planning commission - 13 jul 2020
TRANSCRIPT
AGENDA
Planning Commission Meeting 6:30 PM - July 13, 2020
Zoom Conference
Opportunity for Remote Participation
Email Option: Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific agenda item by sending an email to [email protected]. Emails must be received by 3:00 PM on July 13, 2020. If requested by the sender, staff will read the email into the record during public comment or public comment for an agenda item.
Phone Option: Members of the public who wish to provide public comment during the public comment portion or during a specific agenda item may call the number below after 6:15 PM, at which time they will be muted and placed on hold.
To participate, dial the following phone number: 1-669-900-6833
When prompted, enter the following meeting ID, followed by the "#" sign: 944 7987 0269
Press "#" when asked for the participant ID.
To speak to an agenda item when public comment is called for, please press *9 on your phone and wait for the moderator.
The hearing will be livestreamed at https://loveland.viebit.com or on Channel 16.
Page 1 of 49
Notice of Non-Discrimination It is the policy of the City of Loveland to provide equal services, programs and activities without regard to race, color, national origin, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or age and without regard to the exercise of rights guaranteed by state or federal law. It is the policy of the City of Loveland to provide language access services at no charge to populations of persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) and persons with a disability who are served by the City. For more information on non-discrimination or for translation assistance, please contact the City’s Title VI Coordinator at [email protected] or 970-962-2372. The City will make reasonable accommodations for citizens in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For more information on ADA or accommodations, please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at [email protected] or 970-962-3319 . Notificación en contra de la discriminación La política de la Ciudad de Loveland es proveer servicios, programas y actividades iguales sin importar la raza, color, origen nacional, credo, religión, sexo, orientación sexual, discapacidad, o edad y sin importar el uso de los derechos garantizados por la ley estatal o federal. La política de la Ciudad de Loveland es proveer servicios gratis de acceso de lenguaje a la población de personas con dominio limitado del inglés (LEP, por sus iniciales en inglés) y a las personas con discapacidades quienes reciben servicios de la ciudad. Si desea recibir más información en contra de la discriminación o si desea ayuda de traducción, por favor comuníquese con el Coordinador del Título VI de la Ciudad en [email protected] o al 970-962-2372 . La Ciudad hará acomodaciones razonables para los ciudadanos de acuerdo con la Ley de Americanos con Disca pacidades (ADA, por sus iniciales en inglés). Si desea más información acerca de la ADA o acerca de las acomodaciones, por favor comuníquese con el Coordinador de ADA de la Ciudad en [email protected] o al 970-962-3319 .
Title VI and ADA Grievance Policy and Procedures can be located on the City of Loveland website at: cityofloveland.org
Password to the public wireless network (colguest) is accesswifi Page
I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. REPORTS A. Citizen Reports
This is time for citizens to address the Commission on matters not on the published agenda.
B. Current Planning Updates
• Staff Matters: Traffic pattern relating to the new Ziggi's coffee business at Eisenhower Blvd. and Madison Avenue.
C. City Attorney's Office Updates D. Committee Reports E. Commission Comments IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Review and approval of the June 8, 2020 meeting minutes.
060820 PC Minutes
5 - 14
V. REGULAR AGENDA A. HIP Streets Infrastructure Condition Assessment - Presenter:
Shelley Aschenbrenner, Public Works 15 - 30
Page 2 of 49
This is an informational item that does not require action by the Commission. Shelley Aschenbrenner with the Public Works Department and Nathaniel Johnson with Ditesco Services will provide an overview of the conclusions from a 2019 downtown infrastructure assessment relating to the City's HIP (Heart Improvement Plan) Streets Plan. The project team is seeking feedback on the next steps to be taken on the HIP Streets project. HIP Streets Project Overview_09.04.19
Boards&CommissionsUpdate B. Vantage at Loveland – Presenter: Jennifer Hewett-Apperson, Strategic
Planning
This item is a request for the annexation and zoning of a vacant 32-acre property located at the southwest corner of 14th Street and South Taft Avenue --across from the Thompson Valley Towne Centre. The applicant is requesting B-Developing Business zoning. If approved, this zoning would allow for a variety of commercial, office and/or multi-family uses. The property is currently zoned FA - Farming under the jurisdiction of Larimer County.
The role of the Planning Commission is to conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the annexation and zoning request. Development plans for the property are preliminary at this time; the Commission should focus its review on whether annexation and the proposed zoning are consistent with applicable City plans and policies. The City's Development Review Team is supporting this request. PC Staff Report
Att 1 Vicinity Map
Att 2 Annexation Map
Att 3 Zoning Map
Att 4 Annexation and Zoning Assessment
31 - 49
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 of 49
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Public Hearing Procedures The purpose of a public hearing is for the Planning Commission (PC as used below) to obtain full information as to the matter under consideration. This includes giving all interested parties the opportunity to speak (provide testimony) at the hearing. The public hearing is a formal process. below is the typical hearing sequence followed by the Planning Commission. Annotations have been provided for clarity.
1. Agenda item is recognized by the Chair 2. Public hearing is opened* 3. Staff presentation (May include clarifying questions to staff from Commissioners) 4. Applicant presentation (May include clarifying questions to applicant from Commissioners) 5. Public Comment (All public comment should be made from the center podium upon direction from the Chair. Citizens should provide their name and mailing address in writing at the podium, and introduce themselves. The PC may ask clarifying questions of the citizens. At a public hearing, the PC does not respond to questions from citizens; questions directed to the applicant or staff should be requested through the Chair.) 6. Applicant response (The Chair typically requests that applicants respond to comments and questions raised during public comment) 7. PC questions to staff, the applicant and possibly to citizens who presented (Commissioners may use this step in the process to gain a more detailed understanding of relevant information) 8. Close public hearing (Unless specifically permitted by the Chair, further testimony is not allowed after the public hearing is closed) 9. Motion (Motions are made by a PC member with possible conditions) 10. Motion is seconded (A 2nd is required before the motion can be considered; a motion that fails to obtain a second dies) 11. PC discussion (The PC discusses the application and whether it satisfies the required criteria as found in adopted City policies and ordinances) 12. PC Chair request that the applicant agrees to any conditions prior to a vote (When preparing to vote on a motion for approval, the PC Chair will ask if the applicant is willing to accept the proposed conditions. If the applicant is not, the PC may deny the application) 13. Vote (The decisions of the PC must address relevant findings of fact. These findings respond to criteria specified in adopted plans and codes, and service to guide zoning, annexation and other land use decisions. Relevant criteria and findings are itemized in the Staff Report and referred to in the recommended motion)
* Not that the Planning Commission may place time limits on presenters. All presenters should communicate clearly and concisely, refraining from duplicating detailed information that has been provided by others.
Page 4 of 49
MINUTESPlanning Commission Meeting 6:30 PM - June 8, 2020500 E. Third Street, Loveland, CO 80538 - City Council Chambers
The meeting of the City of Loveland Planning Commission was called to order on June 8, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers with the following members present: PRESENT: Chairman McFall; and Commissioners Fleischer, Hovland, Peterson,
Tygesen, Devlin, Eckman, and Weinberg.
EXCUSED: None.
CITIZEN REPORTS
There were no citizen reports.
CURRENT PLANNING UPDATES
1. Robert Paulsen, Current Planning Manager, shared that the Planning Commission has strongly encouraged the participation of citizens in public hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic. City staff have taken steps to promote public input by noticing the public hearing in the Reporter Herald 15 days prior to tonight’s public hearing, as well as providing information about the remote public hearing process on the City’s website on both the Current Planning and Planning Commission webpages. Mr. Paulsen added that Max Levy wrote an article regarding the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments public hearing, which appeared in a recent Reporter Herald publication. Mr. Paulsen provided a preview to the June 22, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. A public hearing will be held remotely for the Nuisance Abatement Code – Title 16 ordinance. He shared that a series of study sessions have been held by the Planning Commission for the UDC and Nuisance Abatement Code amendments. He anticipates that the proposed amendments for both items will be presented to the City Council via remote public hearing on August 4th.
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE UPDATE
Laurie Stirman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there were no updates.
Page 5 of 49
COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no committee reports.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Eckman shared his concern for businesses on 4th Street during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is pleased with the Patio Program that the City has offered to restaurants, but he is concerned with cars traveling so closely to patrons seated in the expanded restaurant patio areas. He would like the Commission to consider a motion to close 4th Street to vehicle traffic.
Commissioner Weinberg spoke in support of Commissioner Eckman’s proposal.
Commissioner Devlin shared his support of allowing pedestrian only traffic on 4th Street and suggested that the Planning Commission present Commissioner Eckman’s proposal to Shawn Hawkins of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). He agreed that it is important for the Commission to assist in any way that will support the success of downtown businesses during this time.
Commissioner Peterson shared her support of the proposal and agrees that 4th Street should be accessible only to emergency vehicles, and parking eliminated.
Mr. Paulsen shared that the Current Planning office has a strong relationship with the DDA, and he will contact Shawn Hawkins directly.
Commissioner Weinberg added that he appreciated the City’s efforts in advertising tonight’s public hearing so it can be as public as possible.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Commissioner Weinberg made a motion to approve the March 9, 2020 minutes; upon a second from Commissioner Hovland, the minutes were approved unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Guide to Downtown Design Standards – Update
Mr. Troy Bliss, Senior Planner, shared that the Guide to Downtown Design Standards booklet has been finalized and distributed to all Commissioners prior to the meeting. He shared that this project was started by Sam Gudmestad, an intern with the City’s Planning Department. Following Sam’s departure, a committee was formed, which included Troy Bliss, Jim Cox, Nikki Garshelis, Shawn Hawkins, Josh McCarn, and Corey Streich. Through the efforts of Economic Development, Development Services, and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), funds were made available for the hiring of professional planner to expand on the work that was started. The document contains a historic background of Loveland, design elements of the area and resources, and is intended for anyone with an interest in the downtown area. Mr. Bliss shared that the document is available in electronic version on the City’s Development Services webpage and added that links
Page 6 of 49
within the guide will take users directly to specific portions of the UDC. Mr. Bliss added that this is a living document and will be updated as staff sees fit. He shared his appreciation for the Planning Commission’s input they provided at the February Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Hovland shared that the format of the document was very well done. He shared that he enjoyed looking through the history of Loveland thanked Mr. Bliss and the team.
Commissioner McFall shared he enjoyed looking through it and congratulated the committee for the well-done document.
2. Affordable Housing Program Amendments – Public Hearing
Item Description: This is a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Title 18 at Chapter 18.16 regarding deed of trust durations for Community Development Block Grant funding. On October 1, 2019, City Council adopted on second reading the length of time that a deed of trust would remain in place on a City of Loveland Community Development Block Grant funded project that receives a grant of $20,000 or less. Prior changes to deed durations meant that projects followed the restriction durations shown below, which means that a public facility project that receives a grant of $5,000 would have a Deed of Trust placed on the property for 25 years.
For-sale housing - 20 years For-rent housing - 50 years Public facility - 25 years
Ms. Alison Hade, Community Partnership, explained that her office distributes approximately $800,000 in grants to local non-profit organizations, which are funded by City of Loveland sales tax dollars and by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). She added that her office works on issues around homelessness and affordable housing. She provided the Commission a summary of how non-profit organizations can apply for incentives from the City of Loveland by submitting an Affordable Housing Designation application, which must be approved by the Affordable Housing Commission and the City Council. The designation gives the organization the opportunity to request a waiver of fees and apply for a (HUD) Community Development Block Grant. She pointed out that fee waivers provide a significant dollar amount of incentives compared to CBDG.
Ms. Hade stated that the current Code requires that an incentive for a multi-family project to be deed restricted for 50 years, single-family for 20 years, a public facility for 25 years; with the exception CDBG of $20,000 or less for 5 years, in order to protect the City’s investment. A table showing the proposed length of the affordability period was presented, as follows:
Home Investment per Unit Length of Affordability PeriodLess than $15,000 5 years$15,000 - $40,000 10 yearsMore than $40,000 15 yearsNew construction of rental housing 20 yearsRefinancing of rental housing 15 years
Page 7 of 49
Ms. Hade stated that both HUD and the Affordable Housing Commission has approved this proposed amendment, which should also assist in the management of the investments over time. She added that the fee waiver also provides protection over the investment.
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Devlin asked if there is an automatic deed restriction if a project receives a fee waiver, and for what length of time would that restriction be. Ms. Hade responded that there is an automatic deed restriction. Multi-family projects are deed restricted for 50 years, single-family projects are deed restricted for 20 years, and a public facility is deed restricted for 25 years. Commissioner Devlin asked what the restriction deed involves. Ms. Hade shared that if a homeowner sells the property, the repayment of the fee waiver would be pro-rated over the number of years and the homeowner would have to pay the City a sum of money. For CBDG, repayment is not pro-rated over the ears, so the homeowner must pay the entire amount back. Commissioner Devlin suggested a more incremental scale might be more appropriate since the second tier of $15,000 - $40,000 is a broad range with the length of 10 years. Ms. Hade explained that the table comes directly from the HOME regulations from HUD.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Commissioner Weinberg moved to recommend that City Council approve an amendment to the Unified Development Code, Part 4, Chapter 18.16, Division 18.16.05.07 regarding deed of trust durations for Community Development Block Grant funding. Commissioner Devlin seconded the motion.
Commissioner Devlin restated that making the chart more of a sliding scale should be considered. Ms. Hade shared that she does not disagree with Commissioner Devlin and will take this recommendation to the Affordable Housing Commission.
The motion was approved unanimously.
3. UDC Code Amendment – Public Hearing
Item Description: This is a public hearing to consider a collection of amendments to Title 18 of the Loveland Municipal Code that have been compiled by Current Planning staff following a series of recent study sessions with the Planning Commission at which the amendments were presented and discussed in detail. The Unified Development Code (UDC), which is Title 18 of the Municipal Code, became effective in January of 2019. The amendments focus on code sections that have been problematic to both staff and customers. The amendments are intended to resolve conflicting and difficult to interpret provisions, restore provisions from the previous zoning code that were inadvertently omitted from the UDC, and correct inconsistencies with
Page 8 of 49
other portions of the Municipal Code. Furthermore, the overall goal of the amendments is to streamline the development review process. The package of amendments is consistent with direction provided by the Planning Commission in the recent series of study sessions. The Commission's role is to conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council for final action.
Ms. Kerri Burchett, Principal Planner, shared that the Unified Development Code (UDC), also known as Title 18 of the City’s Municipal Code, was adopted in November, 2018. As City staff has implemented the code, areas requiring improvements have been identified. Four amendments have previously been presented to the City Council, said Ms. Burchett. The amendments currently being proposed are grouped into four categories, including omitted provisions from the previous code, minor adjustments and clarifications, streamline processes, and substantive changes. She added that there are 35 sections of the UDC that are included in the amendment packageMs. Burchett reviewed the amendments to each section. The first amendments she discussed were those relating to the sections that had provisions inadvertently omitted from the previous code. This included the Downtown Zone District in the core and general character areas, which provides dimensional standards such as setbacks, lot size and open space for those areas of the code. The purpose of the amendment to this section is to insert a missing table that outlines the dimensional standards for the core and general character areas. She added that no changes are proposed to the standards in the table from the previous code.
The next amendments to the code Ms. Burchett discussed related to Capital Expansion Fees Exemptions in order to correct an omission for the previous code exempting CEF’s for City-funded projects. The amendment reinserts a CEF exemption for these City-funded developments and corrects an omission from the previous code regarding liens for unpaid CEFs. A map of historic downtown for unpaid CEFs was added to the appendix, based on the recommendation made at a Planning Commission study session, as well as some minor language adjustments for accounting purposes. The final amendment relating to omissions from the previous code was concerning the General Design Standards. The standard from the previous code requiring consistent architecture on all sides of buildings that are visibly to a public or private street was reinserted. With the direction of the Planning Commission, this proposal would allow the Director to waive building design requirements for building facades located along alleys or along other low volume or low visibility streets.
Ms. Burchett next presented a grouping of amendments including minor adjustments and clarifications to amended sections as follows: Contents of Public Notice (18.14.04.03); Lot of Record (18.19.03); Street Trees (18.08.04.01); Variances (18.17.15.07); Unity of Title Alternative (18.17.13.08.B); Neighborhood Notice and Comment (18.14.03.11); Fences, Walls and Hedges (18.04.07.05); and General Standards for Adaptable Uses (18.02.04.12). Some of these amendments Ms. Burchett mentioned included technical clean-up and clarification of notice content, clarification of the date establishing a legal lot to match the date of the City’s subdivision ordinance, and an amendment to the street tree provisions that aligns with the proposed Nuisance Code for property owner responsibilities for adjacent land within the right-of-way. Ms. Burchett shared an amendment to the Variance section of the Code with a proposal to allow greater discretion for the Zoning Board of Adjustment and align standards and findings with state statutes.
Ms. Burchett presented the four amended sections of the Code that relate to the streamlining of the development processes. These sections include Required Notice by Application Type
Page 9 of 49
(18.14.04.02); Director Authorization (18.13-04.02); Vacation of Emergency Access, Utility, and Non-Constructed Access Easements (18.17.16.03); and Zoning Board of Adjustment (18.13.02.03). Under the new proposed amendments, the City Clerk has the ability to correct typographical and punctuation errors and specifies that the Director must notify the Planning Commission and City Council if minor adjustments are made to the UDC, but removes the provision requiring notification in a regular meeting. Flexibility is given for the Director to forward variances to the full Zoning Board.
Commissioner McFall questioned if the ZBA hearing officer can make a recommendation at the end of the ZBA hearing to forward the hearing to the full Planning Commission. Ms. Burchett shared that the ZBA hearing officer must make a decision at the hearing; however, the decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant or by those present at the hearing. Mr. Paulsen shared that currently, the hearing officer can forward the hearing to the full Zoning Board of Adjustment at any point before a decision is made; with the new recommendation, it can only be forwarded before a notice is provided.
More substantial changes were made to the following sections including Applicability – Exception for Emergencies (18-01-01-03.D); Group Homes, Recovery Residences, and Family Definitions (18.19.06 and 18.02.04.04); Accessory Structures (18.19.03, 18.04.07.01 and 18.04.07.03); Accessory Dwelling Units (18.04.07.02); Home Child Care, Day Care Center and Place of Assembly (18.02.06.03, 18.19.03, 18.02.03.06, 18.05.03.03.E, 18.02.04.07); Outdoor Storage, Storage Yards, and Salvage Yards (18.19.03, 18.04.07.06, 18.02.04.08, 18.04.06.04); and Applicability of Use Standards (18.02.04.01). Ms. Burchett presented these amendments and the purpose for them. A new provision in the Code would allow the Director to temporarily waive UDC requirements under emergency situations such as a declared disaster or state of emergency. She shared that the State of Colorado adopted new provisions for group homes; the proposed amendment updates the UDC to include recovery residences, defines them, and includes information requirements for all group homes to ensure compliance with recent State legislations.
Ms. Burchett shared that the definition of family has been included to help administer the Code and provide a distinction between family, group homes, and rooming houses. Family is defined as a person or persons living together on the premise as a single housekeeping unit with common access to and use of all living and eating areas within the dwelling unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a rooming house, group home, commercial lodging facility, or similar arrangement. She stated that the definition of family does not limit the number of individuals living together, but rather focuses on the characteristics of the housekeeping unit. She shared that a small rooming home has been defined as a sleeping room, shared kitchen and living areas, to accommodate 4 but not more than 8 people that are not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship.
Commissioner Eckman asked if a rooming house and rooming home are the same. Ms. Burchett clarified that the UDC calls them rooming houses. A small rooming house refers to 4-8 unrelated people and a large rooming house is more than 8 unrelated people.
Ms. Burchett shared that proposed code amendments consolidate accessory building and accessory structures into one section with clearer provisions and adjustments that should reduce the number of variances to the size of structures. Provisions for accessory dwelling units
Page 10 of 49
(ADUs) have been adjusted to provide more flexibility in allowing ADUs in all residential zones which could aid in providing more alternative or affordable housing options. A simplification to terms for childcare and consolidation of large and small commercial day care into one category was discussed, as well as the adjustment to standards to be more applicable to a commercial day care facility. Proposed amendments including clarification of the distinction between outdoor storage and storage yards, the removal of square footage limitations in the industrial zone, screening requirements, and the removal of restrictions on the storage of collector’s vehicles were also discussed. Finally, Ms. Burchett shared that the amendment to the Applicability of Use Standards includes a restriction to modify standards that either prohibit a particular use or requires state and federal regulation compliance. A proposed amendment that expands the notice radius requirements if the adaptable use process is used to modify a separation distance from a residential use or residential zone boundary was also explained.
Ms. Burchett concluded her presentation by sharing that she can expand on any of the items further. She shared that this item is tentatively scheduled for City Council on August 4th.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
Mr. Grant Shipman, resident, shared that the definition of family is limited, since it specifies no more than three unrelated adults in a rooming house situation. He shared that as a homeowner, if he wishes to rent out bedrooms to responsible adults during the difficult times we are currently experiencing due to the pandemic, he should have that opportunity. He questioned if he is doing the right thing when he reads the definition of family. Commissioner Weinberg asked for clarification to his statement. Mr. Shipman responded that he does not support the proposed definition of family. He shared that it does not list a certain number of people, it doesn’t mention requirements of blood or legal relation, but it does distinguish it from a rooming house, which is defined as 4-8 unrelated adults. He shared that this ends up saying the family is no more than 3 unrelated adults and leads to confusion.
Mr. Andrew Lewis, resident, shared that as a realtor he is concerned with the definition of family and how it relates to clients who rent out rooms to make housing more affordable. He asked at what point to do these people fall under the definition of a rooming house. He wants a clear definition of what he can tell clients that are wishing to rent out their homes. He shared that this is an affordable housing issue that particularly affects both the younger and the older generation as they are trying to reduce costs. With layoffs and increasing taxes, he believes this creates a real issue. He stated that people in Loveland are currently struggling and that having alternative ways to reduce their costs is a pretty big deal.
Ms. Burchett shared that it was not the intention of defining family to restrict or eliminate the ability for someone to rent out a room or supplement to their income,. She shared that although there is a definition for a rooming house, the character of what is happening in the home is the distinguishing factor between those two land uses.
Commissioner McFall and Commissioner Devlin asked for clarification on the definition of a rooming house, and questioned where the definitions can be found. Ms. Burchett responded that the definitions can be found in section 18.19.03, where they are listed alphabetically.
Page 11 of 49
Commissioner Eckman shared that the caller was concerned with the definition of family. The definition of the rooming house is clear, but the definition of family is more general, and he believes it could be more clearly stated. He re-read the definition of family and questioned if family could be better defined as any number of persons living together on the premises as a single housekeeping unit. Laurie Stirman, City Attorney, responded that she believes it clarifies the issue of how many people could be in a home and shared that it is a great suggestion.
Ms. Burchett shared that there can be a definition for family that states any number of persons, but if rooms are rented in your house the question is if you are a rooming house. Distinguishing a family from a rooming house is the difficulty, which is why the characteristics of a family versus a rooming house needs to be considered. She shared that perhaps the definition of a rooming house needs to be clarified.
Commissioner McFall shared that renting a home to six different individuals who have access to the entire house is not what he would consider a family. He feels that clarifying the rooming house definition would be helpful.
Commissioner Peterson shared that the caller is concerned with people renting a room or rooms and if that would be considered a rooming house. She agrees that renting a room is more of a rooming house than a family.
Commissioner Devlin shared that the concern of the caller comes from the zoning issue. A rooming house is only allowed in R3. If he has a single family house in an R1 neighborhood and he rents out rooms and is viewed as a rooming house, then it would not be an allowed use in that zoning.
Ms. Burchett shared that staff is happy to look into the rooming house definition as it may require more distinguishing factors added for clarification of what separates a rooming house from a single family unit. She proposed that the rooming house definition be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Commissioner Weinberg asked if public comment could be re-opened to ensure their questions are answered.
Commissioner McFall reopened the public comment portion of the hearing to allow for further comments.
Mr. Grant Shipman, who spoke earlier, added that he is pleased that the Commissioners understand his comments. He asked the Commission that whatever is proposed that it is very clear in the text before it goes before it goes forward to the City Council.
Mr. Andrew Lewis, who spoke earlier, shared that he believes there is a problem with the family definition. He gave an example of a very common situation in Loveland, where a family with 2 kids rents out a couple of their rooms to 2 single men, so 4 adults live in the house. He questioned if this would be a family unit or a rooming house. If they are a rooming house, they would be operating illegally because they are not in an R3 area. He shared that the rooming house definition is actually clear to him. He senses there is ambiguity with the housekeeping unit label. Mr. Lewis asked for clarification so he knows what he can tell people. He shared that if people follow the definition of rooming house only, this affects many people that can no longer rent out rooms, and there are people left without affordable housing.
Page 12 of 49
Commissioner McFall closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.
Commissioner Eckman added that he believes a rooming house is a place where you have a room, bathroom, and possibly a kitchenette; but you don’t have the run of the house. As a family, you are a single housekeeping unit with common access to and use of all areas, so you do have run of the house and live as a family. He believes the definition of family is good, but if the definition of rooming house overlaps, it needs to be considered.
Ms. Burchett asked for more direction of what the Commission would like to see included in the definition of the rooming house compared to a family. She stated that a rooming house is allowed in all zone districts except for low-density residential areas.
Commissioner Devlin shared there is a rooming house on 7th Street and they have shared access to common areas. He does not believe it is as simple as sharing common areas that makes it a family instead of a rooming house.
Commissioner McFall shared that there is a reason why rooming houses are not allowed in residential areas. He shared that his HOA would prevent him from renting out rooms in his home, but some neighborhoods would not be protected by an HOA, and this concerns him. He would like clearer definitions of both family and rooming house.
Commissioner Devlin recommended that a family should be limited to 4 unrelated people in the household that function as a single housekeeping unit. Anything about that would be considered a rooming house, and he would not want that in his neighborhood.
Commissioner Peterson shared that 4 unrelated people is too many. She shared that if someone needs more than 3 renters to supplement their mortgage, they are should not be living in that district.
Commissioner McFall stated that there does not seem to be a consensus and suggested that the item be tabled.
Mr. Paulsen suggested the Commission table the item and continue the discussion at a study session on June 22nd ..
Commissioner Weinberg shared that public involvement is very important and thanked the citizens for their comments. He added that he would like to stay on track with the City on getting things accomplished. He hopes Commissioners can be available for study session.
MOTION:
Commissioner Peterson made a motion to table the item and to revisit the item at a July 22nd study session for further discussion; upon a second from Commissioner Weinberg, the motion was approved unanimously.
Page 13 of 49
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Weinberg made a motion to adjourn the meeting to study session; with a second made by Commissioner Peterson, the motion was approved.
Commissioner McFall adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Approved by:Patrick McFall, Planning Commission Chair
Lisa Rye, Planning Commission Secretary
Page 14 of 49
Page: 1
HIP Streets Infrastructure Condition AssessmentProject Overview
Background and Purpose
The City of Loveland (City) commissioned Ditesco to complete an infrastructure condition assessment of downtown Loveland’s existing city-owned infrastructure. This followed two initial studies that were completed in 2009 (Nuszer Kopatz Urban Design Associates) and 2017 (Stanley Consultants), resulting in the Heart Improvement Plan (HIP) Streets Master Plan and 2017 HIP Streets Modernization Plan, respectively. This infrastructure condition assessment study was completed to provide a comprehensive analysis of required infrastructure improvements and pair those improvements with the recommendations of the 2017 HIP Streets Modernization Plan.
The infrastructure assessment was designed to meet the following goals:
» Gain an understanding of the current condition of all city-owned infrastructure » Develop 30% concept-level infrastructure design based around HIP Streets surface improvements and
infrastructure replacement needs » Develop capital improvement-level budgets to be utilized in future funding requests » Assist in implementation and prioritization of the HIP Streets Masterplan, based upon infrastructure condition
and block utilization.
The map below shows the overall HIP Streets boundary and labels for blocks and alleys included in the assessment.
HIP Streets core blocks included in the 2017 HIP Streets Modernization PlanBlocks added to the assessment that are not included in the 2017 HIP Streets Modernization Plan Alleys where infrastructure condition was evaluated, but no surface improvements were considered
HIP STREET LIMITS
SCALE: 1" =100'
0100' 100' 200' 300'
(True scale for 22x34 sheet size)
5
10
16
2 3
7
17
11
4
8
18
9
12 13
2ND ST
3RD ST
4TH ST
5TH St
6TH ST
N. G
AR
FIE
LD
N. L
INC
OLN
AV
E
N. J
EFF
ER
SO
N
WA
SH
ING
TON
HIP STREET AREA MAP
LEGEND
22
2321
HIP Street core block
Areas added for infrastructure assessment only
HIP Streets boundary
HIP Streets core area
1
2 3
4 5 6
7
8 9 10 1112
Alley Number
14
1
20
24 19
N. R
AIL
RO
AD
N. C
LEV
EL
AN
D
6
15
HIP Streets Area Map
Page 15 of 49
Page: 2
Data Collection & Existing Conditions
Data collection was the foundation for the infrastructure assessment. After completing a topographic survey of the HIP Streets area, the team compared the survey data with the City’s GIS data and created an assessment inventory for each City-owned utility. This inventory was used as a baseline to collect data on utility features including pipelines, manholes, stormwater inlets, transformers, power poles, street lights, water valves, water meters, and fire hydrants. Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection was also completed on key segments of the storm drain and sanitary sewer systems to document condition of utility pipelines.
A variety of infrastructure condition was noted throughout the HIP Streets Area. The photos included herein include a section of storm sewer pipeline with numerous structural failures and an existing sidewalk and access ramp that does not meet ADA standards.
Data Analysis
All data was compiled and compared to project specific standards. The project-specific standards were developed from collective input with the HIP Streets project team and include the following:
» Storm pipelines (Blocks 1-24) would be replaced with in-kind pipe size, if larger than 18-inch or brought to 18-inch minimum pipe size, if smaller than 18-inch
» Storm pipelines (Alleys 1-12) would be replaced with a minimum 18-inch pipe. If a pipe was undersized in the alley, but in acceptable condition, it would not be noted for replacement.
» Waterlines would be replaced to a minimum of 8-inch diameter pipeline, or replaced with in-kind pipe size, if greater than 8-inch
» Sanitary Sewer would be replaced with in-kind pipe size, if needed » Overhead power would be moved to underground conduits, with matching capacity, and overhead transformers
would be relocated to at-grade locations » Lighting would be evaluated to identify current light levels and compare them to Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards (LCUASS) » Traffic would be evaluated with signage replacement as a percentage for every block
The outcome of this exercise was a culmination of data that was utilized to identify immediate needs and relative priorities for the existing infrastructure in the HIP Streets area. This data was used to make recommendations on infrastructure repair or replacement during the HIP Streets Modernization Plan implementation.
Conceptual Design and Budget-Level Estimates
The HIP Streets Modernization Plan streetscape layouts and the infrastructure condition assessment replacement recommendations were combined to develop a conceptual infrastructure design for the entire HIP Streets area. The conceptual design included plan and profile layout for City-owned utilities and provided information necessary to develop infrastructure replacement costs.
The team used the conceptual design to develop complete budget-level estimates for infrastructure and street improvements. Budget estimates were completed for all 24 blocks and the 12 alleys included in the HIP Streets Infrastructure Assessment. The complete implementation costs can be seen in the following tables:
Existing Storm Pipeline Sidewalk and Access Ramp
Page 16 of 49
Page: 3
HIP Streets Modernization Plan Implementation Costs - AlleysAlley No. Rank Location Total Cost
01 AK Between Railroad and Cleveland Avenue (Sixty Street to Artist Alley) $134,000
02 AJ Artist Alley (Railroad Avenue to Cleveland Avenue) $267,000
03 AH Artist Alley (Cleveland to Lincoln Avenue) $34,000
04 AG Sweetheart Alley (Railroad to Cleveland Avenue) $170,000
05 AF Sweetheart Alley (Cleveland to Lincoln Avenue) $31,000
06 AE Sweetheart Alley (Lincoln Avenue to Jefferson Avenue) $65,000
07 AB Painters Alley (Third to Fourth Street) $197,000
08 AC Between Third and Fourth Street (Painters Alley to Cleveland Avenue) $104,000
09 AA Backstage Alley (Cleveland to Lincoln Avenue) $31,000
10 AD Between Third and Fourth Street (Lincoln to Jefferson Avenue) $202,000
11 AI Fiction Alley (Jefferson to Washington Avenue) $295,000
12 AL Between Third and Fourth Street (Mid-Block to Garfield Avenue) $173,000
Total Cost $1,703,000
HIP Streets Modernization Plan Implementation Costs - BlocksBlock No. Rank Location Total Cost
01 W Sixth Street (Railroad Ave to Cleveland Ave) $2,767,000
02 Q Fifth Street (Railroad Ave to Cleveland Ave) $1,869,000
03 N Fifth Street (Cleveland Ave to Lincoln Ave) $1,849,000
04 G Fifth Street (Lincoln Ave to Jefferson Ave) $2,054,000
05 P Fourth Street (Garfield Ave to Railroad Ave) $2,434,000
06 B Fourth Street (Railroad Ave to Cleveland Ave) $3,224,000
07 C Fourth Street (Cleveland Ave to Lincoln Ave) $2,220,000
08 A Fourth Street (Lincoln Ave to Jefferson Ave) $2,029,000
09 L Fourth Street (Jefferson Ave to Washington Ave) $2,033,000
10 X Third Street (Garfield Ave to Railroad Ave) $1,643,000
11 F Third Street (Railroad Ave to Cleveland Ave) $1,919,000
12 I Third Street (Lincoln Ave to Jefferson Ave) $1,615,000
13 U Third Street (Jefferson Ave to Washington Ave) $1,639,000
14 V Railroad Ave (Sixth Street to Fifth Street) $1,002,000
15 E Railroad Ave (Fifth Street to Fourth Street) $1,070,000
16 D Railroad Ave (Fourth Street to Third Street) $1,460,000
17 R Railroad Ave (Third Street to Second Street) $1,135,000
18 H Jefferson Ave (Fifth Street to Fourth Street) $969,000
19 T Jefferson Ave (Fourth Street to Third Street) $1,100,000
20 S Cleveland Ave (Sixth Street to Fifth Street) $619,000
21 O Cleveland Ave (Fifth Street to Fourth Street) $329,000
22 M Cleveland Ave (Fourth Street to Third Street) $302,000
23 K Lincoln Ave (Fifth Street to Fourth Street) $455,000
24 J Lincoln Ave (Fourth Street to Third Street) $262,000
Total Cost $35,998,000
Sanitary Sewer Brick Manhole
Storm Sewer Brick Manhole
Page 17 of 49
Page: 4
Project Prioritization
A multi-criterion decision analysis (MCDA) tool was developed to prioritize implementation of the HIP Streets Modernization Plan. Each block was prioritized by its pedestrian, vehicle, and bike usage, as identified in the 2017 HIP Streets Modernization Plan and the 2018 Downtown Parking Study and Strategic Plan, Phase 1. The MCDA also utilized objective data to analyze the condition of City-owned infrastructure for safety, reliability, cost, funding challenges, design and constructability challenges. The final rankings (A to Z) for each block can be seen in the table above.
Additionally, the City recommended a pilot project to kick-off the HIP Streets Modernization Plan implementation. The intent of the pilot project is to provide a block that is highly visible, is utilized for events, has relatively lower utility replacement costs, and has slightly fewer business and residential storefronts. Considering these parameters, Fifth Street, between Cleveland Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, has been identified as a potential pilot project. All remaining improvements have been prioritized according to their location and relative infrastructure improvement needs. All 24 HIP Streets Blocks have been grouped into seven (7) prioritized projects, as shown in the following map.
HIP STREET LIMITS
SCALE: 1" =100'
0100' 100' 200' 300'
(True scale for 22x34 sheet size)
2nd St
3rd St
4th St
5th St
6th St
n. G
ar
fie
ld
n. l
inc
oln
av
e
n. J
eff
er
So
n
Wa
Sh
inG
ton
hiP Street area MaP
leGend
HIP Street core block
HIP Streets boundary
HIP Streets core area
n. r
ail
ro
ad
n. c
lev
el
an
d
Project 7
Project 4
Project 3
Project 2
Project 1
Project 5Project 6
16
17
11
4
18
9
12 13
19
6 7 8
14
1
5
10
2
22
2321
20
24
Areas added for infrastructure assessment only
3
Pilot Project
15
HIP Streets core block number
HIP Streets boundary
HIP Streets core area Project 7 - Block(s) 1, 10, 13, 14
Project 4 - Block(s) 5, 9
Project 3 - Block(s) 2, 4
Project 2 - Block(s) 11, 15, 16, 17
Project 1 - Block(s) 6, 7, 8
Project 6 - Block(s) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Areas added for infrastructure assessment only Project 5 - Block(s) 12, 18, 19
Pilot Project - Block(s) 3
Page 18 of 49
HIP STREETS INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SHELLEY ASCHENBRENNER, PUBLIC WORKSNATHANIEL JOHNSON, DITESCO SERVICES
1 1Page 19 of 49
AGENDA
P R O J E C T B A C K G R O U N D3
W O R K C O M P L E T E D5
P R O J E C T P L A N N I N G9
N E X T S T E P S11
The project team is presenting conclusions from a 2019 downtown Loveland infrastructure assessment study and requesting direction for next steps for the HIP Streets projects.
2A G E N D APage 20 of 49
• Destination Downtown: HIP Streets Master Plan (2009)• Nuszer Kopatz
• Goal: • Create a Downtown that sustains a good network of public
spaces, streets, infrastructure, cultural destinations and retail corridors; providing a vibrant environment to live, work, shop and visit.
3
HIP (HEART IMPROVEMENT PLAN) STREETS BACKGROUND
• Plan Update: HIP Street Modernization (2017)
• Stanley Consultants
• Goals:• Update 2009 designs to be more conservative
and cost effective• Provide updated cost estimates
P R O J E C T B A C K G R O U N D
2018 Council directive to complete final phaseInfrastructure Condition Assessment
o City-owned utility inventories
o Cost information
o Funding and collaboration by City Departments
Project Goalso Evaluate condition of City-
owned infrastructure
o Develop 30% concept-level drawings
o Develop capital improvement-level budgets
o Prioritize HIP Streets project phasing
Page 21 of 49
4
HIP STREETS INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES
4P R O J E C T B A C K G R O U N DPage 22 of 49
5
• 500+ hours of field investigation• Water• Sanitary Sewer • Stormwater• Electrical• Traffic
• GIS database updated• Technical Memorandum
Work Completed
W O R K C O M P L E T E DPage 23 of 49
6
Condition Summaries
W O R K C O M P L E T E DPage 24 of 49
7
30% CONCEPT REVIEW
DRAWINGS
77W O R K C O M P L E T E DPhoto Credit: fuseanimation.com
Page 25 of 49
PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONM U L T I - C R I T E R I O N D E C I S I O N A N A L Y S I S ( M C D A )
8
Block by Block Priority :• Public Usage:
Parking & Pedestrian Count
• Infrastructure Condition
• Cost
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Scor
es
HIP Streets Infrastructure Assessment MCDA
Public Health & Safety
Reliability
Cost (Low to High)
Funding Challenges
Design/ Constructability Challenges
W O R K C O M P L E T E DPage 26 of 49
9
PROJECT PLANNING
PROJECT GROUPING
P R O J E C T P L A N N I N GPage 27 of 49
10
PROJECT PLANNING
BLOCK 3:
CLEVELAND TO LINCOLN
P R O J E C T P L A N N I N G
Cost Category Cost
Infrastructure Cost (Utilities) $658,312
Street Replacement $271,528
Modernization Plan Improvements $919,150
Total Estimated Cost $1,848,990
Pilot Project• Relatively low improvement cost• Fewer business storefronts on 5th Street• Business request for improvements• Block is utilized for events
Page 28 of 49
11
NEXT STEPS
CITYCOUNCIL C o m p l e t e d :
J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 0
I n f o r m a t i o n O n l y
S e e k i n g C o u n c i l F e e d b a c k
BOARD PRESENTATIONS C i t i z e n s ’ F i n a n c e
A d v i s o r y C o m m i s s i o n
L o v e l a n d D D A B o a r d
L o v e l a n d D o w n t o w n P a r t n e r s h i p
L o v e l a n d B u s i n e s s A l l i a n c e
L o v e l a n d U t i l i t y C o m m i s s i o n
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A d v i s o r y B o a r d
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
CITYCOUNCIL
P u b l i c M e e t i n g
P r o v i d e B o a r d F e e d b a c k
C o u n c i l D i r e c t i o n
1
2
3
N E X T S T E P SPage 29 of 49
THANKYOU!
QUESTIONS?
1212
HIP STREETS INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Page 30 of 49
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION 410 E. 5th Street | Loveland, CO 80537 | 970-962-2523
[email protected] | cityofloveland.org/DC
Planning Commission Staff Report July 13, 2020 Vantage Addition
Agenda #: 2 PZ #20-00028 Annexation & Conventional Zoning Location Located southwest of the SW corner of SW 14th Street and South Taft
Avenue
Development Review Team Recommended Motion(s) Recommended Motion(s): Move to make the findings beginning on page 5 of the Planning Commission staff report dated July 13, 2020, and, based on those findings, recommend that City Council approve the 30 acre Vantage Addition, subject to the conditions beginning on page 10 of this report dated July 13, 2020, as amended on the record, and zone the subject property B – Developing Business.
Options Consequence Approve the Motion The subject property is annexed into the City of Loveland and able to be
developed according to the standards of the B – Developing Business zoning district.
Deny the Motion or take no action The subject property remains an un-annexed parcel within Larimer County and remains zoned FA-Farming and will likely remain undeveloped.
Project Summary This public hearing concerns the annexation and zoning of a 31.93 acre parcel located southwest of the corner of SW 14th Street and S Taft Avenue. The applicant is seeking a zoning district of B – Developing Business, which is consistent with the Community Activity Center Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. The applicant is Ripley Design Inc., represented by Stephanie Hansen, on behalf of the Estate of Iva Joy Johnson. The public hearing is to consider the following items:
• Annexation of approximately 30 acres; and • Zoning to B – Developing Business
Staff believes that all key issues associated with the annexation and zoning request have been addressed based on City codes and standards. The neighborhood meeting was held at 6:00 pm on May 21, 2020 via Zoom Webinar. Two neighbors participated. A variety of questions were raised generally concerning potential development of the site and mitigation of impacts on the existing community. The subject parcel is currently within Larimer County jurisdiction and is zoned FA-Farming. A Phase 1 Environmental Report and Site Inventory were submitted as part of the application for annexation and zoning. The eastern portion of the site contains the spillway for the Ryan Gulch Reservoir, however, the applicant does not propose any development within this area. The City’s Comprehensive Land Use Map designates this area as CAC – Community Activity Center. The request for annexation and zoning to B – Developing Business is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments 1. Vicinity map 2. Annexation map 3. Zoning map 4. Applicant’s annexation and zoning assessment
Page 31 of 49
2
Applicant Information Development Review Team Contacts Applicant: Stephanie Hansen, Ripley Design Inc.
Planner: Jennifer Hewett-Apperson Traffic Engineer: Randy Maizland LFRA: Ingrid McMillan-Ernst
Property Owner: Estate of Iva Joy Johnson
Stormwater: Suzette Schaff Power: Mark Warner Water/Wastewater: Melissa Morin
Site Data Address/Location Southwest of the corner of SW 14th Street and S Taft Avenue Land Area 31.93 Acres Existing Buildings No existing buildings Topography Farmland, irrigation ditch, ridge on eastern portion of property Access Current access from unpaved section of S Tyler Avenue Water Provider City of Loveland Wastewater Provider City of Loveland , currently served by a private septic system Electric Provider City of Loveland Floodplain Not applicable
Subject Property and Adjacent Property Designations Existing Zoning Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use(s) Subject Property Larimer County FA –
Farming CAC – Community Activity Center
Farmland
Adjacent North PUD – P-38 CAC – Community Activity Center
Thompson Valley Towne Center/King Sooper’s
Adjacent South R1 – Low Density Residential
LDR – Low Density Residential
Ryan Gulch Reservoir & Single Family Homes
Adjacent East B – Developing Business R1 – Low Density Residential MAC – Mixed Use Activity Center
CAC – Community Activity Center
Commercial Office
Adjacent West Larimer County FA – Farming
MDR – Medium Density Residential
Farmland and associated buildings
Page 32 of 49
3
Aerial Photo
Zoning Map
Subject Property
SW 14th St
Ryan Gulch Reservoir
Subject Property
FA
R1e PUD
B
Page 33 of 49
4
Future Land Use Map
Background PZ# Date Request Action 20-00028 July 13, 2020 Annexation and zoning Approval
• This parcel has been historically used as farmland • Urban/suburban development has occurred on surrounding and nearby properties as land has been annexed
into the City of Loveland • No prior development applications have been processed for the subject property by the City of Loveland
Neighborhood Outreach
Notification An affidavit was received from the applicant certifying that written notices was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property on June 26, 2020 and notices were posted in prominent locations on the perimeter of the site at least 15 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In addition, a notice was published in the Reporter Herald on June 27, 2020.
Neighborhood Response The neighborhood meeting was held at 6:00 pm on May 21, 2020 via Zoom Webinar. Two neighbors participated. A variety of questions were raised generally concerning the following topics:
CAC
CAC
MDR
HDR
Page 34 of 49
5
• Vehicular Access– Staff response: Primary access would be from Tyler Avenue, which is currently unpaved and would be constructed to city standards as part of development.
• Increase in traffic - Staff response: A Traffic Impact Study will be required with each development proposal ensuring that transportation improvements are met.
• What potential future developments can occur on the site? –Staff response: Development may occur in a manner consistent with the B – Developing Business zoning district. Potential uses include multifamily and a range of commercial uses.
• Why can’t the city buy this property for a park? – Staff response: The property is not part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Land acquisition funds are limited to property identified in that plan.
Staff from the Current Planning office was in attendance at the meeting and able to adequately address all questions and concerns and provide additional information on potential future developments. All neighbors in attendance at the neighborhood meeting were informed of the upcoming public hearings.
Planning Commission Findings for Approval APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION
The Unified Development Code sets forth certain review considerations regarding a request for annexation. Pursuant to Section 18.17.01.04 of the City of Loveland Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission shall make findings regarding the following review considerations for annexation of property into the City of Loveland.
A. Generally. The City Council may consider an annexation application only after approving a resolution finding that the application complies with the eligibility criteria contained in C.R.S. §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, or C.R.S. § 31-12-106.
Finding met: Yes Analysis: Staff believes that the findings can be met. The Resolution for findings was held on July 7, 2020.
• The annexation complies with the Colorado State Statutes regarding annexation of land and the required one-sixth contiguity between the City and the property seeking annexation.
• The property is situated within the City’s Growth Management Area.
B. Public Facilities and Community Services. Whether the current requirements for public facilities and community services (defined herein), as the City determines to be necessary and required in the area proposed to be annexed, have been fulfilled, and whether there is an appropriate mechanism in place to assure that the future requirements for such public facilities and community services will be fulfilled.
Page 35 of 49
6
1. As used in this subsection, the phrase “public facilities” includes, but is not limited to, streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, bridges, parks and recreation areas, schools, police or fire station sites, water and wastewater, and storm drainage facilities.
2. As used in this subsection, the phrase “community services” includes, but is not limited to fire and police protection and provision of water and wastewater services.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above: Yes Analysis:
• Transportation: Staff believes this findings can be met, based on the following: Annexing and zoning a parcel or property does not warrant compliance with the City’s Adequate Community Facilities (ACF) ordinance. A condition is recommended to clearly ensure that all future development or land application within this proposed property shall be in compliance with the City of Loveland Street Plan, the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and any updates to either in effect at the time of development application. Moreover, as identified in the City Municipal Code Title 16, a Traffic Impact Study shall be required with all future development or other land use applications. The annexation will also be required to dedicate, free and clear, all applicable right-of-way to the City, at no cost to the City, at the time of development. Therefore, pending future proposed development within this property, of which review and approval by the City is required, the Transportation Engineering Staff does not object to the proposed annexation and zoning.
• Fire: Staff believes that this finding can be met, due to the following: 1. The development site will comply with the requirements in the ACF Ordinance for response distance
requirements from the first due Engine Company. 2. The proposed rezoning of this property to high-density residential will not negatively impact fire protection
for the subject development or surrounding properties.
• Water/Wastewater: Staff believes this finding can be met, due to the following: The subject annexation is situated within the City’s current service area for both water and wastewater. The Department finds that:
1. The annexation and zoning is consistent with the Department’s Water and Wastewater master plan by being consistent with the 2005 Comprehensive Master Plan.
2. Public facilities are available to serve the development.
• Stormwater: Staff believes that the findings can be met, based on the following: 1. The proposed development has the potential to meet all applicable requirements contained in the City of
Loveland Storm Drainage Criteria; and 2. The proposed development has the potential to provide for adequate major drainage facilities to convey
stormwater flows from a one hundred year storm event which will minimize property damage; 3. The proposed development has the potential to meet all applicable drainage requirements of the City. 4. Based on a study, “Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis of 100-Year Spill From Ryan Gulch Reservoir, Vantage at
Loveland Development, Loveland, Colorado” (Front Range Stormwater & Floodplain Consulting, December 2, 2019), the grading design for the proposed development has the potential to provide for adequate protection of the development from indundation of stormwater flows from the Ryan Gulch 100-year floodplain without negatively affecting upstream and downstream properties. The proposed development is located immediately downstream of the Ryan Gulch Reservoir and Emergency Spillway, which is governed by the State Engineer’s Office. The State Engineer’s Office also governs the 100-year floodplain located on
Page 36 of 49
7
the property that results from the Ryan Gulch Reservoir Spillway flows. In order to develop the western portion of the property as proposed, the entire property will need to be regraded in order to raise the proposed development out of the existing 100-year Ryans Gulch Reservoir emergency overflow path and 100-year floodplain. In order to accomplish this, the western portion of the property will be regraded so that the east side of the proposed development area is 25 feet higher than existing elevations with 4:1 side slopes along the eastern fill embankment.
5. The 100-year floodplain from Ryans Gulch Reservoir overtops 14th Street SW at an approximate depth of three feet. The proposed development grading design cannot be completed in a manner that increases the overtopping depth from that of the existing condition. The regrading of the property is expected to be completed in a manner so as not to increase the 100-year flow depth over 14th Street SW.
• Power: Staff believes that this finding can be met, due to the following: This development is situated within the City’s current service area for power. The Department finds that the Development will be compliant to ACF for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development will not negatively impact City power facilities. 2. The proposed public facilities and services are adequate and consistent with the City’s utility planning and
provides for efficient and cost-effective delivery of City power.
C. Other Annexation Considerations. 1. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
annexation of land is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above: Yes Analysis: Staff believes this finding can be met. The subject parcel is within the City’s growth management area. The proposed B – Developing Business zoning district is consistent with the CAC – Community Activity Center designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Annexing this enclave will allow for a cohesive development pattern with the surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Impact on Existing Residents of the City. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the annexation of lands to the City does not create any additional cost or burden on then-existing residents of the City to provide public facilities and additional community services in any newly-annexed area.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above : Yes Analysis: The newly annexed parcel will not create any additional cost or burden on existing residents since any future developer of this property will be required to ensure that any impacts are addressed through construction of public improvements, cash in lieu payment for the project’s proportional share of required improvements and capital expansion fees.
3. Impact on School Districts. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the applicant arranged with the school district regarding the dedication of school sites, or payment of fees in lieu of said dedication, as may be agreed to among the applicant, the school district and the City.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above : Yes Analysis: If the property is ultimately developed with residential uses, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that any impacts to the school district are accounted for.
Page 37 of 49
8
4. Intergovernmental Agreements. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed annexation of land is in compliance with all pertinent intergovernmental agreements to which the City is a party.
Finding : The applicant has demonstrated the above : Yes Analysis: Staff believes this finding can be met. The subject parcel is included within the City of Loveland growth management area and annexation is consistent with the Intergovermental Agreement with Larimer County regarding annexation and development of unincorporated properties.
5. Streets; Compliance with City Standards. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that all existing and proposed streets in newly annexed territory shall be constructed in compliance with all current City standards unless the City determines that the existing streets will provide appropriate access during all seasons of the year to all lots fronting on each street; and that the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, culverts, drains, and other structures necessary to the use of such streets or highways are satisfactory or not necessary to promote public safety. The location, type, character and dimensions of all structures and the grades for all existing or proposed street work shall be subject to approval by the City.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above : yes • Analysis: Transportation: Staff believes this findings can be met, based on the following:
A condition is recommended to clearly ensure that all future development or land development applications within this proposed property shall be in compliance with the City of Loveland Street Plan, the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and any updates to either in effect at the time of development application.
6. Water Rights. Whether the annexation complies with the water rights requirements of Title 19, Loveland Municipal Code.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above: yes Analysis: Water: Staff believes this finding can be met. No Outside City Water Service Agreement could be found for the existing residence, therefore water rights are assumed to have not been satisfied. Water rights are due at the time of Annexation. However, the recommended condition herein defers water rights until development or redevelopment.
7. Best Interest of Citizens. Whether the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Loveland.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated the above: yes Analysis: Staff believes this finding can be met. The annexation of this property will result in more efficient development patterns and will consolidate unincorporated property into the City of Loveland.
Page 38 of 49
9
APPLICATION FOR ZONING
Pursuant to Section 18.17.09.01 of the City of Loveland Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission shall consider and make findings the following criteria for zoning amendments. The Planning Commission must find that all of the criteria and one of the alternative criteria have been met in order to approve a zoning amendment.
Criteria B. 1. It is the policy of the City not to rezone property in a manner that would create or facilitate the creation of development rights or entitlements that would either:
a. Reduce the level of protection for significant natural resources that exist on the subject property; or
b. Expose additional people or personal property to unmitigated natural hazards that are present on the subject property (e.g., fire, flood, or geological hazards).
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed re-zoning meets the above policy: Yes Analysis: The proposed zoning district of B – Developing Business will not change the level of protection for significant natural resources. The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Report. There are no unmitigated natural hazards on the site. C.1. The proposed zone, as applied to the subject property, is consistent with its land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is approved in accordance with Section 4 of the Comprehensive Plan prior to the approval of the rezoning application. Specific plan policies are included at the end of this document. Finding: The above criteria has been met: Yes Analysis: The Proposed zoning district of B – Developing Business is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. 2. Zoning to the proposed zone will provide a benefit to the community or immediate area that cannot be provided under the existing zone, and the balance between the anticipated benefit, if any, and the anticipated burden on the community or immediate area, if any, is either neutral or favors the rezoning. Finding: The above criteria has been met: Yes Analysis: The proposed zoning district of B – Developing Business is consistent with the surrounding zoned areas. The existing zoning is the County’s Farming District which does not allow for similar development pattern (if any) with the surrounding areas. C. 3. The proposed zone would not cause an I zone to share a boundary with an ER, R1e, R1, R2, R3e, or R3 zone, unless there is sufficient land area on the subject property to provide a buffer, as set out in Division 18.08.03, Standards for Bufferyards, and a development agreement is approved to mitigate use incompatibilities with fencing, walls, landscaping, noise and lighting restrictions, or other appropriate techniques. Finding: The above criteria has been met: Yes Analysis: This finding is being met as the proposed zoning district is not resulting in an I – Industrial district sharing a boundary with a residential district. There are no I Districts within this area.
C. 4. Adequate community facilities are available to serve development in the proposed zone in accordance with Section 18.15.205, Determination Regarding Adequacy; or the proposed zone would limit demands upon community
Page 39 of 49
10
facilities more than the existing zone; or reasonable assurances are provided that adequate community facilities will be made available to serve new development by the time the new development places demands on the facilities. Finding: The above criteria has been met: Yes Analysis: Adequate Community Facilities are available to serve the site at the time of development. Please refer to item B within the Findings for Annexation for more detail. D. Additional Findings. The Planning Commission may recommend approval of an application for rezoning upon a determination that at least one of the following three criteria has been met. This finding is in addition to the findings regarding the criteria of subsections B. and C., above: 2. Alternative #2: Change in Character of the Area. The City Council finds that the proposed zone is more appropriate than the existing zone because:
a. There has been a change in character or capacity of public infrastructure in the area (e.g., installation of public facilities, other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, development transitions, etc.); and
b. The proposed zone allows for the reasonable development or redevelopment of the subject property in a manner that will be compatible with its existing or planned context.
Finding: The above criteria has been met: Yes Analysis: As Loveland has grown over the past several decades, the area surrounding the subject property has changed from being agricultural in character to a suburban community with a mixture of low and medium density residential and commercial uses. The proposed B – Developing Business zone will allow for development of this property in a manner that is compatible with current development patterns in the surrounding area.
Staff Recommendations Staff recommends the following conditions for the Annexation and Zoning application: Planning:
1. An Annexation Agreement will be required to formally establish requirements of the applicant upon annexation.
Transportation:
2. Additional dedication of right-of-way on the east side of Tyler Avenue adjacent to the property being annexed shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of the Annexation Map and Annexation agreement.
3. Additional right-of-way dedication for Tyler Avenue may be required with any future development application
based on the proposed design. The standard minimum adjacent right-of-way dedication for a major collector is all that is required for this annexation.
Page 40 of 49
11
4. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS), Site Development Plan (SDP) and Public Improvement Construction Plans will be reviewed with any future development application which will determine all on-site and any off-site improvements.
Stormwater:
1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall demonstrate how the Vantage development will not be impacted by the Ryans Gulch Basin 100-year floodplain. The applicant shall follow the City of Loveland Storm Drainage Criteria, which states that the policy of the City of Loveland shall be to restrict downstream development to areas outside of the jurisdictional dam 100-year floodplain. The jurisdictional dam 100-year floodplain is designed as either:
a. The 100-year floodplain downstream of the emergency spillway assuming the dam is full to the
elevation of the emergency spillway at the beginning of the 100-year storm and the 100-year storm is routed through the dam and out the emergency spillway,
b. Or the path that the basin’s 100-year floodplain would form through the downstream
development if the dam were removed by the owner.
Page 41 of 49
Page 42 of 49
14TH ST SW
28TH ST SW
S C
R 19
CARLISLE DR
S T
AF
T A
VE
WILS
ON
A
VE
18TH ST SW
S T
YLE
R A
VE
S R
OO
SE
VE
LT
A
VE
D
R
A
F
T
0
3
-3
0
-2
0
2
0
P
R
E
L
IM
IN
A
R
Y
- N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
IO
N
,
R
E
C
O
R
D
IN
G
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
O
R
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
IO
N
1
LO
T 1
, A
ME
ND
ED
JO
HN
SO
N M
LD
#
98
-E
X1
27
8
CIT
Y O
F L
OV
EL
AN
D, S
TA
TE
O
F C
OL
OR
AD
O
LOT 1, AMENDED JOHNSON M.L.D. #98-EX1278 AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY
LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
CITY OF LOVELAND, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
(NO SITE ADDRESS)
VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
NVICINITY MAP
1" = 2000'
SITE
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
UTILITY NOTE:
THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ARE BASED
ON OBSERVED EVIDENCE AND UTILITY MARKINGS AT TIME OF SURVEY.
ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINES MAY EXIST. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN AND THE LOCATION OF ANY
ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY
CONTACTING "ONE CALL" FOR A UTILITY LOCATE.
Sheet
Of 2 Sheets
VA
NT
AG
E F
IR
ST
A
DD
IT
IO
N
VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
NO
TIC
E:A
ccor
ding
to C
olor
ado
law
you
mus
t com
men
ce a
ny le
gal a
ctio
n ba
sed
upon
any
def
ect i
n th
is su
rvey
with
in th
ree
year
s afte
r you
dis
cove
r suc
hde
fect
. In
no
even
t may
any
act
ion
base
d up
on a
ny d
efec
t in
this
surv
eybe
com
men
ced
mor
e th
an te
n ye
ars a
fter t
he d
ate
of th
e ce
rtific
ate
show
nhe
reon
.
ENG
INEE
RN
GIE
HTRON
RNFO
RT
CO
LLIN
S: 3
01 N
orth
How
es S
tree
t, S
uite
100, 80521
GR
EELE
Y: 8
20 8
th S
tree
t, 8
0631
970.2
21.4
158
nort
hern
engi
neer
ing.
com
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ANNEXATION
TOTAL PERIMETER.......................................................................... 5325.16'
CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY.............................................................. 1708.61'
MINIMUM CONTIGUOUS PERIMETER FEET REQUIRED......... 887.53'
INDICATES PRESENT TOWN BOUNDARY LINE
DESCRIPTION: VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-seven (27), Township Five North (T.5N.), Range Sixty-nine West
(R.69W.), Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Larimer, State of Colorado:
COMMENCING at the East Sixteenth Corner common to Section 22 and said Section 27 and assuming the North line of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 27 as bearing South 89° 39' 57" East a distance of 1308.63 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative
thereto:
THENCE South 00° 04' 25" West along the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 27 a distance of 40.00 feet
to the Southwest Corner of the Thompson Valley Addition recorded November 20, 1998 as Reception No. 98102071 of the Records of Larimer
County and to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE South 89° 39' 57" East along the Southerly line of said Thompson Valley Addition a distance of 1258.69 feet;
The Following Nine (9) courses are along the Easterly and Southerly lines of said Lot 1, Amended Johnson M.L.D. #98-EX1278 recorded January
18, 2000 as Reception No. 2000003967 of the Records of Larimer County.
THENCE South 00° 00' 13" East a distance of 90.00 feet;
THENCE South 89° 39' 51" East a distance of 50.01 feet to the Westerly line of Tract A, Ryan Gulch First Addition recorded August 12, 1986 as
Reception No. 86044338 of the Records of Larimer County;
THENCE South 00° 00' 40" East a distance of 427.90 feet;
THENCE North 89° 54' 51" West a distance of 298.85 feet;
THENCE South 00° 03' 03" East a distance of 400.85 feet;
THENCE South 89° 56' 11" West a distance of 66.85 feet;
THENCE South 11° 06' 13" East a distance of 338.01 feet;
THENCE North 85° 10' 46" West a distance of 969.38 feet;
THENCE South 21° 31' 14" West a distance of 93.01 feet;
THENCE South 56° 10' 14" West a distance of 12.14 feet;
THENCE North 00° 04' 25" East a distance of 42.87 feet;
THENCE North 49° 05' 42" West a distance of 60.00 feet to the Northwesterly Right of Way line of W. County Road 16H and S. Tyler Avenue as
established via culture/occupation and usage;
THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest and along the Northwesterly Right of Way of W. County Road 16H and S. Tyler
Avenue a distance of 86.15 feet, said curve has a Radius of 120.00 feet, a Delta of 41° 07' 57" and is subtended by a Chord bearing North 20° 20'
19" East a distance of 84.31 feet to a Point of Tangency;
THENCE North 00° 13' 39" West continuing along the Westerly Right of Way of S. Tyler Avenue a distance of 1108.43 feet to the South line of the
Loch Lon Fifth Addition recorded December 8, 1969 in Book 1423 Page 292 of the Records of Larimer County;
THENCE South 89° 39' 57" East along said South line a distance of 22.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOTAL ANNEXED AREA for the Vantage First Addition is 1,390,966 sq. ft. or 31.93 acres, more or less (±).
MAYOR'S CERTIFICATE:
This map is approved by the City Council of the City of Loveland, Larimer County, Colorado by Ordinance No. ________________, passed on secondreading on this ________ day of __________________, 20_____, for filing with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County
By:___________________________________Mayor
Attest:__________________________________City Clerk
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I, Steven A. Lund, a registered Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the annexation map shown hereon is a reasonably accuratedepiction of the parcel of land legally described hereon and, to the extent described herein, that at least one sixth (1
6) of the peripheral boundary of saidparcel is contiguous to the boundary of the City of Loveland, Colorado. The map was compiled using existing plats, deeds, legal descriptions, and otherdocuments and is not based on the field survey nor should it be construed as a boundary survey.
____________________________________________________________Steven A. Lund - on behalf of Northern EngineeringColorado Registered ProfessionalLand Surveyor #34995
NOTES:
1. Basis of Bearing is the North line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27 as bearingSouth 89° 39' 57" East (assumed bearing).
2. The lineal unit of measurement for this survey is U.S. Survey Feet.
3. Entire Parcel is currently zoned Larimer County "FA - Farming" and will be rezoned to "B - DevelopingBusiness".
4. SOUTH TYLER AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY NOTE: Book R, Pages 144-146 of the Larimer County Records(Filed for record on May 10, 1883) indicates a Right of Way width of 60 for the roadway that is presentlynamed South Tyler Avenue. In multiple places within that document, the Road Viewers noted they "set stakeseach side of road 60 feet apart". This call was repeated both before and after the recited location of South TylerAvenue in the area of the subject property. Within the document, there were no strong calls that the roadfollowed along an aliquot line in the area of the subject property. At the position where the road intersects theNorth Section line, there was a call for the "NW corner of the NE1
4 of the NE14 of said Section 27. I believe that
this call is only a very general call to an area where that particular aliquot position could have been, as therehave been no strong calls for an actual monument anywhere within the document. Furthermore, I am of theopinion that the evidence of where the roadway is constructed, along with the evidence of existing right of wayfences is the best evidence of the location of the 60 foot wide Right of Way of South Tyler Avenue and isdepicted within this survey based on this belief. A 30 foot offset of the "As Surveyed" position of the roadwaycenterline of South Tyler Avenue is what the Easterly Right of Way line is based on. This determination ofright of way location is consistent with Larimer County practice and procedure for right of ways.
Reservoir Summary Table
Ryan Gulch Reservoir
Intermill Boyle Civil Resources Civil Resources
(NGVD29 datum) (NGVD29 datum)
(NAVD 1988
datum)
(converted to
NGVD29 datum)
Normal WSEL
5012.90 N/A N/A N/A
Dam Crest EL
5019.44 to 5019.73 5019.8 * N/A N/A
Spillway Crest EL
5013.17 to 5013.23 5013.40 N/A N/A
SEO 100-Year WSEL
N/A 5018.28 * N/A N/A
50% PMP
N/A
* See Boyle Spillway Plan and Profile
Note: data under Intermill represents recent topo shots (NGVD29 datum)
Note: Ryan Gulch Spillway Project Final Design Report was completed by Boyle Engineering
Corporation
Note: Ryan Gulch Reservoir; NGVD29 datum
Note: Ryan Gulch Reservoir design storm is routed to the dam crest with approximately 1.52-ft of
freeboard to the dam crest
Page 43 of 49
N1/16 S27-T5N-R69W
CALCULATED POSITION
VAULT
ELEC
D
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
GAS
GAS
T
ELE
C
GAS
GAS
M
M
T
W
S
O
W
D
D
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
W. COUNTY ROAD 16H
W. COUNTY ROAD 18 (14TH ST SW)
(RIGHT OF WAY VARIES)
S. T
YL
ER
A
VE
GAS
D
W
D
S
S
D
S
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
T
T
T
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
T
VAULT
F.O.
D
GAS
T
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F
E
S
GAS
ELEC
BRKR
C.O.
ELEC
VAULT
F.O.
F.O.
VAULT
ELEC
D
BARB-WIRE FENCE
8" WIDE CONCRETE WEIR
8" WIDE CONCRETE
HEADWALL
6" CONCRETE
IRRIGATION STRUCTURE
SOLAR-POWERED
LIGHTPOLE WITH
ANTENNA
4' X 4' PUMP HOUSE
LOT 2
AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
PARCEL: 9527150702
LOT 3
AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
PARCEL: 9527150703
RYAN GULCH RESERVOIR
UNINCORPORATED
LARIMER COUNTY
UNPLATTED
REC. NO. 20190071196
PARCEL: 9527000001
LOT 1, BLOCK 1
AMENDED PLAT OF A
PORTION OF WESTVIEW
PLACE COMMERCIAL
ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 20180056261
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
PARCEL: 9526214001
TRACT A
ECHOLS SECOND ADDITION
BOOK 1682 PAGE 389
JANUARY 21, 1976
PARCEL: 9526251001
TRACT A
RYAN GULCH FIRST ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 86044338
AUGUST 12, 1986
PARCEL: 9526281001
RIGHT OF WAY
LINE ESTABLISHED VIA
THOMPSON VALLEY
FIRST SUBDIVISION
REC. NO. 19990058031
60.0' LARIMER COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
BOOK R, PAGE 144-146
CENTERLINE OF R.O.W. BASED
ON EXISTING ROAD CENTERLINE
AND EXISTING CULTURE/OCCUPATION
S
.
T
A
F
T
A
V
E
N12°22'50"E 18.78'
N89°56'11"E 239.34'
S00°00'06"E
168.91'
S75°41'58"E 44.09'
5
4
.
4
9
'
S89°56'57"W 274.42'
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
E1/16 S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR WITH
3.25" ALUMINUM CAP
LS 34995 IN MONUMENT BOX
NE1/16 S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR WITH
3.25" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "LS 34995" AND
PER BLM INSTRUCTIONS
30.0' RIGHT OF WAY
DEDICATED VIA
AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
REC. NO. 2000003967
NE COR S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR
IN MONUMENT BOX
23.0'
25.0'
23.0'
25.0'
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND
ANNEXATION
1,390,966 SQ. FT
31.93 ACRES
OWNER: THE ESTATE OF
IVA JOY JOHNSON
GR
AV
EL
R
OA
DW
AY
GR
AV
EL
R
OA
DW
AY
40.0'
40.0'
43.5'
8.1'
38.3'
N00
°13
'3
9"W
1
098
.5
0'
L1
L2
S0
0°0
0'4
0"E
4
27
.9
0'
N89°54'51"W 298.85'
S0
0°0
3'0
3"E
4
00
.8
5'
L3
S
1
1
°0
6
'1
3
"E
3
3
8
.0
1
'
N85°1
0'4
6"W
969.3
8'
L
4
L5
L6
L
7
Delta= 41°07'57"
R=120.00' L=86.15'
Dir= N20°20'19"E
Chord= 84.31'
N00
°1
3'3
9"W
1
108
.4
3'
S89°39'57"E 22.02'
S89°39'57"E 1258.69'
LOCH LON 5TH ADDITION
BOOK 1423 PAGE 292
DECEMBER 8, 1969
LINE TABLE
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
LENGTH
90.00'
50.01'
66.85'
93.01'
12.14'
42.87'
60.00'
BEARING
S00° 00' 13"E
S89° 39' 51"E
S89° 56' 11"W
S21° 31' 14"W
S56° 10' 14"W
N00° 04' 25"E
N49° 05' 42"W
THOMPSON VALLEY ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 98102071
NOVEMBER 20, 1998
12
4.6
2'
19
7.1
0'
10
6.1
8'
UNPLATTED
UNINCORPORATED
LARIMER COUNTY
PARCEL: 9527100809
THOMPSON VALLEY ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 98102071
NOVEMBER 20, 1998
THOMPSON VALLEY
SECOND SUBDIVISION
RECEPTION NO. 2000017578
MARCH 17, 2000
THOMPSON VALLEY
FIRST SUBDIVISION
RECEPTION NO. 99058031
JUNE 30, 1999
S89°39'57"E (BASIS OF BEARINGS) 1308.63'
S00°00'40"E 1307.05'
S00°04'25"W
1312.78'
N89°54'59"W 1310.55'
N00°00'40"W
1307.05'
74
9.1
6'
13
0.0
0'
40
.0
0'
N89°54'59"W 1310.03'
3.27'
12
26
.6
4'
POINT OF
BEGINNING
EXISTING 100-yr FLOODPLAIN
APPROXIMATE FUTURE
100-yr FLOODPLAIN
WITH SITE RE-GRADING
N1/4 S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR WITH
3.25" ALUMINUM CAP
LS 27596, "1998"
IN MONUMENT BOX
2
LO
T 1
, A
ME
ND
ED
JO
HN
SO
N M
LD
#
98
-E
X1
27
8
CIT
Y O
F L
OV
EL
AN
D, S
TA
TE
O
F C
OL
OR
AD
O
LOT 1, AMENDED JOHNSON M.L.D. #98-EX1278 AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY
LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
CITY OF LOVELAND, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
(NO SITE ADDRESS)
VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
Steven A. LundRegistered Professional Land SurveyorColorado Registration No. 34995For and on behalf of Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
PRELIMINARY
NORTH
LINE LEGEND
X
FENCE
GUARDRAIL
EDGE OF ASPHALT
CURB FLOWLINE
EDGE OF GRAVEL
BOUNDARY LINE
SYMBOL LEGEND
F
E
S
FLARED END SECTION
BOLLARD
CABLE
CABLE BOX
VAULT
CABLE
CABLE VAULT
C.O.
CLEANOUT
ELEC
ELECTRICAL BOX
VAULT
ELEC
ELECTRICAL VAULT
H
Y
D
FIRE HYDRANT
FOUND PROPERTY MONUMENT
G
GAS RISER
GAS VALVE
GUY WIRE
WATER VALVE
INLET GRATE
CONTROL
IRR
IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
LIGHT POLE
M
MAILBOX
EELECTRICAL METER
W
WATER METER
MH
MISC. MAN HOLE
S
SANITARY SEWER MAN HOLE
D
STORM SEWER MAN HOLE
GAS
GAS MARKER
H2O
WATER MARKER
CCABLE PEDESTAL
TTELEPHONE PEDESTAL
POST
UTILITY POLE
FOUND OR SET SECTION CORNER
SIGN
V.P.
VERTICAL PIPE
W
WELL
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
SECTION LINE
EXISTING ANNEXATION LINE
18" OF #4 REBAR WITH ORANGE
FOUND PROPERTY MONUMENT
PLASTIC CAP, LS 34995 UNLESS NOTED
TOP OF DITCH
BOTTOM OF DITCH
D
R
A
F
T
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
-
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
R
E
C
O
R
D
I
N
G
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
,
O
R
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
0
3
-
3
0
-
2
0
2
0
Sheet
Of 2 Sheets
VA
NT
AG
E F
IR
ST
A
DD
IT
IO
N
VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
VANTAGE FIRST ADDITION
NO
TIC
E:A
ccor
ding
to C
olor
ado
law
you
mus
t com
men
ce a
ny le
gal a
ctio
n ba
sed
upon
any
def
ect i
n th
is su
rvey
with
in th
ree
year
s afte
r you
dis
cove
r suc
hde
fect
. In
no
even
t may
any
act
ion
base
d up
on a
ny d
efec
t in
this
surv
eybe
com
men
ced
mor
e th
an te
n ye
ars a
fter t
he d
ate
of th
e ce
rtific
ate
show
nhe
reon
.
ENG
INEE
RN
GIE
HTRON
RNFO
RT
CO
LLIN
S: 3
01 N
orth
How
es S
tree
t, S
uite
100, 80521
GR
EELE
Y: 8
20 8
th S
tree
t, 8
0631
970.2
21.4
158
nort
hern
engi
neer
ing.
com
Page 44 of 49
14TH ST SW
28TH ST SW
S C
R 19
CARLISLE DR
S T
AF
T A
VE
WILS
ON
A
VE
18TH ST SW
S T
YLE
R A
VE
S R
OO
SE
VE
LT
A
VE
D
R
A
F
T
0
3
-3
0
-2
0
2
0
P
R
E
L
IM
IN
A
R
Y
- N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
IO
N
,
R
E
C
O
R
D
IN
G
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
O
R
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
IO
N
1
LO
T 1
, A
ME
ND
ED
JO
HN
SO
N M
LD
#
98
-E
X1
27
8
CIT
Y O
F L
OV
EL
AN
D, S
TA
TE
O
F C
OL
OR
AD
O
LOT 1, AMENDED JOHNSON M.L.D. #98-EX1278 AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY
LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
CITY OF LOVELAND, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
(NO SITE ADDRESS)
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ZONING MAP
NVICINITY MAP
1" = 2000'
SITE
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
UTILITY NOTE:
THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ARE BASED
ON OBSERVED EVIDENCE AND UTILITY MARKINGS AT TIME OF SURVEY.
ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINES MAY EXIST. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN AND THE LOCATION OF ANY
ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY
CONTACTING "ONE CALL" FOR A UTILITY LOCATE.
DESCRIPTION: VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ZONING
A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-seven (27), Township Five North (T.5N.), Range Sixty-nine West
(R.69W.), Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Larimer, State of Colorado:
COMMENCING at the East Sixteenth Corner common to Section 22 and said Section 27 and assuming the North line of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 27 as bearing South 89° 39' 57" East a distance of 1308.63 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative
thereto:
THENCE South 00° 04' 25" West along the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 27 a distance of 40.00 feet
to the Southwest Corner of the Thompson Valley Addition recorded November 20, 1998 as Reception No. 98102071 of the Records of Larimer
County and to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE South 89° 39' 57" East along the Southerly line of said Thompson Valley Addition a distance of 1258.69 feet;
The Following Nine (9) courses are along the Easterly and Southerly lines of said Lot 1, Amended Johnson M.L.D. #98-EX1278 recorded January
18, 2000 as Reception No. 2000003967 of the Records of Larimer County.
THENCE South 00° 00' 13" East a distance of 90.00 feet;
THENCE South 89° 39' 51" East a distance of 50.01 feet to the Westerly line of Tract A, Ryan Gulch First Addition recorded August 12, 1986 as
Reception No. 86044338 of the Records of Larimer County;
THENCE South 00° 00' 40" East a distance of 427.90 feet;
THENCE North 89° 54' 51" West a distance of 298.85 feet;
THENCE South 00° 03' 03" East a distance of 400.85 feet;
THENCE South 89° 56' 11" West a distance of 66.85 feet;
THENCE South 11° 06' 13" East a distance of 338.01 feet;
THENCE North 85° 10' 46" West a distance of 969.38 feet;
THENCE South 21° 31' 14" West a distance of 93.01 feet;
THENCE South 56° 10' 14" West a distance of 12.14 feet;
THENCE North 00° 04' 25" East a distance of 42.87 feet;
THENCE North 49° 05' 42" West a distance of 60.00 feet to the Northwesterly Right of Way line of W. County Road 16H and S. Tyler Avenue as
established via culture/occupation and usage;
THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest and along the Northwesterly Right of Way of W. County Road 16H and S. Tyler
Avenue a distance of 86.15 feet, said curve has a Radius of 120.00 feet, a Delta of 41° 07' 57" and is subtended by a Chord bearing North 20° 20'
19" East a distance of 84.31 feet to a Point of Tangency;
THENCE North 00° 13' 39" West continuing along the Westerly Right of Way of S. Tyler Avenue a distance of 1108.43 feet to the South line of the
Loch Lon Fifth Addition recorded December 8, 1969 in Book 1423 Page 292 of the Records of Larimer County;
THENCE South 89° 39' 57" East along said South line a distance of 22.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOTAL ZONED AREA for the Vantage at Loveland Zoning Map is 1,390,966 sq. ft. or 31.93 acres, more or less (±).
MAYOR'S CERTIFICATE:
This map is approved by the City Council of the City of Loveland, Larimer County, Colorado by Ordinance No. ________________, passed on secondreading on this ________ day of __________________, 20_____, for filing with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County
By:___________________________________Mayor
Attest:__________________________________City Clerk
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I, Steven A. Lund, a registered Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the annexation map shown hereon is a reasonably accuratedepiction of the parcel of land legally described hereon and, to the extent described herein, that at least one sixth (1
6) of the peripheral boundary of saidparcel is contiguous to the boundary of the City of Loveland, Colorado. The map was compiled using existing plats, deeds, legal descriptions, and otherdocuments and is not based on the field survey nor should it be construed as a boundary survey.
____________________________________________________________Steven A. Lund - on behalf of Northern EngineeringColorado Registered ProfessionalLand Surveyor #34995
NOTES:
1. Basis of Bearing is the North line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27 as bearingSouth 89° 39' 57" East (assumed bearing).
2. The lineal unit of measurement for this survey is U.S. Survey Feet.
3. Entire Parcel is currently zoned Larimer County "FA - Farming" and will be rezoned to "R3 - DevelopingHigh-Density Residential".
4. SOUTH TYLER AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY NOTE: Book R, Pages 144-146 of the Larimer County Records(Filed for record on May 10, 1883) indicates a Right of Way width of 60 for the roadway that is presentlynamed South Tyler Avenue. In multiple places within that document, the Road Viewers noted they "set stakeseach side of road 60 feet apart". This call was repeated both before and after the recited location of South TylerAvenue in the area of the subject property. Within the document, there were no strong calls that the roadfollowed along an aliquot line in the area of the subject property. At the position where the road intersects theNorth Section line, there was a call for the "NW corner of the NE1
4 of the NE14 of said Section 27. I believe that
this call is only a very general call to an area where that particular aliquot position could have been, as therehave been no strong calls for an actual monument anywhere within the document. Furthermore, I am of theopinion that the evidence of where the roadway is constructed, along with the evidence of existing right of wayfences is the best evidence of the location of the 60 foot wide Right of Way of South Tyler Avenue and isdepicted within this survey based on this belief. A 30 foot offset of the "As Surveyed" position of the roadwaycenterline of South Tyler Avenue is what the Easterly Right of Way line is based on. This determination ofright of way location is consistent with Larimer County practice and procedure for right of ways.
Reservoir Summary Table
Ryan Gulch Reservoir
Intermill Boyle Civil Resources Civil Resources
(NGVD29 datum) (NGVD29 datum)
(NAVD 1988
datum)
(converted to
NGVD29 datum)
Normal WSEL
5012.90 N/A N/A N/A
Dam Crest EL
5019.44 to 5019.73 5019.8 * N/A N/A
Spillway Crest EL
5013.17 to 5013.23 5013.40 N/A N/A
SEO 100-Year WSEL
N/A 5018.28 * N/A N/A
50% PMP
N/A
* See Boyle Spillway Plan and Profile
Note: data under Intermill represents recent topo shots (NGVD29 datum)
Note: Ryan Gulch Spillway Project Final Design Report was completed by Boyle Engineering
Corporation
Note: Ryan Gulch Reservoir; NGVD29 datum
Note: Ryan Gulch Reservoir design storm is routed to the dam crest with approximately 1.52-ft of
freeboard to the dam crest
Sheet
Of 2 Sheets
VA
NT
AG
E A
T L
OV
EL
AN
D Z
ON
IN
G M
AP
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ZONING MAP
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ZONING MAP
NO
TIC
E:A
ccor
ding
to C
olor
ado
law
you
mus
t com
men
ce a
ny le
gal a
ctio
n ba
sed
upon
any
def
ect i
n th
is su
rvey
with
in th
ree
year
s afte
r you
dis
cove
r suc
hde
fect
. In
no
even
t may
any
act
ion
base
d up
on a
ny d
efec
t in
this
surv
eybe
com
men
ced
mor
e th
an te
n ye
ars a
fter t
he d
ate
of th
e ce
rtific
ate
show
nhe
reon
.
ENG
INEE
RN
GIE
HTRON
RNFO
RT
CO
LLIN
S: 3
01 N
orth
How
es S
tree
t, S
uite
100, 80521
GR
EELE
Y: 8
20 8
th S
tree
t, 8
0631
970.2
21.4
158
nort
hern
engi
neer
ing.
com
Page 45 of 49
N1/16 S27-T5N-R69W
CALCULATED POSITION
M
M
W. COUNTY ROAD 16H
W. COUNTY ROAD 18 (14TH ST SW)
(RIGHT OF WAY VARIES)
S. T
YLE
R A
VE
LOT 2
AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
PARCEL: 9527150702
ZONING: LARIMER COUNTY
"FA - FARMING"
LOT 3
AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
PARCEL: 9527150703
ZONING: LARIMER COUNTY
"FA - FARMING"
RYAN GULCH RESERVOIR
UNINCORPORATED
LARIMER COUNTY
UNPLATTED
REC. NO. 20190071196
PARCEL: 9527000001
ZONING: LARIMER COUNTY
"FA - FARMING"
LOT 1, BLOCK 1
AMENDED PLAT OF A
PORTION OF WESTVIEW
PLACE COMMERCIAL
ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 20180056261
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
PARCEL: 9526214001
ZONING: CITY OF LOVELAND
"MAC - MIXED-USE ACTIVITY
CENTER"
RIGHT OF WAY
LINE ESTABLISHED VIA
THOMPSON VALLEY
FIRST SUBDIVISION
REC. NO. 19990058031
60.0' LARIMER COUNTY
RIGHT OF WAY
BOOK R, PAGE 144-146
CENTERLINE OF R.O.W. BASED
ON EXISTING ROAD CENTERLINE
AND EXISTING CULTURE/OCCUPATION
S
.
T
A
F
T
A
V
E
N12°22'50"E 18.78'
N89°56'11"E 239.34'
S0
0°0
0'0
6"E
1
68
.9
1'
S75°41'58"E 44.09'
5
4
.
4
9
'
S89°56'57"W 274.42'
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
E1/16 S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR WITH
3.25" ALUMINUM CAP
LS 34995 IN MONUMENT BOX
NE1/16 S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR WITH
3.25" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "LS 34995" AND
PER BLM INSTRUCTIONS
30.0' RIGHT OF WAY
DEDICATED VIA
AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
REC. NO. 2000003967
NE COR S27-T5N-R69W
FOUND #6 REBAR
IN MONUMENT BOX
LOT 1, AMENDED JOHNSON
M.L.D. #98-EX1278
OWNER: ESTATE OF IVA JOY JOHNSON
40.0'
40.0'
43.5'
8.1'
38.3'
N00°13'39"W
1098.50'
L1
L2
S00°00'40"E
427.90'
N89°54'51"W 298.85'
S00°03'03"E
400.85'
L3
S
1
1
°0
6
'1
3
"E
3
3
8
.0
1
'
N85°1
0'4
6"W
969.3
8'
L
4
L5
L6
L
7
Delta= 41°07'57"
R=120.00' L=86.15'
Dir= N20°20'19"E
Chord= 84.31'
N00°13'39"W
1108.43'
S89°39'57"E 22.02'
LOCH LON 5TH ADDITION
BOOK 1423 PAGE 292
DECEMBER 8, 1969
LINE TABLE
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
LENGTH
90.00'
50.01'
66.85'
93.01'
12.14'
42.87'
60.00'
BEARING
S00° 00' 13"E
S89° 39' 51"E
S89° 56' 11"W
S21° 31' 14"W
S56° 10' 14"W
N00° 04' 25"E
N49° 05' 42"W
THOMPSON VALLEY ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 98102071
NOVEMBER 20, 1998
124.62'
197.10'
106.18'
THOMPSON VALLEY ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 98102071
NOVEMBER 20, 1998
THOMPSON VALLEY
SECOND SUBDIVISION
RECEPTION NO. 2000017578
MARCH 17, 2000
ZONING: CITY OF LOVELAND "P-38 -
THOMPSON VALLEY ADDITION PUD"
THOMPSON VALLEY
FIRST SUBDIVISION
RECEPTION NO. 99058031
JUNE 30, 1999
ZONING: CITY OF LOVELAND "P-38 -
THOMPSON VALLEY ADDITION PUD"
S89°39'57"E (BASIS OF BEARINGS) 1308.63'
S00°00'40"E 1307.05'
S0
0°0
4'2
5"W
1
31
2.7
8'
N89°54'59"W 1310.55'
N0
0°0
0'4
0"W
1
30
7.0
5'
749.16'
13
0.0
0'
40.00'
N89°54'59"W 1310.03'
3.27'
1226.64'
ZONING PARCEL
1,390,966 sq. ft.
31.93 acres
EXISTING ZONING: LARIMER
COUNTY "FA - FARMING"
PROPOSED ZONING: CITY OF
LOVELAND "B - DEVELOPING
BUSINESS"
POINT OF
BEGINNING
S89°39'57"E 1258.69'
EXISTING 100-yr FLOODPLAIN
APPROXIMATE FUTURE
100-yr FLOODPLAIN
WITH SITE RE-GRADING
TRACT A
RYAN GULCH FIRST ADDITION
RECEPTION NO. 86044338
AUGUST 12, 1986
PARCEL: 9526281001
ZONING: CITY OF LOVELAND
"B - DEVELOPING BUSINESS"
UNPLATTED
UNINCORPORATED
LARIMER COUNTY
PARCEL: 9527100809
TRACT A
ECHOLS SECOND ADDITION
BOOK 1682 PAGE 389
JANUARY 21, 1976
PARCEL: 9526251001
ZONING: CITY OF LOVELAND
"R1 - DEVELOPING
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"
2
LO
T 1
, A
ME
ND
ED
JO
HN
SO
N M
LD
#
98
-E
X1
27
8
CIT
Y O
F L
OV
EL
AN
D, S
TA
TE
O
F C
OL
OR
AD
O
LOT 1, AMENDED JOHNSON M.L.D. #98-EX1278 AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY
LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
CITY OF LOVELAND, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
(NO SITE ADDRESS)
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND
ZONING MAP
Steven A. LundRegistered Professional Land SurveyorColorado Registration No. 34995For and on behalf of Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
PRELIMINARY
NORTH
LINE LEGEND
ZONING BOUNDARY LINE
SYMBOL LEGEND
FOUND PROPERTY MONUMENT
FOUND OR SET SECTION CORNER
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
SECTION LINE
EXISTING ANNEXATION LINE
18" OF #4 REBAR WITH ORANGE
FOUND PROPERTY MONUMENT
PLASTIC CAP, LS 34995 UNLESS NOTED
D
R
A
F
T
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
-
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
R
E
C
O
R
D
I
N
G
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
,
O
R
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
0
3
-
3
0
-
2
0
2
0
Sheet
Of 2 Sheets
VA
NT
AG
E A
T L
OV
EL
AN
D Z
ON
IN
G M
AP
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ZONING MAP
VANTAGE AT LOVELAND ZONING MAP
NO
TIC
E:A
ccor
ding
to C
olor
ado
law
you
mus
t com
men
ce a
ny le
gal a
ctio
n ba
sed
upon
any
def
ect i
n th
is su
rvey
with
in th
ree
year
s afte
r you
dis
cove
r suc
hde
fect
. In
no
even
t may
any
act
ion
base
d up
on a
ny d
efec
t in
this
surv
eybe
com
men
ced
mor
e th
an te
n ye
ars a
fter t
he d
ate
of th
e ce
rtific
ate
show
nhe
reon
.
ENG
INEE
RN
GIE
HTRON
RNFO
RT
CO
LLIN
S: 3
01 N
orth
How
es S
tree
t, S
uite
100, 80521
GR
EELE
Y: 8
20 8
th S
tree
t, 8
0631
970.2
21.4
158
nort
hern
engi
neer
ing.
com
Page 46 of 49
land planning landscape architecture urban design enti t lement
Th ink ing outs ide of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662
www.ripleydesigninc.com
Annexation and Zoning Assessment a. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The future land use map shows this site within the Community Activity Center land use category which. Appropriate zoning districts for this designation include Developing Business (B), MAC Mixed Use Activity Center, and PUD. This annexation petition is requesting Developing Business (B) zoning for this property. The 30‐acre site is across 14th Street SW from the Thompson Valley Town Center. That complex is approximately 22.5 acres. The Comprehensive plan lists a core, non‐residential size range of 10‐30 acres for Community Activity Centers and therefore, we are requesting B zoning to allow for multi‐family residential adjacent to the core to the south. Community Activity Centers allow for multi‐family residential in fitting locations. After discussions with City planning staff, B Zone District seems to be the most appropriate zone designation. The vision for Community Activity Centers (CAC’s) specifies wide detached sidewalks, designated bike accommodations, attractive pedestrian circulation, links to open space, dispersed parking and a maximum of four stories tall for building height. This project will comply with all of those recommendations.
This development complies with several policies within the Comprehensive Plan. (Policy 2 and 4 within Cultivate Vibrant Economic Centers) This 30‐acre site is located well within the Growth Management Area. It is across SW 14th Street from a Community Activity Center and within a quarter mile to Employment. The parcel to the west is designated to be future Medium Density Residential. By allowing B Zone on this site, it allows multiple potential land uses including commercial and residential. Additional housing will support the existing businesses within Thompson Valley Town Center. (Policy 4 in Create a connected and accessible Community) A multi‐family land use will provide higher density to support the local business community and establishing convenient connections between neighborhoods and local destinations. This new neighborhood will contribute to an underserved market of multi‐family housing. (Policy 1 in Facilitate Complete Neighborhoods) A clubhouse, pool, walking trails, and neighborhood gathering spaces are proposed to create a complete neighborhood. The existing topography and creek create a natural visual buffer from the nearby Community Activity Center and allow room for a regional trail
Page 47 of 49
Think ing outs ide of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662
www.ripleydesigninc.com
creating a vital connection to commercial for this property and adjacent properties. (Policy 3 in Facilitate Complete Neighborhoods and Policy 2 in Create a connected and accessible Community) Currently, there are only sidewalks on the north side of SW 14th Street. By adding sidewalks along the south side and Tyler Avenue, this project will provide infrastructure to make walking and bicycling convenient and viable for all types of trips and for all ages, abilities and income levels. (Policy 1.3 in Create a Safe and Healthy Built Environment) Large landscaped setbacks from the creek allow protection to wildlife habitats and allow residents and community members to enjoy our natural assets. (Policy 1 in Celebrate our Natural Assets in an Urban Setting) The development is clustered to the west away from the creek to protect and preserve that environmental asset.
b. Impact on Existing Residents
This site will not create any additional costs or burden on existing City residents. There is one residence to the west across Tyler Avenue and one residence and commercial building to the east who will be separated by the topography and natural buffer the development will be providing. To the north is a commercial center and residential development. They are separated from the property by 14th Street, a major arterial. This project proposes to improve the infrastructure in the area including paving a potion of Tyler Avenue (currently a gravel road) and providing a community trail which will not only benefit the adjacent neighbors but the community as a whole.
c. Impact on School District Payment of fees in lieu of dedicating a school site is proposed for this development. This site is a 15‐minute walk, approximately .7 miles, to Sarah Milner Elementary, it is a 20‐minute, one mile, walk to Walt Clark Middle School and 16‐minute, .8 mile, walk to Thompson Valley High School.
d. Intergovernmental Agreement This proposed annexation is in compliance with the IGA for Larimer County as it is adjacent to City of Loveland City Limits. Several attempts have been made to get permission from Xcel to include their adjacent parcel within this annexation to avoid an enclave. Xcel has sent the applicant the following response.
As I mentioned in our telephone conversation, it is Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) d.b.a. Xcel Energy’s desire for the subject parcel owned by PSCo to remain as unincorporated. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you,
Page 48 of 49
Think ing outs ide of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 fax 970.224.1662
www.ripleydesigninc.com
Rick Grady, SR/WA Xcel Energy | Responsible By Nature Public Service Company of Colorado Manager, Right of Way & Permits Department Electric & Gas Distribution, HP Gas, Minerals Management O: 303-571-3135
e. Compliance with City Street Standards The site is currently adjacent to two streets. SW 14th Street on the north which is a four‐lane arterial and South Tyler Avenue to the west which is currently a dirt road classified as a major collector. This project will dedicate additional right‐of‐way for Tyler Avenue and make improvements along its frontage to bring it up to City standards on the east side. Street connectivity to the east isn’t advisable due to the topography and creek. Residents needing to access South Taft Hill Avenue will use the existing intersection at SW 14th Street. This site is located along a COLT Route with the nearest bus stop approximately 500 feet away. There are existing bike lanes along SW 14th Street.
f. Water Rights This proposal will comply with the water rights requirements of Title 19 in the Loveland Municipal Code.
g. Best Interest of Citizens This proposal is in the best interest of the citizens due to the public infrastructure improvements that will occur including paving Tyler Avenue and providing a regional trail. In addition, adding density will enhance the local economy by housing more citizens adjacent to commercial developments.
Page 49 of 49