drainage system serving the ESN. 0.2.7 City Wide Concerns Issues raised in the process of formulating this Plan included several that would be more appropriately addressed on a community -wide level. Included in that category are special alternative elderly housing approaches (ECHO housing), transportation planning, low income housing, alternative trans- portation modes, bike routes, school access for pedestrians, home occupa- tions, nonconforming uses, noise control, and animal control. 0.2.8 Commitment to Implementation While it must be realized that specific methods may have to be adjusted, a commitment to implementation is a fundamental part of the adoption of this Plan. -11- CHAPTER 2 POLICY PLAN GeneralIntroduction The East Side Neighborhood Plan makes every effort to reflect the varied interests specific to the study area. The Plan also recognizes that the Neighborhood is a part of the total community. The policies included in this Plan - formulated by neighborhood residents, property owners and business interests - are consistent with other elements of the Comprehen- sive Plan of the City of Fort Collins as follows: - Open Space Plan, March, 1974.. The portion of the Open Space Plan that is of most concern to the ESN is the designation of a 10 acre neighborhood park in the eastern portion of the East Side Neighbor- hood. The Neighborhood Plan is consistent with this policy as well as plans for bikeways and historic preservation proposals included in the Open Space Plan; - Goals and Objectives, August, 1977. The Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the applicable goals and objectives in all sections of this document, including: * Community Self -Perception and Design; * Transportation; * Housing; * Economic Development; * Land -Use; * Environmental Pretection; and * Public Facilities and Services. - Land Use Policies Plan, August, 1979. The Plan is compatible with the adopted policies that address: * Maintaining the quality of life in the community; * Promotion of efficient utilization of land, alternative trans- portation modes, and location of residential areas; * Creation of land use, site planning, and urban design criteria; * Utilization of the Capital Improvements Program to direct growth; -16- Riverside Junction P.U.D., - Preliminary & Final, #13-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background• The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NCB; existing junk yard S: NCL; existing single family residences E: CL; existing commercial uses (Riverside Junction Shopping Center) W: NCL; Laurel Elementary School This site was annexed into the City in 1967 with the First Lemay Annexation and was zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. The Riverside Junction Shopping Center was developed as a use -by -right in the mid-19801s. This site lies west of the Center and has never been subdivided or proposed for development before. Poudre Valley Hospital has purchased a portion of the Riverside Junction Shopping Center to relocate its Family Care Center. The Family Care Center is considered a use -by -right at this location; however, PVH believes it needs additional parking for employees, so that the existing parking at the Center can be used by patients. The proposed parking lot would provide parking for employees of the Family Care Center. The northernmost portion of this site was owned by the school district. A land trade between the district and PVH has provided more rectangular shaped pieces of property for the proposed parking lot and for the school district. This trade shifts the proposed parking lot farther to the north, away from homes on Elizabeth Street and provides an improved configuration for the school playground area. PVH has acquired a 15-year renewable lease from Mrs. McCurry for this property. 2. Land Use• The N-C-L Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Zoning District was created in 1991, to implement policies of the adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP). The N-C-L District designation "is to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family housing and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted neighborhood plan". Permitted uses in the N-C-L District are limited to single-family dwellings, accessory buildings and uses and essential public utility and public service installations and facilities. Group homes, public and private schools, churches and public and * Availability of existing services as a criteria in locating higher intensity uses; * Preparation of plans addressing the development and redevelop- ment of the downtown area; * Promotion of locating proper uses in the downtown area; * Assessment of use conversions in the core area; * Promotion of improved traffic circulation in the north and northeast areas of the City; * Promotion of development in the northeast quadrant of the City; * Minimizing use of private automobiles; * Requiring "neighborhood scale" service centers in residential neighborhoods; * Promotion of a mix of residential densities and provision of housing for groups having special needs, including people with low and moderate incomes; * Locational criteria for both low density and higher density res- idential areas; and * Provision of. neighborhood parks, playgrounds, and urban pocket parks. Master Street Plan, May 1984. The Neighborhood Plan calls for the implementation of a number of city-wide capital street improve- ments. These improvements are consistent with both the current Master Street Plan and the revisions being considered; Core Area Plan, (not yet adopted). The draft plan produced by the DDA and City Planning Division reflects strong concern for the older areas in and near downtown. The policies included in the_ _ East Side Neighborhood Plan have no apparent conflicts with the draft Core Area Pan. Both plans recognize the important relation- _ ships between housing, employment, and core area commercial uses. Policies in the Core Area Plan include: * Development in core area residential neighborhoods which strengthens their stability, integrity and character; * The development of a neighborhood plan for each residential area within or surrounding the core area; * Compatibility of new development/redevelopment with existing neighborhoods; -17- * Higher density residential uses being appropriate only in the areas between the central business district and existing resi- dential neighborhoods, in the immediate vicinity of CSU, and in large areas of vacant land; * Amendment of the Zoning Code to establish regulations based on the existing pattern in residential blocks in or adjacent to the core area; and * Avoiding design or development of traffic patterns which impinge on residential areas by unduly increasing the level of use or demand for -parking. East Side Neighbbrhdod Polity: For1mu1Atibh In order to arrive at the specific neighborhood policies included in this Plan, three committees were formed to look at issues and aid in the formulation of policies in the six identified areas of concern. Each of the committees consisted of property owners, members of the East Side Neighbor- hood Plan Steering Committee, City Staff, and other concerned citizens. Each of the committees were involved with one of the following topics: 1. Historic Conservation / Private Maintenance. 2. Land Use / Public Facilities / Open -Space. 3. Transportation. Neighbdrhood R'eorogentation On -going Neighborhood participation in issues affecting the area is an important step toward the goal of preserving and enhancing the area's desirable characteristics. The creation of an East Side Planning Advisory Committee is the primary mechanism for providing Neighborhood representa- tion in the implementation 0--this Plan: Suggested criteria for the creation and administration of this Committee,is included in the Implemen- tation Guide. The City and the Neighborhood should make a concerted effort to involve all citizens of the study area in the review of municipal services, public and private development proposals, and general and specific planning issues as they relate to the future of the Neighborhood and implementation of the Plan. I". Recommended Policies The policies included in the six identified areas of concern to the Neighborhood are detailed in the following sections. 2.1 Land Use 2.1.1 Existing Land Use Patterns An important characteristic of the East Side Neighborhood is its diversity. As indicated by the existing land -use pattern, (Figure 2), the Neighborhood contains a mix of housing types that serve a variety of people of different ages, occupations, and income groups. Nonresidential uses are generally found along the arterial streets at the north, east, and west perimeters of the study area and to some extent on East Mulberry St., with limited com- mercial encroachment internal to residential areas. Home occupations, library, museum, churches and a number of public schools add to the rich variety of land uses in the area. The Neighborhood's existing zoning pattern was put in place in 1965, when anticipated growth of CSU was a major concern. The R-H, High Density Residential and R-M, Medium Density Residential Zoning Districts were created specifically to accommodate extensive conversions of older single family areas to a mix of land uses including multiple family (student) housing, restaurants, offices and personal service shops. The resulting (existing) zoning pattern (Figure 3), while accommodating the existing mix of land uses, is not oriented toward maintaining all the desirable charac- teristics of that mix. ,The majority of the existing low density housing areas in the neighborhood are included in high and medium density residen- tial zones. Most of the perimeter areas are in commercial and industrial zones with few or no restrictions concerning allowed land uses, and no requirements for neighborhood compatibility. The existing zoning districts in the study area represent the potential for substantial land use con- flicts within the East Side Neighborhood, and should, in many cases, be reconsidered. 2.1.2 Land Use Policies The East Side Neighborhood can be geographically divided into three general land use areas: "Fringe" - This area includes the predominant nonresidential areas fronting on South College Avenue, Lemay Avenue, and River- side .Avenue, and the portions of the Downtown Business District included within the study area. The Fringe area will continue to provide a wide range of business uses serving the total community as well as the ESN. The poli- cies in this Plan regarding the Fringe areas are intended to enhance commercial compatibility with the Neighborhood. -19- "Preservation" - This area includes the predominantly lower density resi- dential areas that make up the major portion of the Neigh- borhood area. It is critical to the continued viability of the East Side Neighborhood that the existing land use mix of these Preservation areas be maintained, that hous- ing opportunities for all income groups be allowed, and valuable existing structures be preserved and renovated. Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate sur- - roundings. "Buffer" - The Buffer areas are intended to provide a "cushion" between the Fringe and Preservation areas. The predom- inant land uses to be encouraged_ in the- Buffer .areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity (non -re- tail) nonresidential uses, multi -family housing including higher density residential uses, and othe-r residential land uses providing special housing needs such as boarding or group homes, and low/moderate income housing projects. Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the buffer area, all existing structures contributing to the character of the Neighborhood should be preserved if possible. The exterior treatment of renovated structures or any new construction should be compatible with the existing character of the Neighborhood. The locations of the three land use types are illustrated in Figure 4. The Plan includes policies regarding existing and future land uses in the ESN for each of the three land use types. It is recognized that, as with any existing neighborhood, unique and specific circumstances affecting certain properties will require special consideration. However, the policies are applicable to the vast majority of properties in the Neighborhood. The City of Fort Collins' PUD Ordinance, known as the Land Development Guidance System, provides a property owner affected by unique circumstances with a mechanism for proposing alternative land uses otherwise not allowed under the strict adherence to the policies of this Plan. Any such` PUD proposed should be evaluated as to its overall compatibility with, and contribution to the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Policies common to all three land use areas are: 1. Review Criteria. The City and the East Side Planning Advisory Committee shall work to create criteria for the review of future proposals to protect the interests of the Neighborhood without discouraging appropriate or desirable uses. The area should be monitored for any significant demographic changes. Such changes should be promptly assessed and appropriate steps be taken to revise policies and implementation measures in the interest of Neighborhood stabilization. -20- 2. Historic District. Future land use conversions and the architectural treatment of buildings in the Historic District can impact the existing character of that area. Any change which would impact the historical character should be an important consideration in the review of development proposals. The opportunity to provide comments by members of the Cultural Resources Board or the Landmark Preservation Commission should be included as needed in the review of any substantial proposals affecting buildings in this area. 3. Signage. Design, size, materials, and lighting of any signs in the ESN should be in character with the surrounding neighborhood environment. Policies specific to each of the three land use areas are as follows: 1. Fringe Area's 1.1. Zoning. Except for areas that are critical to the downtown core, the existing C, Commercial, I-G, General Industrial, and B-G, General Business Zoning Districts should be changed to districts more compa- tible with and sensitive to the East Side Neighborhood. The B-L, Limited Business zone, should be amended to permit residential uses in most areas. Retention of the existing B-G, General Business Dis- trict, or other future districts appropriate for downtown commercial development, is recommended in the downtown commercial area. The blocks fronting on South College Avenue between Prospect Road and Pitkin Street should remain in the R-H, High Density Residential Dis- trict, unless traffic circulation problems associated with more intense uses can be resolved. Conditions on use conversions involving physical changes to existing uses should be added to the B-L and R-H zones in the ESN. These conditions should require that site and landscape plans and preliminary building elevations be reviewed by the East Side Planning Advisory Committee and approved by the City Planning Director. 1.2. Use Conversions. Proposed use conversions in the B-L or R-H Zoning Districts that would result in significantly increased traffic generation or other substantial impacts to the Neighborhood or general community (uses that are presently required to be part of a Planned Unit Development in the B-L Zone), should require approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. The required review process should include review and recommendation by the ESN Planning Advisory Committee. The development review process should also include an overall look at planning "criteria including traffic access, utility service and the future development potential for the block in which the proposal is located. The development review process should provide a traffic impact assessment including impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. -21- 1.3. Traffic. Additional non-residential uses needing exposure to high volumes of traffic South College Avenue, East Mountain Avenue, Lemay Avenue. All such uses should be non -neighborhood or through traffic from streets. in the ESN generating or should be located only on Riverside Avenue, or South designed to discourage using local neighborhood 1.4. Housing. Encourage proposals affectj_ng the Fringe Areas to include residential uses in development or redevelopment plans. 2. Preservati'on' Areas 2.1. Zoning. The portions of the ESN currently within the_R-L, Low Density Residential Zoning District should_ generally not be considered for rezoning. The remaining portions of the Neighborhood Preservation Areas should be rezoned to better reflect the existing mix of predominantly single family and low density multiple family uses. A new "Neighborhood Preservation" Zoning District (described in Appendix A) is recommended. Site and landscape plans and preliminary building elevations for proposed use conversions - except -conversions to single family uses - should be reviewed by the East Side Planning Advisory Committee and approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning Director. Requests determined to require more extensive public review may be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board by the Planning Director and appealed to City Council if necessary. In the event that unforeseen difficulties should preclude the creation of a a new Neighborhood Preservation" district, a conditional version of the RLM, Low Density Multiple Family District, based on the policies included in this section of the Plan, is recommended. 2.2. Use Conversions. Changes of use are to be generally discouraged, except as follows: Conversions which can be demonstrated to further specific goals of the East Side Neighborhood Plan; - Churches, schools, and public/quasi-public recreational uses; - Accessory uses, such as home occupations; - Appropriately treated accessory dwelling units; - Two-family, four -family, and group homes, subject to site plan review; -22- No Text .—n�,4 l- it 141 11 kL—J-JO EAST LAUREL I D STREET 1.. ! 1 1 ,, ! _ r. _ •_ I —_.I.. _ 1 _ _'_' � r !I i" //I �'Flf A it . t [ ! , _• C I nr [ r—l.- _- -r"1 I _% 11 �( f, �� mw 1JN A cQ"Il .: p� � Cppp Y. EAST PLUM STREET = -'T~ - t ! +i - sul ER 811._ _ MI �± !~ list H H1. ! !j ! r •w•ftfY.....J[m I _I 1 I rc LOCUST I STREET '+I _ ice- JLiT w 'i 1... ___ J 1 • 1 --. i I I I -II __1 1 �- -frt _ •' 1 .• 1 _ 1 +I a R - - 1 -I c s ✓ ! Aa I AIF ic'`` `�. �. A E I� i __ Et12it/ _ _ •5 _ _ EAST ,ELIZABETH STREET �—=----a ! F IT1 d_S = h t 51lr I ui i, • •OAf61ELD • STREET ' _ - - ..• & • � •• w l w i .. I .. ,N. w I _"•i•'$;' �`'f r � � ! � You _ fuwv fcr I I N t , ! �— I � � —.I III i , 1� 1.1 } � I 1 ! r � •—L----Tg-- —i--—I--•-----� / .�, -... ( I IL I, t `-= t_;.i r.r^ [.• -I.. _..,.. .� ...'.. �I I _;. .I, .. .,; �% 1 ''�, 'if�-. ,. I , , `! ' �' /7il ; `:` =�---•--'"I _. ' EDWARDS STREET '�;�; — — 4 _ IY�I •� •1 1 -• PMiRyTT I!.j•Ii'IiI1 li~ � 4 i_Ii oil1�� J !.t /.• ,I--1 --- PROPOSED LAND USE AREAS EAST PT10N —• STREET I I i j 1 I u '! I I 1 a • � . d !� j l L.... �I �''uiiTs 1 J ' ' "y NP I - if PRESERVATION AREA -I I -'�� m•..1 j i `6 it i !~ IrIr I I I. , It 1 H !" RL - t `• �,_ — — --- I • uua.a min. �; I i I I i I -� ! :rl l , ' g. NB BUFFER AREA t— RH; 1 ! III r HL FRINGE AREA 80. zor>INc DESIGNATIONS M - NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION* EA - --7 _ - - ST T• 1-LAKE-1- - - � I is eTREET FE - NEIGHBORHOOD BUFFER' RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ! ' I d IF� J I I d 1 I 1__ r - 1 i1 •--ill I ` i� - 1 i Poi - H(3i DENSITY RESIDENTIAL T 1 Ni L Ir -- 1 I .� I I I i 1 SL - UPATED BUSINESS k I,rr _+ I I -II !-i� = I I arJll T I j BG - GENERAL BUSINESS ! I- I I - _I I ! �! I I C I-- I� ---t I I T' - II� 1 l.'• 1 • I I •!N• XKIX �' NEW ZONING DISTRICTS 90 BE CREATED) ll,i IS F'EIT k.,:T.•. alga/Ai'" I ' --- —. I■df�>�t��Hli1u FIGURE 4 I1 I r� l a I, II I� �, d ! Other uses by right, such as conversions to low density multiple family (four unit buildings maximum) included in the N-P zoning district; and Single family homes. A change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character, including, but not limited to: Scale, mass, building separation, building placement; building height; finish materials and architectural style; and can be shown to create no significant additional traffic, noise, or other land use conflicts, which would be -adverse to the existing Neighborhood. 2.3. Traffic. Establish a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan to minimize additional traffic impacts on the ESN, utilizing the policies included in the Transportation section of this document. Analyze specific areas such as East Magnolia and East Elizabeth Streets, where increased traffic would be in conflict with critical land use policies affect- ing the stability of the Preservation Area within the Neighborhood. Neighborhood participation in the -creation and monitoring of Neigh- borhood Traffic Management Plans should be maximized to the extent practical. 2.4. Housing. The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is a key element of this Plan. All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood should be evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential areas designated for Neighborhood Preservation. The continued attraction of home buyers and renters to the ESN is most desirable, and should be a priority of both the City and the Neighborhood. An area of particular concern is the Preservation Area north of Mulberry Street. This small area provides a diverse mix of housing types within easy walking distance to the downtown commercial and employment areas. Extensive use conversions and/or intrusive changes in traffic patterns could seriously undermine this important low density- area. 3. Buffe'r' Areas 3.1. Zoning. Most of the designated Buffer Areas are now within the R-H, High Density Residential Zoning District -which allows a wide variety of residential densities and non -retail commercial uses. While the R-H,zone is similar in concept to the desired Buffer Area, intense traffic generating uses including restaurants, hospitals and clinics, and very high density residential uses are allowed beyond what is considered compatible with the Neighborhood. The Buffer Areas should be rezoned to a new "Neighborhood Buffer" zone. Conditions on use conversions, involving changes of existing uses - except to single family - should be included in the N-B, Neighborhood Buffer Zone in -23- •_'�. / `)\ii �.�♦ham �i /� r n \ �' D - I i ,` l �•��• /♦� �%r • \'�\` ) MOM Lp,,Atlo"e wo ofavle ar a QE WlUISECTIo • ��: '• �\ l M UN AIN / LINCOLN I TRG Rr•�•fEa.lIe•rpnxnTEo ICRE Na caRCErn,1u "'• E S_T . ST ALTERNATIVE .pgitdRAE MERIfnm wr A W WE c DERIA a •• �•' \: �f 3 T MI LBERRYIb I • , f �\ % v - 0 I r ll �1-� I IYCIt71 1 _ O0 TRAFFIC a SYSTEM RSIDEE / LL W / CFERR EAST SIDS 1 ' T ,ll, h NEC N • I I - - i 1 ' 1 I I FIG RE 8 0 ; 1r_________o� __T_ __y_--eTRfET _ ` IC HBOI�HOOD PLAN O I <•_�� ij ( I � I f I 1 1 1 1 J I° AL 4 I _ Y T `-- - - - —� rRee I 000000 ` I - I . O i �..., IIYIf 4.i. •i i • E T - _— --, %00.0 - b zoo •b• to • 1,. I I ,_1 1 O O O I - I • ._ _ _- • �. A� ^E� TIAME T _jL, _/ryryry]111//ry�t♦yE{_',//�1j���.I1..'1 /)(`� r 1 , « -'•..S InGG. 1 .Y _ _ •f_. --�. W, Na O WSJ _ llllll • i IMPROVE MAGNOLIA INTERSECTION - , - = M p' - i _--71.. - G _ u I - _ I 1 1 ENCOURAGE I CAPACITY O HOWES DOWNTOWN i i i - r , , OURA RIVERSIDE " ' i - ` — — I 1 1 _ — -� — i( SS TROtd_ . _ .. ACCESS • �:••• WNTOWN 'MULBERRY - TREET ' - -- !� 1�. ; I 1 1• 1 I 1 1 1 . -. I , - , • ,- - 1 j 1 ul . 1 I 1 ' i i 1 - 1 ♦ ACCESS • O : • 1 I_ +; 1 I i_ !_ 1 t _...'i_1 '— —_ 1 i t,. �, _ ___ -_ •T�o SOUTH FT. N It• I .______ ________. __ OIO,OO4ve0'0000 o O I ..i � �!_- ^) • i i,l^ IL • ,� •1 � - 1 it 1 �yl 1 I __ I 1 1 Imo. 1 III ._.., i I i � W 7 i , h'I ` • I 1 .- 1 I - , ; 1 I -- i _ _ I I ; ; _. bOTENTIAL TRANSIT 2 _ i• • 1 I '~ ' ,y~y�, 1 - _ } _ _I , i - -' - 1 '. 1 1 1 ACCESS TO t , I _ _ • \ O W 1 - I IIII 1 �,— 1 I 1 1( 1 1 , SENIOR CENTERLu ', n 1 BSI tIW _ , r 1 11 T_ i IIi����Id `.• 1il � t ,..e, � � I , -- li - 1 i T 1 � � �1'f 1 ."f•, T�I �''9 t:. I Riverside Junction P.U.D., - Preliminary & Final, #13-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 3 nonprofit quasi -public recreational uses are permitted subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. This district also acknowledges existing non -conforming uses as of the effective date of the ordinance creating this zone. A parking lot that serves a commercial use in the C-L, Limited Commercial Zone (as the Riverside Junction Shopping Center is zoned) is not an allowed use in the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Zone and therefore, must be proposed as a PUD. 3. East Side Neighborhood Plan: The East Side Neighborhood Plan, adopted by the City in 1986 as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this site as being in the "Preservation Area". The land use policies of the ESNP state that the Preservation Area "includes the predominantly lower density residential areas that make up the major portion of the Neighborhood Area. It is critical to the continued viability of the East Side neighborhood that the existing land use mix of these Preservation areas be maintained, that housing opportunities for all income groups be allowed, and valuable existing structures be preserved and renovated. Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings".(See attached) The ESNP also states that use conversions would generally be discouraged, except as follows: - conversions which can be demonstrated to further specific goals of the ESNP; - churches, schools and public/quasi-public recreational uses; - appropriately treated accessory dwelling units; - accessory uses, such as home occupations; - two-family, four -family and group homes, subject to site plan review; - other uses by right, such as multi -family units (four unit - single family homes. conversions to low density buildings maximum) and The plan also notes that a change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character, including, but not limited to: scale, mass, building separation, building placement; building height; finish materials and architectural style; and can be shown to create no significant additional traffic, noise, or other land use conflicts, which would be adverse to the existing neighborhood. , --'H ..i.. i -LL--J--.- J_- LAUREL ' I - ••' '} e1 - 1( \'1, � I,,,, • •0•i•0 0 OCA1 _Ili 1--i '� i r � f__ i I I 1 �i 11 ( s�..."•t I � UJI TEJ7 'r - O 'TO wIlE00EE - _ X , r' Jr . T __ • I • I . I nw .. 11• �. "_ _ _�_ _ _ T T•'F--F -__•_ •• _ � �. 'I•� _L I� t - 1 • I t -JI ( 1' 1 - - i �r •• ' I j " -- • 1 IZ 1 •' W SEPLACE E%I5TIN6 - , - 1 — ._. 1. • **Sao*-v1 I'1'� -illll ,IO t _I mW I'__ SIOt1AL WITH -L 1._ �r-�� p �� E tl • 000000©1 ill 1 1 i13i1 1 f E Iq 1 _ __ ! O 1 cc FOUR WAY STOP �1 M 6 I.w. r�.r..... Y� �I_I__— r I� s • 1_ '__.j '� 1--:LI_�_ _�; in-1•-_ 1. - ----'- y i'--- ----' _ II� `,? 1• .1 -I,, 11I�I��;_I:-.I' 'Iq,�LU — I 1 - - ,�� _ I T l .'cT',r 'I 11 F LJ I I I I I -; •*'I F 1 r( •', T Y I I I l i"i°1 .I§ -. I -- �_: I I IM •I• I i i I I _ i I I,.,.P, .. I: �. ,� .. � .1 l 1 1 --- , I I t1 II I r11 II I F Il ;tI I I IL�I IJ.1 —I I II i , 1'I—I I 1 I - )T— ` I _ L I ..,-'--- = UMFIELG'-•- _- --__� r-•-arPeEr - � -I-„I..I, I LEGEND cc ---•>� •I j '" ! •� I• I 1 III 1 I: II ' I =I= STUDY AREA BOUNDARY '1 tl1 •, I i .i,6 I- E1I# I 1I1 [ I1_ ; I i;. III_I �I qI{ !; •Y'I !I I {I 1 n - III ....-I.�,...�.... „.J�"" � MAJOR ART ERIAL ARTERIAL R ,=-_.- ,-.�u -TT TI � � it� 4 � COLLECTOR ' MAJOR LOCAL STREET •6 I 1 �'! I,� I ,,,•I �� tl.... t C *ease* BUS ROUTE li �...., ..I I :I I [I E •.�.I:I II , l iMl""`i 11 I Ali OI 1 1 I Ij/ 0000 BIKEWAY •I � I 'l �i• << l ^'t"_ - l_.'. I - - - - ae_....:• 1 .. �i-�-�._�_ TYPICAL SPECIAL STREET o e o I w r TREATTLENT POSSIBIIJTIES I-1�i 1 OF !I 'kN C CUL-DE-SAC .....p I -f ...... N — Ip' ,,... ,; •, D DIVERTERS 1 0 I 1 4 "x Il •,� I LI;' I ' _ liL 0: -r..' L'_ I ill I o : f E ENTRYWAY l _ I I (CURB EXTENSIONS ) %TPEE.Ir vTI 1 O [ WPDSEL Onta,OlAMr . rb, 90' PARKING IF i 166 Ir 1 i i I I I I i I I �, o P [[�` 1 1 I f ,+ • I / •e�. 4 I • yy I i I 1 - i f l , l `^ y _ * y: ", O f gplF YOY6IEU l.E PEOUNEO f011 IJ�( 0 TaYS .T Sark loc�naa e ► 1'il' iF ' 1RIOI EIC T: i : Rf�lp; FIGURE 7 2.5 Open Space 2.5.1 Existing Conditions The public open spaces, cultural and educational facilities currently located within the East Side Neighborhood (see Figure 12) are: - High School Park (adjacent to Fort Collins High School); - Lincoln Park ("Library Park"); - The Fort Collins Public Library; - The Fort Collins Museum; - The Downtown Community Center; - (New) Laurel School; - Harris Elementary School; - Fort Collins High School; and - Centennial Adult High School (Old Laurel School), and the associated Laurel School mini -park. None of the existing open space facilities in the Neighborhood meet the City's definition of a "Neighborhood Park" (at least six to thirty acres in size) . The largest open space is High School park (2.5 acres), but because of its location at the edge of the neighborhood serves a very limited population. The Open Space Plan adopted by the City of Fort Collins in 1974 proposed acquisition of a ten acre neighborhood park site adjacent to the new Laurel School (referred to in this document as the East Side Neighborhood Park). Although the Open Space Plan called for acquisition of that park site by 1975, it has not vet been purchased or designed. 2.5.2 Open Space Policies Although there are a variety of facilities serving the Neighborhood, there are no neighborhood or community parks within close proximity to most residents of the Neighborhood. Acquisition and development of the East Side Neighborhood Park is therefore a major priority of the East Side Neighborhood. 1. The East Side Neighborhood Park (see Figure 11) should be made an immediate priority of the City's parks acquisition and development program. 1.1. The City and Neighborhood should work together to define a park site of eight to twenty acres adjacent to Laurel School. -37- CON \ ' NOTE PARK CONCEPTUAL AND MAYBOUNDARIES EVI AND CIg N DETAILED D STUD ILLV6TRAIED MERE ARE LONLERTUAL AND MAY BE REVISED0 \ UPON DElA1LED STUDY w\ �••= MULBERRY �STREeT+ EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD :.� DONE. AT PARK At MYRTLE I STREET —_- -- — — \ aR s�. R.... e:— J� / ~f0 \ b Ioo abD \ rap.lEDr W •'so 7. • — \ _ • POTENTIAL \ \ \ • I THAN■T : Ir S i ❑ ;0 — is / p POTEN71AL ❑ I� ELDERLY ❑ �. ❑ L.1 L HOUSING • "" �'° �❑ _O j 1 'a —'I L DEVELOPMENTS�q* RIP LAUREL E IT AJ E7 A I PED!$Lg1AN O • PROP SED /\\ © / • 0 PANNING I // • '�O OOOOOOOO pD • •••••eNN•••••••••••••• 1 / I POTENTIAL : — 1 I O. / •• ■ SENIOR CENTER oc P: • POTENTIAL PEDBANE00 es"MamuN ACCESS AMC cas b: �d E • b: • SHOP N Jo cc PROPOSED " E • ///RRRIII { I PARK ACOVISIIIDN • // • • I - MUPENTIfa • • O: E eC KAVOND APOEOUND 0 0 am EXISTING V i LAUREL ELEMENTARY acllooL PROPeg1r n vgOPOSEO J ��� I �e• RRN ACOU161T!ON 11 PROPERTY �— • •q� It ACRES :I EINSTMD PARKIN. I ad •_] El Lo L• AAAt EXISTING PEDESTACDlaaRIAN teIIII— IWl^.III a. ❑ ..��' �� °.�'.�©o°❑oo� All FIGURE 11 37-A 1.2. While there have been few parkland fees generated by new residential construction in the Neighborhood, it must be remembered that the area has contributed to the City's general fund for over one hundred years. It seems appropriate to explore the use of other funding sources such as Community Development Block Grants, bond issues, private donations, Lottery Funds, special authorities or districts, and potential land trades, to determine a viable means to acquire and improve the necessary park site. 1.3. The viability of purchasing the existing Mountain Bell facility on the proposed park site and converting it to a "Senior" or "Neighborhood" Center should be thoroughly studied. _ 1.4. The ESN Planning Advisory Committee should be involved in the design of the park. 2. The City of Fort Collins and the Poudre R-1 School District should work together to make school district facili- ties, such as the running track at Fort Collins High School, more accessible to the public. 3. Additional sites for pocket parks or tot lots should be evaluated for future development. 2.6 "P'ublid Facil'itiAs/I'nfrastructure 2.6.1 Existing Conditions Much of the infrastructure - streets, sidewalks, utilities, and storm drainage system - in the ESN has been in place since before the turn of the century. As the area beyond the "Original Townsite" was developed, certain improvements were made according to the changing engineering standards in effect at the time of construction, while others such as telephone service were retro-fitted into the existing Neighborhood. Construction methods, age of improvements, and maintenance needs vary widely across the Neighborhood. Repair, replacement, and maintenance of these facilities in the ESN is sometimes impaired by the fact that most of the City's current engineering standards, and most recent engineering studies, have been directed toward new, suburban development, and are not always compatible with, or sensitive to the unique conditions in older neighborhoods. 2.6.2 Public Facilties/Infrastructure Policies The following policies have been formulated with the goal of maintaining a Neighborhood with functioning infrastructure, while preserving the characteristics that make the area different from newer suburban areas. Many of these policies call for annual, or on -going maintenance and improvement programs. In all cases, measures should be taken to avoid programs that impose a financial hardship upon the affected property owner ISI.11 M, or tenant. The City and the East Side Neighborhood should work to establish revolving loan programs, Community Development Block Grants or other funding sources for low income and/or elderly residents affected by public improvement programs. 1. Streets 1.1. The City should review the existing City engineering standards and identify elements that should be treated differently in Fort Collins' older neighborhoods. Public input into this review is extremely important. 1.2. All future street improvement projects to be constructed in or adjacent to the Neighborhood should be designed so that the treatment of curb, gutter, walks, and landscaping is in keeping with the desirable characteristics of the Neighborhood. 1.3. The City and Neighborhood should initiate an annual street tree replacement and planting program. Priority areas should be identified with the input of the Neighborhood and affected property owners. 1.4. The design of Neighborhood entryways or other special intersection treatments should be coordinated with the ESN, and should utilize the recommendations included in the Transportation section of this Plan. 1.5. The City and ESN should work together on a program to improve both private and public maintenance of alleys in the Neighborhood. 2. Sidewalks 2.1. To the extent practical, repair and preserve the existing flag- stone walks (see Figure 6), especially on blocks where flagstone is the prevailing material. 2.2. Provide walks in good condition on at least one side of all local streets, and on both sides of streets with heavier pedestrian - - -traffic (see Figure 13 for locations where walks are not presently provided). An annual program of Neighborhood sidewalk improvements s based upon City/ESN priorities should be initiated. 2.3. Annual sidewalk improvement programs for construction, repair, or - replacement of walks on designated blocks in the Neighborhood should include the provision of handicapped access ramps at intersections when practical. -39- NOTE. LOCATIONS AND BOUNDARIES OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL BE REVISED UPON DETAAND MAYILED STUDY N4. 0 EAST SIDE ;4 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Lill It It 4 TTT cz, Al ------ T ZMI 4:.,. i uj� t t• I 1 � it Q I �. 1'r . r ! I • ' I I II I � I I I i I — 1. 1 , I• 1 I, - I i it � i •, I , 111 I p I I1 I I � I•I , ,fir sir r _; 11 i wl a 1, ; • 1 ' � F i'i r.4.R falMHu• J[.il ��' '��. �.� E L 11' Z ,A 'B £ T H T _ I—_ I I i. I.f1 F' 1 f I � .I..I ..F �I rF_ � lei it F -ims- RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES • I LEGEND EXISTING BIKEWAY/TRAIL i *otoo PROPOSED BIKEWAY EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PROPOSED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 'I w``• • I '11. I FIGURE 12 • NO Neighborhood Meeting Notes A neighborhood information meeting was held on Wednesday, February 26, 1992 from 7:00 - 8:30 P.M. at Laurel School, 1000 E. Locust, regarding a proposed parking lot for Poudre Valley Hospital at the Riverside Junction Shopping Center. Meeting attendees were Gunther Seligman and Steve Scheffel of PVH; George Brelig of Robb, Brenner and Brelig; Phil Robinson of Stewart and Associates; Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant and Sherry Albertson -Clark (City Planning Department). Twelve area property owners and/or residents also attended the meeting. The meeting began with Gunther Seligman and George Brelig presenting an overview of the proposed development plan, which consists of 115 parking spaces on approximately 1.5 acres. Matt Delich discussed the traffic impacts on the surrounding area. The following questions and responses by the consultant were discussed: 1. What will happen with the pad at the southwest corner of Pennock and Lemay? Heard that there was a fast food restaurant proposed at one time. PVH owns this pad but is not interested in developing or selling it. 2. Would the current zoning permit a restaurant as a use -by -right or would there be more neighborhood meetings? Staff responded that previous zoning allowed drive-thru restaurants and variety of other uses. Property was rezoned recently and the CL (Limited Commercial) zoning does not permit drive-thrus without PUD review and approval. Standard restaurants, as well as a number of other uses are permitted as uses -by -right. Site is very small, has mature existing trees and serves as detention. Thus, little area is left to develop. City would strongly discourage trees being removed. 3. Was Elizabeth looked at in the traffic study? What is expected impact on Elizabeth with Laurel/Pennock connection? Elizabeth/Lemay intersection would operate at level B at noon and at level C at the pm peak. Laurel/Pennock link should decrease traffic on Elizabeth, between Stover and Lemay. 4. Is the senior center location shown on the East Side Neighborhood Plan still valid? No, City is looking at three final sites that do not include this site. 5. What is south of the parking lot? An existing residence. Propose buffering with vegetation and fencing. PVH would support joint use of the parking lot with users of the future park. 6. Lives to the south of the parking lot and likes the proposed buffer. 7. How deep is the parking property? Will the site be contoured? Site is 235' east -to -west. Will do some grading, but site will still remain at about 2% grade. Will take advantage of the natural grade difference to the south for buffering. 8. Who does the Emigh Ditch serve? Still serves Tom Nix and City uses it for back-up for storm drainage purposes. 9. Will there be fencing along the south property line? Yes, 6' wooden fencing will be installed on the north side of the ditch, inside the landscaping. 10. Staff needs to review project carefully against the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Concerned that this project may promote further commercial conversions in the neighborhood. 11. What is the future use of the Harder property, with frontage on both Elizabeth and Lemay? Staff responded that is not aware of anything currently being discussed. Spoke with owner several months ago, after area was rezoned and owner indicated interest in medical office uses. Site's narrow Lemay frontage, proximity to Elizabeth/Lemay intersection and Emigh Ditch through the site make it very difficult to develop. 12. What is the timing of this project? Submittal in early March for April Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Actual construction of parking lot may be several months later. 13. How will school construction traffic get to the school? Not sure. PVH will be willing to work with school to allow access from Pennock for construction purposes. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Poudre Valley Hospital is proposing to locate the Family Care Center at the Riverside Junction Center near the Lemay/Pennock intersection. This site access study involved the steps of trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, capacity analysis, and traffic signal warrant analysis. This study assessed the impacts of the Family Care Center on the short range (1995) and long range (-2010) stree-t system in the vicinity of the proposed development. Based upon these analyses and comparisons with a previous traffic study in this area, the following is concluded: - The proposed Family Care Center at -the Riverside Junction Center is feasible from a traffic engineering perspective. This proposed use will generate approximately 1200 trips -ends per day. This is down significantly from that- of a previous development proposal at this site. - Based upon current traffic volumes and existing geometries, the Lemay/Riverside signalized intersection operates acceptably. The stop sign controlled Lemay/Pennock intersection operates unacceptably for left -turn entrances and exits.- Left -turns from the Riverside access to westbound Riverside operate at levels of service E and F based upon the HCM Software calculation technique. However, with gaps introduced by upstream and downstream signals, the delays are considered to be acceptable. - By 1995, given development of the Family Care Center and an increase in background traffic, the Lemay/Riverside signalized intersection will operate acceptably with the existing laneage configuration. The Lemay/Pennock intersection will operate unacceptably with stop sign control. Operation at all intersections is not significantly- different than the current operation. Provision of the Pennock/Laurel connection minimally changes the operation at some of the key intersections. - Based upon short or Iona range traffic projections, a signal is not warranted at the Lemay/Pennock intersection. Conditions at this intersection should be monitored regularly to evaluate signal warrants. - By 2010 with the projected traffic volumes, the signalized intersections will operate acceptably. Operation of left turns at the stop sign controlled intersections is at level of service F. This operation is not significantly different than the short range operation. Provision of the Pennock/Laurel connection minimally changes the operation at some of the key intersections. - The Pennock/Laurel connection has little effect on the operation at the key intersections. Provision of the Riverside Junction P.U.D., - Preliminary & Final, #13-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 4 The plan acknowledges that "with any existing neighborhood, unique and specific circumstances affecting certain properties will require special consideration. However, the policies are applicable to the vast majority of properties in the Neighborhood". The plan also notes that the LDGS "provides a property owner affected by unique circumstances with a mechanism for proposing alternative land uses otherwise not allowed under the strict adherence to the policies of this Plan. Any such PUD proposed should be evaluated as to its overall compatibility with, and contribution to the East Side Neighborhood Plan". The ESNP also identified potential locations for a future neighborhood park in proximity to Laurel Elementary School and the plan to extend Pennock Place to the north and west to link with Laurel Street at its present terminus. Several different sites have been considered for a park site; however, at this time, no site has been acquired. The site directly to the north of the proposed parking lot appears to be a good, centrally located site for a park. If a park is proposed at this location, PVH has indicated that parking for the park site could occur in the proposed PVH parking lot. The parking lot could also be used for Laurel School functions, once a pedestrian connection is made available. Staff believes that the proposed parking lot plan presents a reasonable use of an unusual piece of property. This site has its only access through the commercial area to the east, yet it is adjacent to a school, a junk yard and residential uses to the south. The proposed parking lot use provides a logical transition between the commercial area to the east and the residential area to the south and west. The potential adverse impacts on the residential areas are limited to visual impacts, which have been mitigated by screening and buffering the perimeter of the site. The proposed plan can serve to facilitate the future street linkage between Laurel Street and Pennock Place, as well as support the development of a City neighborhood park on property to the north (by providing parking for the park), which are both goals of the ESNP. The use of this site as a parking lot should have no impact on area residential land uses, since access is via a commercial area and the visual impacts have been mitigated. Thus, staff believes the proposed land use is compatible with the area and is supported by the policies and intent of the adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan. 4. Design: The policy guidelines related to parking lot design and construction are the Zoning Code and the Parking Lot Development Pennock/Laurel connection has little effect on development of the Family Care Center and, conversely, the development of the Family Care Center has little effect on the Pennock/Laurel connection. The Pennock/Laurel connection is considered to be a convenience street for the Eastside Neighborhood. 2407 LAPORTE AVENUE FACILITIES SERVICES FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 PHONE 303-482-7420 Apri! 8, 1992 City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attn: Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark RE: Laurel Elementary School Dear Sherry: We understand that your department has requested Poudre Valley Hospital to provide pedestrian access (sidewalk) from Pennock PI. through their proposed parking lot for their Riverside Plaza Facility to the Laurel Elementary School property. In a meeting on 4/3/92, Keith Dixon, Area Executive Director for PR-1, directed us not to provide any means of access to PVH's parking lot through our fence. The district has taken the position of not encouraging such access based on educational/supervision considerations as well as input from residents of the immediate neighborhood. Sherry Workman, principal of Laurel Elementary School, also expressed strong concerns regarding such access. Her main concern is for the safety of the children. She felt that such access would make the already difficult task of monitoring who comes and goes on school property more difficult. Clearly the district does not support the idea of providing or encouraging any such access. Please call me rf you have any questions or concerns at 490-3413. Sincerely, POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1 Michael Spearnak Construction Project Coordinator cc: Keith Dixon Sherry Workman Gunther Seligmann George Brelig Pat Dulaney File Riverside Junction P.U.D., - Preliminary & Final, #13-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 5 Guide. These documents outline the design guidelines for parking lots within the City. The proposed parking lot meets these guidelines with respect to dimensions of stalls and drive aisles, layout, amount of landscaping and safety and convenience. A pedestrian link, connecting the school property with the commercial area to the east of this site, was proposed through this site; however, the school district has opposed this link, citing safety and security concerns (see attached letter) and intends to provide fencing that would preclude such a link. Because of the school district's concerns, the applicant has removed the pedestrian link from the proposed plan. A schematic plan, showing the future Laurel link, also indicates a future pedestrian path on the property to the north of this site. Since this site to the north is being considered as a future park site, this pedestrian route would provide a more logical link with the shopping center to the east. Board -on -board 6' fencing is proposed along the south edge of the property, to provide visual screening of the parking lot from the residential uses to the south. The school district is installing chain link fencing along this site's west boundary and the existing fencing on the north property line will remain. The perimeter of the parking lot is landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees. The existing mature Elms along the south edge of the site will remain. A total of six deciduous trees existing on the site will be removed, with the remaining 17 being retained. A number of upright Junipers will be relocated on the site. A fence access is provided in the southern area of the site, so that access for maintenance purposes, is available. Pinon Pine provide visual buffering of the fence for the property owners to the south. A section detailing the south property line treatment is shown on the landscape plan. The setback in the southern area of the site places the edge of the parking lot 28' feet from the south property line. The interior of the parking lot will be landscaped with a mix of trees and shrubs. Parking lot lighting will be by 15' high fixtures with down directional cutoff, to minimize light spillage off of the site. The development agreement and final plans have not been signed prior to Planning and Zoning Board review, as required for planned unit developments. Therefore, staff is recommending the following condition: The development agreement and final plans be executed by the developer and all other owners and proprietors (as defined by Colorado Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning Riverside Junction P.U.D., - Preliminary & Final, #13-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 6 and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of the planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. 5. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held on February 26, 1992 (see attached summary). Concerns generally related to traffic impacts on area streets, future development plans in the area and the relationship of this proposal to the East Side Neighborhood Plan. These concerns have been addressed and/or mitigated during the review of this proposal and are discussed further in the various sections of this report. Staff believes the parking lot is compatible, on the basis of the proposed design elements (ie. perimeter buffering, plant materials, retention of many of the existing trees) incorporated into this plan. 6. Transportation: The sole vehicular access to this site is from Pennock Place, which ends as a cul-de-sac just west of the Riverside Junction Shopping Center. The traffic study indicates that approximately 1,200 trip ends per day would be generated by the proposed parking lot. A traffic signal at the Pennock/Lemay intersection would not be warranted in the short or long-term. Left turns from the shopping center at this intersection will continue to be difficult in both the short and long-term and are not significantly affected by the addition of the proposed parking lot traffic. The proposed parking lot development is feasible, from a traffic engineering perspective. The Pennock/Laurel connection would have little effect on the operation of major intersections in the area, but would serve as a Riverside Junction P.U.D., - Preliminary & Final, #13-92 April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 7 convenience to the neighborhood, providing access to the shopping center without using Lemay Avenue. The parking lot design is proposed in a way that does not preclude the Pennock/Laurel link from occurring. Right-of-way from this site, to accommodate this street linkage, is being dedicated by the applicant. When the street linkage is made, a portion of the existing Pennock right-of- way would be vacated to the owner of this site. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the request for a parking lot at this site is an appropriate use for this property and is compatible with the surrounding area. Further, the proposed plan is supported by the policies and intent of the adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan. The proposed parking lot has been evaluated by the All Development Criteria of the LDGS and meets the applicable criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Riverside Junction PUD, Preliminary and Final, #13-92, with the following condition: The development agreement and final plans be executed by the developer and all other owners and proprietors (as defined by Colorado Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of the planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. No Text •vMw,rR w [YII. M�0 lwl♦1 W« Yv p r,)M YwFav T /e _ �Y, 99 il'YI N . � .R Y'w�1Mra Fn Irp <001 /5 9l4'®'1 —'NiY f1Mi AMA IN/x9 FMyMM rn«M�q w, �w„Wr+.n n.W [t'V Y.R tt �<64 .^ 0104:-411JA9N91 AAI.xIAY 91WIN YNW1N .pp T'^W, �W 'RE It M S vr, FW M'T' ♦M91 vrrl MiL MMIMA. �� •n +�,�s nn ✓ _ "a / a «, r, , a'cn .gym Y , r.1a as im9'a +RbM AONION0 u'iR. nc . r.w Y..♦w�a,r Mr. p wee« FrR nwn Xn n eao'e4—xn„W . WIIatN19 bNY-- al.bN - `� FP'.S3TalJn Y..W v�;o«1W FvT Nm/O'nYfnA "'f 41Y1 (JIl'R%a I •n wWvi',. 1 urr.« «, , 1 n...n^q «, .. «�«�. wi ,^ ,_n r fll—lAMh mMxJWa M4^1 -�—"- ""— nw�PJ4m lyY, w1 bxIAMA 99II OFnN9NA '1l .IYi' .♦x 9wN,9f YIN 401 Ma06 0 '^9H 1xI1N r Y ra GJ 19AV X4 WSW .[m c "100A „ialZiY� ' Mvlw .IaYI nyu MrJ .i. _ nl n,M.YI.YON� rM1 ___ W4 FMI yn. rv���s T -♦ar Y AYN M,>HgI.N ' INFiA/nW.+ s }9 H+Y♦ a0R1 n r; . _-_----___- - $Hla np 9NUal a i m � _.° __ �.N.n. 91 x •^r''f nIp171b/� 9� IRA.'.♦ �___ ________� -_------ ____ -__ ___", 8 rWt Y 9 ya/! ro _ l S 3 w,L---------------- --- _ _._' F � .Yn��/ �t J ,uYkN9Na•Vd MWnY1 fy .. w ......,w. ♦, mm� F..F�:wF mural: .1v114 H10HH-0A ._------------------ ------------------ -OW ulNwin bHIG�mQ , - V I oml.`sl.a 941 l.wf .9 t.M 4 F