Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINNACLE TOWNHOMES - PDP - 34-00A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSYork University Joint Center for Asian Pacific Studies York Lanes 270F 4700 Keele St Toronto, ON M3J1P3 (416)736-2100 x20561 rbnsn dY er@yorku.ca January 15, 2001 Current Planning Director Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Fort Collins, Colorado RE: PINNACLE TOWN HOMES PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Cameron, A letter regarding the Pinnacle Town Homes Project Development Plan recently came to my attention. I have an acute interest in this development proposal because I lived just across the Spring Creek Trail from the proposed site, at 1700F Brookhaven Circle East, for four years from 1994-1998. A teaching post at York University in Toronto, Canada will keep me from attending the meeting on January le. As a voting and tax paying resident of Latimer County since 1990, I ask that you air the following two concerns at the meeting on my behalf. First, I would like to echo the concerns placed before you by Christopher Mitchell. I too have seen the capacity of the spring creek exceeded time and again, highlighted by the 1997 flood where I witnessed rescue crews fishing for bodies in the adjacent flood plain (propose development site) and neighboring farms. Second, I would stress that this is not a case of "Not in My Back Yard", or NIMBY as it is often referred to in development lingo. After all, this is no longer my back yard. Rather, I would suggest to the Planning Director and Committee that attempts to develop this landscape will negatively impact people's sense of place, by this I mean how people come to imagine and experience Fort Collins and more importantly how individuals will come to see themselves as Fort Collins community members in the future. Please allow me to explain further. The Fort Collins community prides itself on the fact that most residents have the opportunity to experience an above average Quality of Life. We couch this belief on knowledge of the active lifestyles realized by many friends and family members as rollerbladers, cyclists, joggers, walkers, etc. What we think less about, and know less about, is how the environment that surrounds these activities changes people's overall experience and feelings about Fort Collins as a whole. What thoughts and concerns go through the minds of Fort Collins community members, who may imagine that they have a high quality of life, when they see another development squeezed along the Spring Creek Trail? "Fort Fun" (Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce) residents who regularly go to and from work, or exercise along the Spring Creek Trail, will pass within view of the proposed development site on a year round basis. As they pass by, they will re - imagine Fort Collins along the lines of these new experiences. In short, what you do here Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 5 the cul de sac terminus of Robertson Street, and the extension of 4.5-foot wide public sidewalks along both sides of the same street. • Access and Parking Lot Requirements [3.2.2(D)] — Vehicles can enter the proposed parking lots from two new public streets: Robertson Street extended and Apex Drive, and along a 20 foot -wide provide drive connecting these two streets. Access requirements are therefore met. • Parking Lot Layout [3.2.2(E)] — As required in this section, the proposed parking lot addresses the following issues: (1) Points of conflict between pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles are minimized, and where they conflict, proper crossing enhancements have been provided. (2) As required, there are no parking bays that extend more than fifteen spaces without an intervening landscape island or landscape peninsula. • Setbacks [3.2.2(J)] — The proposed parking lots are setback from East Prospect Road by 15 feet. The parking lot setbacks therefore meet the standard set forth in this section. • Required Number of Spaces for Type of Use [3.2.2(K)] — A total of 94 off-street parking spaces is required based upon the parking ratios for each 2 and 3-bedroom residential unit. With 94 off-street spaces provided, the standard is satisfied. • Handicap Parking [3.2.2(K)(4)] — The proposed site plan satisfies this requirement. Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)] — All proposed parking spaces meet the parking stall dimensions of this section. 3. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting The lighting designs must be fully shielded and in accordance with the requirements of this section. B. Engineering Standards [3.3] 1. Lots [3.3.1(B)] — The general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services are designed in a way that accomplishes the intent and purposes of the LUC. Jl-e� /Yso will impact how the greater Fort Collins community think about this place and the potential for a high quality of life in the future. More specifically, having lived and recreated along the Spring Creek Trail for many years, I can tell you that the experience of particular kinds of development along the Spring Creek make me question the ultimate goals of community developers. The worst example of what I foresee can be found in the Brookhaven residences (just across the Spring Creek from the proposed site). Solid wood walls that come within a few feet of Spring Creek trail create the disorienting effect of a purely utilitarian corridor that efficiently moves people from one location to the next. These corridors provide a veil of privacy for the condo owner, concurrently dismembering memories and imagined futures for Fort Collins resident that feel or felt they live(d) in a place that offers(ed) a high quality of life! The people of Fort Collins who pride themselves on the high quality of life they can experience here are keenly aware of all that happens along the Spring Creek Trail. The most important long term consequence of the Pinnacle Town Homes Project Development Plan is that people from all over Fort Collins and elsewhere will pass by this site when using the Spring Creek Trail and rethink how they feel about where they live and where their future in such a place might take them. I suggest that The Pinnacle Development Project proceed only after conducting a community -based study to determine how this project will impact a broadly defined sample of Fort Collins resident's sense of place. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Robert Snyder Cameron Gloss January 15, 2002 Current Planning Director Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Fort Collins, Colorado Cameron, I recently received a letter regarding the Pinnacle Townhomes development application. I am unable to attend the meeting on January 16`h, but I would like my concerns to be voiced. I have resided in 170OF Brookhaven Circle East off and on for the last 20 years. It is the very last condo directly on the opposite side of Spring Creek from the proposed development site. As a result of my long-term residency, I have seen how Spring Creek interacts with the site. When it rains heavily, Spring Creek often overflows its banks. It has, on many occasions, flooded the proposed development site. Compared to the surrounding areas, the proposed development site is quite low. During the big flood in 1997, the entire site was flooded, for all practical purposes. The natural flood plain provided by the site kept the Brookhaven Condos from being flooded. The flood waters came onto the yard of 170OF Brookhaven Circle E., and the condo very narrowly avoided being flooded. I would assume that as the land was being developed, the grade would have to be built up to prevent the proposed units from being flooded at regular intervals. The removal of the existing natural flood plain would displace flood waters into a much smaller area. There were several areas during the flood of '97 where flood waters were confined to smaller channels, and, according to local newspapers, Spring Creek rose over 20 feet in some of those places. Thanks to the flood plain provided by much of the proposed development site, Spring Creek's level remained much lower, and a great deal of property damage was prevented. The flood waters came extremely close to several Brookhaven units, and within 15 feet of my bedroom. If the 53 proposed Pinnacle units would have been in place at that time, not only would there have been massive destruction to the Pinnacle Townhomes, but the Brookhaven complex would have suffered greatly as well. I feel that this is a very valid concern, and that the development of this land in the proposed manner would have some very serious and far-reaching repercussions. I would appreciate it very much if my views and concerns would be voiced in this public meeting. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Chris Mitchell classification of "townhome." More vehicles should lead to more "trips" per unit, and thus a higher impact on traffic than predicted by the study. • The calculation of the impact of growth on traffic is systematically underestimated. On page 3 of the study it states, "Traffic growth on nearby arterial streets of 2% percent (sic) per year is reasonable to estimate the future background traffic." During the decade of 1981-1990, Fort Collins experienced an average of 3% growth in population per year. During the decade of 1991-2000, Fort Collins experienced an average of 2.9% growth per year. If one assumes that population growth is a valid surrogate measure for traffic growth, then a 2% estimation for traffic growth is a systematic underestimation. In addition to the systematic errors described above, there are some random errors in the study. For example, the samples consisted of traffic counts for a period of 15 minutes at each location. This sample duration leads to a random error. The traffic on Prospect Road tends to come in "pulses" based on the timing of the traffic signals at College and Lemay Avenues. In any 15-minute sample, there might be plus -or -minus one traffic pulse at each measuring station, thus causing a significant random error component in the sample. Since these data serve as inputs to the traffic model, the outputs from the traffic model also contain this significant random error component. The duration of each sample should be approximately 10 times longer than the cycle -time of the signal lights that control the "pulses" of traffic along Prospect Road in order to minimize the random error. The traffic model itself contains some errors. For example on page 5 of the study it states, "For analysis purposes, the Prospect Road -Stover Street intersection was considered a normal four-way intersection... This presents the worse case analysis." It is not obvious why this represents the worst - case, and no explanation is offered. Another error in the model is that Ukiah Lane is not included. Finally, the Transportation Impact Study for Pinnacle Townhomes is flawed because the net effect of all these errors was not estimated, nor their collective impact calculated. Every study will have errors; however most of the errors in a properly designed study will be distributed randomly. This study is notable because most of the errors tend to systematically underestimate the impact of traffic. At the very least, the author of the study is obligated to estimate the amount of each of these errors, and to perform a "sensitivity analysis" that estimates their potential collective impact. Without an analysis of the collective effects of these errors, the conclusions of the study are not supported. In summary, the Transportation Impact Study for Pinnacle Townhomes contains significant errors, and the conclusions drawn by the author of the study are not supported. The residents of the immediate area surrounding the proposed development request that another study be performed using representative samples of traffic and a valid research design. V/R C.A.P. Smith, Ph.D 1627 Ukiah Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 5/15/01 Reference: Transportation Impact Study for Pinnacle Townhomes Prepared for Anchor Development by Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. Dated 8/11/00 Dear Cameron, This letter is in response to the Transportation Impact Study referenced above. In writing this response I am representing more than 200 citizens of the area immediately surrounding the proposed development. The study contains several systematic errors that each tend to underestimate the marginal impact of the proposed development on the local vehicle traffic. I believe that the conclusions drawn by the author of the study are not supported. A properly designed study of the transportation impact of the Pinnacle Townhomes development would probably yield different results than the current study. The systematic errors in the study are listed below. However, before presenting the list of systematic errors in the Transportation Impact Study, there is a higher -level issue that must be mentioned. On page 8 of the study, there is a statement that reads, "Per City standards, overall level of service "E" is defined as acceptable for arterial street intersections." It has been brought to our attention that there is a Colorado State standard that supercedes the City standard, and which requires a higher level of service. Under the State standards, the current level of service is already unacceptable, even using the systematically underestimated traffic density in the above referenced study. Under State regulations, is any development permitted until the traffic problems along this corridor have been solved? If not, then the remainder of this letter is moot, because a proper transportation impact study would only serve to reinforce the known problems. Systematic errors in the Transportation Impact Study for Pinnacle Townhomes, dated 8/11/00: • The data for this study were collected on a single day, 8/10/00. This sample is non- representative and systematically biased towards underestimation of impact. Specifically, the systematic errors in sampling are as follows: ✓ The sample underestimates the traffic because local schools and Colorado State University were not in session when the sample was taken. Since schools are in session about three -fourths of a year, a representative sample should be weighted accordingly. ✓ The sample underestimates traffic because the sample was taken on a Thursday, which is not the day of the week with the highest traffic density. A representative sample should include other days of the week. ✓ The sample underestimates traffic because it was performed on a day with good weather. Fort Collins has many days of inclement weather each year; a representative sample should include some of these days, in a proportionate number. • The calculation of marginal increase of traffic caused by the proposed development is systematically biased towards underestimation. On page 9 of the study it states, "The townhome classification was selected to best represent this development." However, the developer has not mandated owner -occupancy in his CC&R's. The proposed units are small and relatively low-cost. We expect that most of the units will be rented to students, and that the average number of vehicles associated with each unit will be higher than typical for the an extra degree of diligence while overseeing the design of the drainage systems in the proposed development, which borders Spring Creek. Housing Density: The proposed density of 54 units on 6.5 acres exceeds the city guidelines of 5-8 units per acre. As this corridor is in the older section of Fort Collins, the infrastructure does not lend itself easily to expansion. We believe that the density proposed would stress the existing infrastructure and increase the level of stress in the lives of the residents.. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, there are still a number of undeveloped parcels along this corridor. If we view development using a "one by one parcel" approach, we could easily face density that far exceeds what is "reasonable" for this area. If the same density metrics being proposed for the current development plan are used for all remaining parcels; roads, public utilities, etc., will be stressed well beyond their ability to "flex" and stress levels on the lives of the residents will be increased substantially. Furthermore, as we argue above, there is a significant benefit to ALL residents of Fort Collins from the ecosystem that borders the Spring Creek Trail. As life's pressures increase, the need for natural escapes increases. The Spring Creek corridor is heavily used throughout the year as just that, an escape. We believe that the City of Fort Collins should approve a development at the lower end of the density range for properties along the Spring Creek Trail. A development of 30 units would permit setting aside important buffer zones, open spaces, and corridors for wildlife. In addition, fewer units would mitigate the vehicle traffic problem, and result in less total ground coverage, which would reduce potential water - runoff problems. In summary, the local residents of the 1000 block of East Prospect Avenue and beyond, request the City of Fort Collins to amend the proposed development of the 6.5 acres bordering Spring Creek in the following manner: 1. Restrict this and subsequent development along the creek to 5 units per acre, as suggested by current guidelines. Using a more diverse mix of housing plans; patio, town homes and condominiums, could still generate the profitability desired by the developer as well as provide a more substantial tax revenue base for the city. 2. Require a buffer zone, open -areas, and wildlife corridors sufficient to maintain the current biological diversity in this area. 3. Perform an additional traffic survey on weekdays between 4pm and 6pm. 4. Provide special care in overseeing the design of drainage systems for proposed developments along Spring Creek. Thank you for listening to our concerns, 2 Resident's Concerns - Development Proposal - East Prospect Corridor We the residents of the East Stover/East Stuart/Robertson corridor of East Prospect and others, who enjoy the use of the Spring Creek trail, wish to voice our concerns relative to a proposed 6-acre development on the south side of the 1000 block of East Prospect Avenue. Our concerns can be categorized into several issues: • Environmental Impact • Vehicular Traffic • Ground water and flood plain management • Housing Density We believe these issues are all interrelated. A description of the primary concerns for each issue follows: Environmental Impact: The proposed development borders the north side of the Spring Creek trail, within the Lemay, East Prospect, East Stuart and East Stover quadrant. Currently there are still a few undeveloped parcels, within this same corridor, that support a variety of riparian wildlife. This area is accessible to all residents of Fort Collins and represents a significant benefit to the entire community. This ecosystem is very unique, beautiful and provides solace to thousands of city residents each year. Residents have three primary concerns with respect to this special riparian habitat. First, we believe that the proposed development should leave enough un-developed property to support the same biological diversity that currently exists in the area. Second, we believe that there should be a buffer zone between any proposed developments along Spring Creek that is sufficient to reduce stress on the riparian wildlife. Finally, we believe that the development should be designed with corridors that permit wildlife easy transit to and from adjacent parcels. Specifically, this implies that there should be some un-fenced common areas that provide access to the buffer zone and the undeveloped areas. Having such a special ecosystem within easy access of so many residents is a rare and special gift. Protecting its tenuous balance exhibits being a wise steward of natural resources for our posterity. Vehicular Traffic: We understand that a recent traffic survey uncovered no significant impact on traffic associated with the development. We respectfully suggest that this survey may contain a sampling error. Local residents are familiar with the following frequent traffic problem: on weekdays between 4pm and 6pm, eastbound traffic on Prospect Avenue is quite heavy. At these times, the traffic is often backed up from the signal at Lemay and extends west all the way to East Stover Street and beyond, a distance of approximately 1/2 mile. Between 7:15am and 9am traffic is also quite heavy. The proposed development would have its exit onto Prospect Avenue in the middle of these predictable traffic jams. It seems likely that vehicles entering and exiting the development will encounter difficulties that may lead to increased accidents and consequent disruptions to the flow of traffic on Prospect Avenue. Water Management: The 1997 flood on Spring Creek has raised concerns with the local residents; as many witnessed the waters significantly overflow its banks along this corridor. Irrigation waters flow through this same area, as well. Development could well change ground water flows and disrupt current drainage systems, thus increasing the potential for water damage to the property of residents. We believe that we should be somewhat more conservative with respect to developments that border important drainages. Relying upon "50 year" or "100 year" flood predictions may not reflect conscientious safeguarding of the property of our citizens. "Nature happens". In particular we request that the City of Fort Collins exercise Q: Are there restrictions for car ownership within the development? A: No Q: Has.there been an ecological characterization study completed? A: Yes, the wetland has been delineated & no endangered species were found Q: Are studies in the public record? A: Yes, they are considered part of the public record and are available in the Current Planning department at 281 N. College Ave. Concern: Noise impacts — concern expressed that there might be high occupancy per unit and college students Q: Does the city regulate how many attached units are in the neighborhood? A: No Q: Can the developer change the plan part way through construction? A: Yes, but not without going through a public review process. The approved plans are legally binding. Q: Will this set a precedent for development on adjacent properties? A: It may Q: Can the city/developer develop a plan covering a larger area? A: The developer attempted to purchase abutting properties to the west and create a larger development, with a greater range of housing, but was unable to obtain the land. Street connections to the east and west are required as part of the plan. Q: How many units are condos? A: 16 (of 54) Q: What is a townhome? A: Land under the unit is owned; typically two levels within the unit Q: What is a condo? A: Ownership does not include the land, just air space within the unit Q: Can the project be done without condos? A: No, not economically feasible Q: Livestock issues — how will horses be impacted? A: Should not be an issue Q: Can this project be kept from including rental units? A: No Q: Will there be a rental restriction in the covenants (CC&R's)? A: No Q: Will there be a HOA? A: Yes Q: Is there a management company for the HOA? A: Yes Q: Will sidewalks be installed? Can city extend/expand system east and west? Could developer build these? A: An 8'-wide sidewalk will be constructed along Prospect St. abutting the property. The City has no capital project scheduled to improve the surrounding sidewalks and the developer has not indicated a willingness to build them on their own. Q: Storm drainage flows to the east; will water be able to continue flow? Will other properties be impacted? A: The development must meet the historic water flow rate Q: Given the density, will sewer service be adequate? A: Yes, there is excess capacity in this area Q: Where is the water main? How big? How will water pressure be impacted? A: The main is located in Prospect St. There does not appear to be an impact to water pressure as a result of the project. Q: How are fields irrigated? A: By the irrigation district Q: Have you looked at other areas that are less congested for this type of development? A: No Q: How did the city arrive at this density? A: New zoning districts were created in 1997 when the new Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) was adopted. The LMN (Low Density mixed use neighborhood) zoning for this property is consistent for similar infill sites throughout the community. Pinnacle Townhomes PDP Neighborhood Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Lesher Junior High School-7:00 pm Q: What is the acreage? A: 6.95 acres Q: How much fill will need to be added to bring units out of the flood plain? A: 2 units will be impacted — they will need to be a minimum of 18" above the high water mark and will not have basements Q: Were the stormwater calculations done since the new flood plain regulations came into effect? A: A study had been done based on the new standards; an additional hydraulic study is needed Q: Do units have basements? A: Yes, except two (see reference above) Q: What are the unit prices? A: Townhomes = $140-150K / unit SF = $180K / 2 bedroom 2.5 bath 8 plexes = $120-130K / unit 2 bedroom 2 bath, 1000 sq. ft. Q: Will there be access to the Spring Creek path during construction? A: Not during street construction, otherwise open Q: Who owns the property? A: Barker Construction & other partners Q: Which are the most affordable units? A: the condos Comment: Concern expressed about construction debris on adjacent properties Q: Is there a plan for a traffic light? A: No, a traffic light is not warranted Comment: This section of Prospect St. is very congested — traffic backs up to this site Q: Is the landscape plan accurate? A: Yes, it meets city requirements Q: What is setback off Prospect St. ? A: 30' from the property line and 70' from the curb 1 No Text Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 11 3) Traffic impacts on E. Prospect Street; and 4) Lack of a comprehensive development plan including abutting vacant and underdeveloped parcels lying to the east and west and the land development precedent this project will provide for those properties. Since the time of the neighborhood meeting, a second meeting was held between the applicant and neighborhood residents. Concerns relayed in this meeting expanded on those identified in the neighborhood meeting, particularly the potential for adverse traffic impacts. A letter from C.A.P Smith, Ph. D, dated May 15, 2001, which was discussed at the meeting, has been attached for reference. A petition was submitted with the signatures of approximately 250 individuals expressing a lack of support for the project development plan. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan, #34-OOA, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (LMN) Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan, #34-OOA. Attachments: Site Vicinity Map Neighborhood Meeting Summary Petition Correspondence Received Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 10 The TIS identified a total of 326 trips per day attributed to the development which are considered minor with respect to the estimated 17,000 vehicles per day within this section of E. Prospect Road. The Study concluded that the level of service for the impacted intersection would operate acceptably to City standards. Bicycle levels of service will exceed City standards given the direct connection from the site to the Spring Creek trail and it's connections to the east to north - south bicycle lanes on both Stover and Lemay Avenue. Pedestrian improvements will include a sidewalk along the south side of E. Prospect Road abutting the property, and either: 1 a 6 foot -wide off -site sidewalk connection, from the west property line to the pedestrian signal at Stover Street and East Prospect Road, or 2) a pedestrian crossing signal on the south side of East Prospect at Robertson Street. 5. Section 3.6.5, Transit Facilities Standards Transit stops are currently located near or adjacent to the site along E. Prospect Rd. Future transit operations are expected to achieve a level of service `B' condition. This level of service exceeds City standards. 6. Section 3.6.6, Emergency Access Emergency Access standards of this section are met through the proposed project development plan. An 80-foot diameter cul de sac turnaround is provided at the terminus of both ends of Apex Drive. This temporary turnaround area will be constructed with crushed rock over road base, accommodating the load of fire apparatus. As mentioned, an access easement is provided within the 20 foot - wide private drive to accommodate emergency vehicles 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting A neighborhood information meeting was conducted on March 19, 2001 at Lesher Junior High School. Questions and comments made at the neighborhood meeting are attached. Of the 25 area residents attending the meeting, the majority expressed concern regarding the following four major topic areas: 1) Adverse stormwater impacts to the subject property and surrounding areas; 2) Wetland and natural habitat impacts abutting Spring Creek; Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 9 include an 80 foot -diameter turnaround. The only dead end street located within the development, the east -west public street to be named Apex Drive, terminates on both ends in temporary turnarounds that will permit the street to be connected with future streets on adjacent land. Street right-of-way widths and street cross sections comply with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. • Private Drives [3.6.2(L)] — A 20 foot -wide drive is provided on the south portion of the site, giving direct access to garages serving units facing Apex Drive and the Robertson Street cul de sac. An access easement is provided within the private drive to accommodate emergency vehicles. The connection of the private drive with public streets is made in accordance with City standards. The future Homeowner's Association will be responsible for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of the private drive, with none of the costs borne by the City. 3. Section 3.6.3, Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards General Standard [3.6.3(B)] As mentioned above, the proposed local street system within this parcel has been designed to provide safe and convenient connections to the abutting parcels to the east and west, if and at such time that development occurs. Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street Intersections with Arterial Streets [3.6.3(D)] — With an extension of Robertson Street, the street interval spacing of six hundred sixty (660) feet between full collector or local street intersections with arterial streets is satisfied. 4. Section 3.6.4, Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has indicated that the transportation Level of Service standards are met for automobile traffic and bicycles. Prospect Road is considered a "constrained" roadway in the vicinity of this site. The E. Prospect- Lemay Avenue intersection is particularly congested during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for eastbound traffic, and westbound during the p.m. peak hour, operating at Level of Service 'D'. Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 7 Portions of the site are also subject to high groundwater and may not be platted for building lots with basements unless adequate provisions to prevent groundwater from entering basements have been designed and approved by the City Engineer. In order to construct basements within the units, sump pumps and/or other dewatering systems will be required. C. Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards [3.4] Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features The southerly portion of the site abutting Spring Creek is designated by the City as a grassland natural habitat. As such, the development plan must be designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect this natural habitat by: (1) directing development away from the creek, (2) minimizing impact through the use of buffer zones, and (3) enhancing existing conditions. The majority of the project site consists of an old alfalfa/grass hayfield and is limited in habitat value and wildlife use due to the general lack of woody vegetation diversity, the relatively small size of the property and surrounding undeveloped areas, encroaching urban development and high levels of recreational use. The only evidence of wetlands is on the southwest corner of the property immediately adjacent to the Spring Creek drainage. Approximately 1.39 acres of the property lie within a 100-foot wide buffer zone from the edge of the Spring Creek channel. Within that zone, all disturbed vegetated areas will be replanted with native dryland grasses and additionally enhanced by native tree and shrub plantings. The proposed trail extension connecting the development and the Spring Creek trail will provide for passive recreational uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's natural resources program. D. Building Standards [3.5] 1. Building and Project Compatibility [3.5.1 ] • Architectural Character [3.5.1(B)] — As required, residential units share similar pitched roof forms, fenestration, and materials as that found within the surrounding neighborhood, thereby creating a compatible architectural character. Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 6 2. Engineering Design Standards [3.3.5] — This project complies with all design standards, requirements, and specifications for all of the commenting departments and agencies. 3. Off -Site Public Access Improvements [3.3.2(F)] — • Streets, Alleys or Paths [3.3.2(F)(1)— All developments must have adequate access to the City's Improved Arterial Street Network or to a street that connects to such network. The proposed extension of Robertson Street at East Prospect, constructed at a width of 39 feet, measured from flowline to flowline, with a dedicated through/left turn lane and right in/right-out lanes, satisfies this requirement. In order to maintain pedestrian Level of Service requirements to a school walking area, the applicant has agreed to either: 1) construct a 6 foot -wide off -site sidewalk connection, from the west property line to the pedestrian signal at Stover Street and East Prospect Road, or 2) install a pedestrian crossing signal on the south side of East Prospect at Robertson Street. 4. Water Hazards [3.3.3(A)(2), (3) and (4) and [3.3.3 (B) and (C)— The applicant has prepared a Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report showing how the Project Development Plan complies with the City Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction Standards, City floodplain regulations, and that mitigation measures will not adversely impact natural habitat. All grading near the south portion of the site will be minimal due to the proximity of Spring Creek. Portions of the site lie within the 100-year floodplain of Spring Creek. Any structure located within the limits of the 100-year floodplain will have its lowest allowable opening elevation defined at 18""above the 100-year water surface elevation. No basements are allowed in areas located within the limits of the floodplain. Stormwater quantity detention will not be provided on this site due to its proximity to Spring Creek. Streets will convey all stormwater runoff to water quality detention areas before flows enter the creek. Water quality measures will be provided. Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 4 required ratio of one tree per 25 lineal feet of street frontage. The landscape plan therefore satisfies perimeter -landscaping requirements. • Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(5)] — Parking lot areas dedicated on the site plan are required to devote at least 6% of the area of the parking lot to landscaped areas. All proposed parking areas allocate greater than 6% to landscaped areas, including deciduous trees within all of the parking area islands. • Screening [3.2.1(E)(6)] — Landscape and building elements are placed to adequately screen areas of low visual interest and visually intrusive site elements including the trash enclosure areas. A six foot -high wood fence, in combination with shrub plantings, has been placed on the east property line between the proposed units and surface parking areas, and the adjacent use to the east. This design is consistent with the requirements of this section. • Utilities [3.2.1(K)] — The required separations are provided between trees and utilities (street lights, underground water lines, underground sewer lines, and other underground facilities). 2. Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking • Safety Considerations [3.2.2(C)(1)] — As required, pedestrian areas are separated from vehicle areas and bicycle areas by the use of detached sidewalks, grade separations, and pavement markings. • Curbcuts and Ramps [3.2.2(C)(2)] —Ramps are located where sidewalks meet the crosswalks at street intersections, and where the sidewalks cross driveways, and therefore this standard is being met. • Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)] — Adequate bicycle parking (bike racks) is provided in two locations, convenient to the 2, eight -unit building entries, consistent with the requirements of this standard. • Walkways [3.2.2(C)(5)] — Walkways within the site directly and continuously connect points of pedestrian origin and destination. This standard is therefore satisfied. • Direct Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations [3.2.2(C)(6)] — The community has informally used this property as a direct connection between the regional Spring Creek trail to the south and the residences, schools, and church located to the north, east, and west. Direct bicycle and pedestrian connections are provided through an 8-foot wide concrete path running between the Spring Creek Trail and Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 3 A. Density [4.4(D)(1)(b)] — The proposed gross residential density of 7.86 dwelling units per acre is less -than the permitted maximum 8 units per gross acre of residential/land; therefore, this standard is satisfied. B. Maximum Residential Building Height [4.4 (E)(3)]- The maximum height for all residential buildings is two and a half stories. All existing and proposed residential units meet this standard 3. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards 1. Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection • General Standard [3.2.1(C)] At the request of staff, the applicant has retained the large Cottonwood tree near the center of the site and a grove of existing Siberian Elm trees abutting East Prospect Road. Further, all landscaped areas contributing to the natural systems and habitat along Spring Creek have been maintained or enhanced with native trees, shrubs and grasses. • Full Tree Stocking [3.2.1(D)(1)(c)] A combination of formal and informal planting of canopy shade trees, coniferous evergreens and ornamental trees, at the requisite minimum/maximum spacing dimensions, is provided, therefore the full tree stocking standard is met. • Minimum Species Diversity [3.2.1(D)(3)] —Based on the total proposed number of trees of 124, the applicant would be allowed to have up to 19 of any one species, but has only proposed a maximum of 18 of a single species, therefore the landscape satisfies the minimum species diversity requirement. • Foundation Plantings [3.2.1(E)(2)(d)] — All high visibility sections of building walls have planting beds at least 5 feet in width along more.than 50% of the high -visibility walls. The landscape plan therefore satisfies the foundation plantings requirement. • Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(4)] — Two small fields of parking abut East Prospect Road, with the majority of parking spaces located behind proposed buildings. Trees are provided along the parking lot frontages with the street at the Pinnacle Townhomes PDP — File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RL; detached single family houses, duplexes, 1s' Baptist Church, Lesher Junior High School S: LMN; Spring Creek and public regional trail, condominiums, townhouses E: LMN; detached single family houses, truck repair shop, small service businesses W:LMN; detached single family houses, duplex and fourplex units housed within former single family dwellings, pasture, Barton early childhood center/Discovery Center The Planning and Zoning Board approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on March 3, 1986 for 39, two -bedroom condominium units within 5.3 acres of the subject property (7.33 units per gross acre). At that time, the northerly 20 feet of the property was dedicated to the City as public right-of-way to accommodate potential future East Prospect Road widening. No "substantial' building or site improvements were completed within the vested three-year PUD approval period; therefore, the PUD expired. 2. Division 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN)- Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone District The proposed single family detached dwellings, and the townhouses and 8-unit residential buildings (both unit types are considered single family attached dwellings), are permitted in the (LMN)- Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district subject to Type I Administrative review. The PDP meets the applicable Land Use Standards [4.4 (D)] and Development Standards [4.4 (E)] as follows: ITEM NO. MEETING DATE 1 STAFF Citv of Fort Collins HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Pinnacle Townhomes Project Development Plan - #34-OOA APPLICANT: Pinecrest Planning and Design C/o Tom Dugan 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 OWNER: Pinnacle FTC, LLC 142 Summitview Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Project Development Plan (PDP) approval for 34, two - bedroom townhouses, 16 attached dwellings housed within two buildings (8 units per building) and 3 detached single family houses (1 existing), constituting a total of 53 units on 6.739 acres. The site is located south of East Prospect Road, % mile west of Lemay Avenue, and is in the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) zoning district. The proposed density of the Project Development Plan is 7.86 units per gross acre. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (LMN) Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code. F COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pinnacle Townhomes PDP - File #34-OOA January 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 8 • Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale [3.5.1(C)] - As required, the proposed height, mass, bulk and scale of the residential units is similar to surrounding buildings. • Privacy Considerations [3.5.1(D)] -The primary fagades of all proposed residential units are oriented toward adjacent streets, with parking largely located at the interior of the site, thereby satisfying this requirement. • Building Materials [3.5.1(E)] -Building materials are similar and compatible to the materials already within the neighborhood. Residential units will incorporate horizontal wood siding, shingle siding, wood trim, brick accent materials, and high definition asphalt roof shingles. • Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment [3.5.1(J)] - Utility meters, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, transformers, vaults and conduits have all been located to minimize visual impacts, and have been adequately screened. E. Division 3.6, Transportation and Circulation 1. Section 3.6.1, Master Street Plan - The abutting segment of E. Prospect Road is identified as a 4-lane arterial street on the Master Street Plan and is shown as an unfunded street improvement project within the City's Capital Improvement Plan and Inventory. Unfunded projects are an inventory or list of projects that have been generated by the City staff as a potential future public improvement and have an unspecified timeframe for improvement. The existing right-of-way width to accommodate the ultimate street width was dedicated to the City in 1986 in conjunction with the previous PUD approval; therefore, the project development plan complies with this standard. 2. Section 3.6.2, Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements All public streets, and private drives shown on the project development plan and subdivision plat meet the requirements of this section. The extension of Robertson Street will be aligned to join with the existing street across E. Prospect Road and will terminate in a cul de sac not exceeding 660 feet in length as measured from the intersection of proposed Apex Drive, and will