Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/15/2021 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 July 15, 2021 Michelle Haefele, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing July 15, 2021 6:00 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93352557495. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on July 15, 2021. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 933 5255 7495. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 July 15, 2021 ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person or use the raise hand function if they are on Zoom or on the phone. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. Phone and Zoom participants will be told verbally when their allotted time has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 July 15, 2021 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z May Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the May 20, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z May 26 Special Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the May 26, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission special hearing. 3. Draft Minutes for the P&Z June Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the June 17, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. – THIS HAS BEEN POSTPONED FOR THE AUGUST HEARING 4. Water Conservation LUC Updates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of Land Use Code (LUC) updates to section 3.2.1(E)(3) in alignment with the parallel Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirement (WSR) update. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 STAFF ASSIGNED: Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager Liesel Hans, Interim Utilities Deputy Director 5. Chabad Jewish Center Extension Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a one-year extension of the approved Basic Development Review (BDR) know as Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado. The project converts a single family detached structure to a place of worship and includes an addition to the building and a new parking lot. APPLICANT: Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik Executive Director PO Box 271756 Fort Collins, CO 80527 STAFF ASSIGNED: Noah Beals, Senior City Planner- Zoning 6. Larimer County Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to expand the existing Alternative Sentencing and Community Corrections facility located at located on Midpoint Drive. APPLICANT: Jeffrey Errett The Architects’ Studio 405 Mason Court, Suite 115A Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF ASSIGNED: Jason Holland, City Planner Packet pg. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 July 15, 2021 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 7. Timberline-International Addition of Permitted Use PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed Project Development Plan with an Addition of Permitted Use located at the northwest corner of the intersection of N Timberline Rd and International Blvd. The proposed development is for a Convenience Shopping Center with retail and a drive-thru restaurant use. This request requires an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) for the drive-thru restaurant because that use is not listed as a permitted use in the Industrial zone district, or as a permitted use in a Convenience Shopping Center. Because the property is not within a residential zone district, the Planning & Zoning Commission is the decision- maker for this APU. APPLICANT: Steve Steinbicker Architecture West, LLC 5833 Big Canyon Dr Fort Collins, CO 80528 STAFF ASSIGNED: Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE May 20, 2021 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the May 20, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft May 20, 2021 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 5 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard , Vice Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV , Channel 14 on Connexion & Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221 -6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing May 20, 2021 Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Claypool, Stephens , Sizemore, Mapes, Mc haffey, Kleer, Wray , Hahn, Virata, Betley, Bzdek , and Manno Chair Haefele provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She d escribed the following procedures : •While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. •The Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission once for each item. •Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. •Should a citizen wish to address the Commission on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. •This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas , stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised . Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 2 of 12 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Kathleen Schmidtke received a letter and spoke with Planner Kleer regarding the Whites. The ODP Amendment MA200016. She is concerned with the traffic. Chair Haefele explained when to speak and that an item on the consent agenda could be pulled from cons ent and placed on the discussion agenda. Interim Director Sizemore requested clarification as to what item Mrs. Schmidtke is speaking of and if it is one of the items on the consent agenda or if it is another project. Planner Kleer verified that he spoke to Mrs. Schmidtke and recommended that she could speak to the ODP during the general comment portion of the hearing. Attorney Yatabe ok’d further comments at this time. Kathleen Schmidtke commented that most were no surprise, but that the carriage house was being moved and she is concerned with the traffic this area may see. Chair Haefele commented that staff needs to reach out to Mrs. Schmidtke to give her all options as to how she can voice her concerns. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from April 1, 2021 P&Z Hearing 2. NE Prospect & I-25 Annexation and Zoning – Pulled from Consent 3. NE Prospect & I-25 Rezone – Pulled from Consent Public Input on Consent Agenda: Scott McDonald is concerned with the potential traffic. Planner Kleer commented that there is no development with these items at this time, there is no entitlement. This precedes and addresses the annexation only. Mr. McDonald did not want to pull any items from the consent agenda. Josh R., resident, he would like to have further discussion of Item 3 and wished to pull the item from the consent agenda. Jennifer Levy would like Item 2 pulled. Joan Sayer would like an explanation as to why the frontage road is going away. Chair Haefele explained the item and that the frontage road access is not going away. Item 2 was pulled to help her understanding of the item. Chair Haefele recommended that both items, 2 and 3, be pulled from the consent agenda. Chair Haefele did a final review of the items that are on the consent agenda and reiterated that the one item remaining will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Commissioner Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Item 1, Draft Minutes from April 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Hearing of the Consent agenda for the May 20, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. NE Prospect & I-25 Annexation and Zoning Project Description: This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation of a former frontage road that was recently vacated by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The vacated 4 -acre tract of land was dedicated to the adjacent property owner, who is now petitioning for annexation and zoning of the property. The adjacent properties have already been incorporated int o t he city. The requested zoning for this annexation is General Commercial (C -G). Recommendation: Approval DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 3 of 12 Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letter received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Rick White, property owner, commented that he did have two consultants present to answer any questions including traffic engineers, civil engineers, etc. A brief verbal/visual presentation was given at this time. During this presentation Rick, Roger Sherman and Ruth Rollins addressed the traffic fr ontage road concerns and traffic questions. Public Input (3 minutes per person) James Sayre liked Planner Kleer’s explanation of what will be happening with the frontage road. He likes the options for the frontage road. He will wait for the meetings on ce development is in process. Attorney Yatabe commented that he believed that this item is being initiated by the property owner and wanted to know if the property owner would like to make a presentation. Josh Chapel, questions if he misunderstood the pl an for the new frontage road to be Carriage Parkway, from Prospect through to 14. Is this the plan? Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to Josh Chapel that this is not necessarily the case. Carriage Parkway was always anticipated to be a collector street that would connect between Mulberry and Prospect. By coincidence, the frontage road being devolved just puts some additional pressure on Carriage Parkway as a street to provide that former connectivity that frontage road did. As a result of the f rontage road being devolved and no longer being used as a connection, it then does become that connection between Prospect. Commission Questions / Deliberation Commissioner Hogestad asked if there was a neighborhood meeting. Planner Kleer respond that t here was not a neighborhood meeting as it was a house keeping item and not controversial. Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Kleer to explain that there will be an alternative road network to serve future development in the area. Planner Kleer explained the Master Street Plan and what the connections will be in the future for this area. Commissioner Katz is thankful for the concerned citizens and that the Commission did not do a good job of explaining to the citizens that this is a rezone and a n annexation and that there is going to be a development plan. He encourages citizens to come to the meetings then and that is when the details will be thoroughly gone over. Commissioner Haefele commented that the procedure went off the rails because of the moving parts involved with the intersection. She is glad to hear the concerns from the citizens. Vice Chair Shepard thanked Planner Kleer for his presentation and information on this item and asked for an explanation of what the memo involves and how this property became a remnant piece of property that was not included in the 2004 annexation. Planner Kleer responded as part of the 1991 annexation, an adjacent right -of -way to an annexed property would typically be required, During the 1991 annexation this 40-acres was inadvertently excluded from the annexation. Prospect road was included as it should have been, but this portion was not. Vice Chair Shepard commented that this is a cleanup item, a survey glitch. He is confident that this is moving in the right direction. It is in the public interest that this survey glitch be remedied. Commissioner Schneider commented that this is a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Haefele thanked Commissioner Schneider for pointing that out. DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 4 of 12 Chair Haefele commented that she agrees and that this is a tough thing as it is a step among many with an intersection of concern. She apologized for the discombobulation and confusion. Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Comm ission recommend approval to City Council of the North East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning ANX210001. This recommendation is based upon the agenda and materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Commission discussion on this item. Th is complies with al l applicable land use code procedures and requirements and the information, analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included with the agenda materials for this hear ing are adopted by this commission. Commissioner Schneider seconded with a friendly amendment that it is zoned general commercial to also include LC2 lighting and context area. Commissioner Hansen accepted the amendment. Vote 6:0 3. NE Prospect & I -25 Rezone Project Description: This is a request to rezone 4.625-acres in the northeast quadrant of the I-25 and East Prospect Road interchange (parcel #8715000009). The site is currently zoned Urban Estate (UE), and the request is for placement into the Industrial (I) zone district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letter received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, Inc. gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Josh R, resident, he is concerned that is does increase industrial access to Carriage Parkway and close to homes on the street. He prefers that it stay in its current condition or zoning. Joan Sayer, resident, asked why anyone would want to put more commercial and industrial next to a subdivision like Fox Grove. She does not know what industrial and commercial entails. Does it mean manufactur ing plants, oil wells, etc.? How about making the 4-acres open space, has this been considered? Kathleen Schmidtke, she mentioned that they are ok and that it makes sense for this rezoning to happen. The Whites have been exceptional neighbors. Scott McD onald, resident, he is concerned with the traffic going north from Fox Grove and the light industrial traffic. How much more traffic does the light industrial create compared to residential? He understands that the Whites would like to start developing, and he would like for them to start from the south so that the traffic they create from their development would go out southward more than through the residential area. He appreciates that this is being considered. Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to Josh R. Based on the roadway standards under 3.6, typically access is required at no greater than 660’ along a collector street. The 74 -acers would still have that similar access to Carriage Parkway as if it were rezoned or left urban estate. It is intended to be a place where manufacturing, warehousing, indoor/outdoor storage, and secondary uses are permitted in the zone district. This may be unlikely with this development. Ruth Rollings responded to Scott McDonald. The urban estate will generat e roughly 80 daily trips and the industrial will generate roughly 120 daily trips. These volumes from an engineering standpoint are low. The AM peak hour trips from the urban estates would be roughly 6 and the AM peak hour trips for industrial will be 14. The PM peak hour trips for urban estate would be 8 and industrial would be 14. DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 5 of 12 Commission Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Kleer if by using streets and property lines to demarcate different zone districts. Planner Kleer responded that is the typical practice. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he appreciated the public comment and that they should attend the neighborhood meetings when they start. Commissioner Hansen commented that there was a question from the public about this space being kept or made open space. Rick White responded that the land uses are interesting. It is too premature at this point to answer this question. Commissioner Katz made a moti on that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of NE Prospect & I -25 Rezone REZ210001 and place it into the LC2 lighting context area and removal from the residential sign district. This recommendation is ba sed on the agenda material, the work session, the staff presentation, and discussion of the Commission. Commissioner Hansen seconded. Vote 6:0 4. Sam’s Club Fuel Station Major Amendment and APU Project Description: This is a proposed Major Amendment, MJA200002, of the Harmony Market 1 st Filing PUD. The proposed development would add a Sam’s Club fuel station in a bay of the existing Sam’s Club parking lot. This request requires an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) for the gasoline station b ecause that use is not listed as a permitted use in the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines for Regional Shopping Centers. Sam’s Club is part of a designated Regional Shopping Center per the Standards and Guidelines. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were citizen emails/letters received as follows: - Correspondence between Planner Clark and Justin Morrison with Mountain N Plains, Inc. regarding some concerns Harmony Market Owners Association Board and Commissioners hav e with the project. ▪ Planner Clark included a copy of the mailing that was sent detailing a notice of virtual public hearing. - Email from Jodi Morse regarding some included Harmony Market documents ; cover page, covenant provisions and plat information. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/v isual overview of this project . John Degunya gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Randy Morgan, owner of Outpost, Board Member of Harmony Market Association, they are concerned about the traffic, but is glad that Sam’s has reached out. Sam’s Club is not part of the Association and they do not choose to participate in any of the maintenance including the road. This is a real problem. Stacking and lack of communication with Sam’s are also a concern. Brad March, member of Association. The Association owns the roads, this issue is that the roads are paid for by all the other owners, thi s has a negative impact on the properties. Traffic is impact, it creates adverse environmental circumstances and has adverse effects on the owners. Sam’s does not pay to maintain the roads. Jack B, he wanted to hear more about the queuing. DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 6 of 12 Staff Response John Degunya responded that they do show the truck rout e going in front of the Kohl’s, however, they can work that out during design with the client. Regarding the queuing, they currently have enough to stack five vehicles. This allows a 25’ driveway behind the vehicles within the fueling area. With the six stations that is 30 vehicles. Chelsea Penn thanked Brad and Randy and stated that Sam’s would come to the Board once completed wi th the P&Z hearing. They want to be good neighbors and work in collaboration. Planner Mapes asked John if the trucks would end up exiting onto Boardwalk? John responded yes, they would enter and exit onto Boardwalk. Planner Mapes commented that the st rongest comments had to do with Boardwalk. Planner Mapes does not want to have anyone think that this is an improvement for the proposal. This would need to be vetted. John commented that the fuel delivery times are during off -peak hours, early morning or in the evening. Commissioner Hogestad requested clarification. Are the trucks exiting directly onto Harmony? John responded no, currently it is showing Oak Ridge Dr. The fire truck route exits onto Harmony. Commission Questions / Deliberation Commissioner Hansen commented that Planner Mapes mentioned that fuel station is not an allowable use, is this a prohibited use? Planner Mapes responded no. Planner Mapes responded that there are four kinds of shopping centers allowed in the Harmony Corri dor. They start at the smaller scale, the neighborhood service center and the convenience shopping center, these smaller centers list gasoline station. The next center up, community shopping center, lists the uses in the neighborhood service center plus department stores. And then you come to this one and there is no mention of gasoline stations. Commissioner Katz asked for the APU eight criteria, how Planner Mapes got comfortable with D. Planner Mapes responded it is already a parking lot for a larg e retail establishment and does not have as much traffic. It is a vehicle use area, the impact study found that this does not create any new impacts and that it can be accommodated in the existing circulation system. No environmental impacts and no effec t on health safety or morals. Vice Chair Shepard asked the applicant about the upgrades, will any of this work involve removal of any existing trees and shrubs? John responded no. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the 350’ sq. ft. of additional landscaping was going to be mostly on the south side of the canopy. John responded yes. Commissioner Hogestad asked about the hours of operation. John responded that the pol e lights offer security for the site and that there will be a couple other lights at the location. No new lights will be added except for the canopy lighting. These lights will be turned off 10 minutes after closing which is 9 PM. Vice Chair Shepard ask ed who owned the landscaping on Harmony road the edge of the shoulder and the beginning of the parking lot ? John responded the Association. Commissioner Hogestad is confused as to how you would not be able to see a 4 -story canopy over the trees. John responded that the architect team prepared the line of si ght study and they used the building block for the height of the canopy. Commissioner Hogestad asked if this is where you would see 87’ of height in the canopy? John responded no, the 87’ is the length of the canopy. The height of the canopy is 17’1”. Commissioner Hogestad now understands. Commissioner Hansen commented that in the information submitted to the Commission for the hearing that there were comments that the Harmony Market Owners Assoc iation and the protective covenants and conditions do not fall under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission at all and that if there is any review, it is a whole other layer that the Commission should not be considering. Planner Mapes commented that there were comments and concerns received about traffic impacts, stacking out and adding to congestion in the shopping center generally. Staff did find that it is internal and private. The traffic and queuing appear to be accommodated, understanding that there may be peak times or if it is successful, that there is room for stacking. Attorney Yatabe commented that this is generally true, that matters of private contracting, covenants, restrictions between private DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 7 of 12 parties we are generally not involved with. The Commissions does have the ability to assess impact on surrounding properties. Chelsea Penn, Sam’s Club, commented that they will be working with the District. Commissioner Katz is still having a hard time with the APU criteria and checking the boxes. There is traffic for D and E and fuel tanks underground is an environmental issue. C, D, and E for the APU criteria, he is not comfortable with. Commissioner Hogestad agrees with Commissioner Katz. This is not what w as envisioned when the guidelines were put together and really does not meet criteria B either. Vice Chair Shepard is sympathetic to Commissioners Hogestad and Katz on 1.3.4. He would like to offer that should the project get further down the road, he wi ll be thinking of asking the Commission for a condition that adds landscaping to block the viewpoint as described as perspective E, based on 3.5.1(J)(1 and 5) of the land use code. This is a much small er issue than what has just been raised. Commissioner Hansen commented that if this conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone, there is a fueling station on the east side of the area. Saying that it does not fit in is certainly not a valid argument. Vice Chair Shepard asked Attorney Yatabe if the Commission is expected to vote on the APU separately and prior to the major amendment? And if the APU fails, then we do not move on to the major amendment? Attorney Yatabe responded that since both items are before the Commission, you could combine them, but based on the tenor of the conversation, the major amendment is contingent upon the approval of the APU. Since the item is before you essentially you would also want to adopt a motion denying the major amendment on the basis that the APU is then not an allowed use. Commissioner Hogestad asked when the existing fuel station was built. Planner Mapes responded it was 1994, but earlier in 1994 than the application of the designation to the center. Commissioner Hogestad commented that if the standards had been in place that fuel station would not have happened there. The intent for the area was retail and entertainment. Commissioner Katz thanked Commissioner Hansen for point out the existing fuel station, it helped him through thoughts he had about the criteria. He feels since it is off the mail arterial it does not affect the entire development. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he recalls conversation about the Harmony corridor being an urban design element. He appreciates the conversation about uph olding the vision of what is in place for the Harmony corridor. He is evaluating 1.3.4(D) and (E) and the original purpose of a shopping center. This is to have a conglomeration of a variety of uses that all support one another. What is the purpose of t he shopping center, and what does this facility do to that purpose? Does it compliment, is it neutral? Commissioner Hogestad made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for the addition of the permitted use for the Sam’s Club fueling station. The commission finds that the request does not conform to the eight criteria for addition of permitted use. T he following criteria are not met: A) The use is not appropriate in the zone district as defined in the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines. B) The proposed does not conform to the basic retail characteristics defined in the Harmony Corridor Standards. D) The proposed use creates odor, noise, and additional traffic. E) The new use will change the predominant retail entertainment character of the area. This denial is based on the agenda material, the information and materials presen ted during the work session, this hearing and Commission discussion on the item. Commissioner Katz seconded. Commissioner Hansen will not be supporting this motion as it stands. The applicant has met all the criterial for the APU. Commissioner Schneider agrees and disagrees, he agrees that it is not meeting all the requirements, but some of the requirements are met. This has not been developed the right way and they need to work through the process with their neighboring property owners. He reluctantly agrees. Commissioner Hogestad commented that the requirement for the APU is that it meets all eight of the criteria and it does not. Vice Chair Shepard is leaning DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 8 of 12 toward supporting the motion as made. Chair Haefele will be supporting the motion as she agrees that it should meet all the criteria. Vote: 5:1. Vice Chair Shepard made a m otion that the Fort Collins planning and Zoning Commission deny the Major Amendment MJA200002, primarily based on the fact that the associated request for an Addition of a Permitted Use has been denied. Commissioner Hogestad seconded . Commissioner Hansen commented that his only concerns he had about the project is that it seems that there have not been a lot of coll aboration between Sam’s Club and the other business owners and Owners Association. This is not under our p urview to get in the middle of. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he appreciates the fact that the applicant and the design team worked closely with staff transforming the project. There is a use issue. Vote 5:1 5. Magnolia Dwellings Project Description: This is a request to construct a 3,795 square foot 4 -plex located at 335 E Magnolia Street. The proposal includes two modifications of standard s to allow for a reduced parking lot landscape setback and to exceed the compact parking stall maximum from 40% to 42%. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received after the agenda packet was published. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/ visual overview of this project . Shelley LaMastra, Russell + Mills Studios, also provided a a brief verbal/visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Charles Clark, manager of multi-family to the west. He did not realize how tall the buildings will be and is concerned with individuals standing on the balcony and blockage of the site line. In the past Staff Response Chair Haefele noted that it app ears there are no windows on the east side of the multi -family to the west. Ian responded that there are existing windows on both facades. They are matching up against another building with similar scale. They feel that it is a like fo r like. As for the balcony, you can walk out and look down, however, there is distance from the property line, along with landscaping in addition. The trees provide a visual barrier. Commissioner Hansen requested a slide be pulled up. He feels this i s an attractive design, the roof over hangs that overlap one form to the next helps break up the massing. The roof overhangs that cross the fire barrier between the units, this can cause headaches for plan review. Is this something that has been resolved or is there a danger of some of the overhangs being diminished or removed? Ian responded that the distinction is that this is an R-2 apartment building not a townhome. Commission Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard asked Planner Kleer to elaborate on Shelley’s view toward equal to or better than and his view toward nominal and inconsequential. Planner Kleer replied that staff’s findings were based on the parking lot setback being equal to or better than. By the plan providing the 3’ setback an d the landscaping to the fence, it was equal to or better than than a 5’ setback. Relating to the compact stalls, staff was finding that it was nominal and inconsequential with respect to the entire project. Mrs. LaMastra replied that they had the same i nformation. For the parking lot, it is equal to or better than and nominal and inconsequential for the additional 2.8% over the allowable 40%. DRAFTPacket pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 9 of 12 Vice Chair Shepard thanked Ian for the information about how the two mid -century modern houses influenced the design, based on massing, which Planner Kleer mentioned. His understanding that the remainder was to find compliance with the Laurel School District or more with the old town neighborhoods plan #2. How did all three of these work together to influence the outcome? Ian responded that this was debated with LPC for a bit, and he felt that the Queen Ann most replicated that scale. Chair Haefele as ked how the railing perspective would change if someone were standing? Ian responded that these are not large decks and probably would not be right up against the edge. There is roughly 3’ from the back wall. Mrs. Lamastra commented that the code is giv ing options for how to address the design options. Commissioner Hogestad commented that this is a skillful design and well done. It shows how a design can respond to historic context without cop ying a historic building. Vice Chair Shepard will be sup porting the two modifications. Commissioner Hansen asked if the buffer will be only on the east, or if it is required on both sides, and what would keep the whole parking lot layout from being flopped so that you could allow for a larger buffer? The bicy cle parking would allow a larger buffer. Mrs. LaMastra responded that they have looked at a landscape buffer that is required there and with the sheds, there is not landscaping. Chair Haefele likes the front view as it looks like a house and not a multi-family. Are these going to be affordable housing? Mrs. LaMastra responded that it currently is not. Ian responded that these are smaller units and helps the price point. Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(J) regarding setbacks fo r the proposed parking lot perimeter landscaping. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hear and Commission discussion on this item, that it will not be detrimental to the public good and that it is equal to or better than meeting the standard. This information, analysis, find of fact, conclusions contained in the s taff report included with the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this Board. Commissioner Schneider seconded. Commissioner Hansen commented that there is a lot to mitigate the impacts from lights, the fence and landscaping will do a lot to help this. Vote: 6:0. Commission Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(L)2 regarding the compact vehicle spaces to allow the proposed compact parking d istribution to exceed the total by 2.8%. This approval is based that the modification is not detrimental to the public good and because this deviation from the standard is nominal and inconsequential. The information and analysis, finding of facts and co nclusion contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adapted by this Commission. Commissioner Hansen commented that this is exactly what nominal and inconsequential is supposed to be. Chair Haefele agrees and feels this might be a land use code update that allows for rounding. Vice Chair Shepard echoed Chair Haefele. Commissioner Katz seconded. Vote 6:0 Commission Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Magnolia Dwellings PDP200018. This approval is based on the materials agenda materials, work session, staff presentation and discussion of the Commission. Commissioner Hansen commented that this is exactly what nominal and inconsequential is supposed to be. Chair Haefele agrees and feels this might be a land use code update that allows for rounding. Vice Chair Shepard echoed Chair Haefele. Commissioner Schneider thanked the team. Vice Chair Shepard applauded the design team, this project has a lot of complexity. Commissioner Katz agreed. Commissioner Hanses complemented the design team. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Vote 6:0 6. Mosaic Neighborhood Center Project Description: This is a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) to develop a neighborhood center for the Mosaic Community. The proposal includes approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space as well as a community pool with an affiliated 1,000 square foot building, a ne ighborhood open space area, and 19 off -street DRAFTPacket pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 10 of 12 parking spaces. Future access will be taken from Conquest Way to the east. The request includes a Modification of Standard and is located within the Low-Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district, whic h requires Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) review. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that an email from Beth Ayasse Churchman regarding her concern about the types of business that might affect the purchase/lease of the area. She p roposed a cafe with food and/or alcohol, a brewery or winery or boutique. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. John Beggs, Russell + Mills Studios, also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jack Bensel, he feels it is a great design and it is anticipated by many residents. The pool enclosing fence includes a double-sided fireplace feature, this should be one sided and only for the residents of Mosaic. He would like to know if there are any conditions for restrictions on retail uses, limiting liquor stores, pot shops and gun stores? Staff Response Planner Wray responded to the uses question. The list of permitted uses is clearly defined, and retail stores are a permitted use. A liquor store is a permitted retail store. The applicant has some ideas as to what they would like to see go in. John could not speak to the specific uses; thi s pertains to Hartford and what they are planning. They do want to make sure that what goes in is compatible with the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to any adjacent use or adjacent residents. For the community gathering space, Fencing can be lo oked at, this goes against the idea of creating a gathering space for the community. Chair Haefele assumes future uses will come before the Commission or at least have some staff review. Planner Wray responded no. John commented that based on the neig hborhood meetings, Hartford is taking their time and speaking with those who want to be in the building. Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the timing of the future Timberline overpass. He is looking at the final plan and the street trees. He would like to see them on private property and not in the way of the alignment. Commissioner Hansen thought he saw something about an Elco easement on the west side, is this going to interfere with what Vice Chair Shepard is proposing? John responded that the Elco easement is directly adjacent, right up against the west property line. The right -of -way being dedicated is within this zone. There is another easement on the west side. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the limit to development is a property line? Woul d a Timberline capital project realignment effect the property line? Would the Timberline have to acquire land from Hartford to realign? Mark responded that he did not believe additional right -of -way is needed and then they do not have a vertical or horizontal design for Timberline to have any confidence at this time that placing trees may not be in the correct vertical position. Planner Wray added that near the property line you can see the future regional trail approximate location. When Park Plan ning coordinates on the project that specific alignment might shift as well. Vice Chair Shepard commented that just as the City water department has a tree separation specification, perhaps Elco could as well. He encourages the design team to find out wh at that separation is in order to provide some trees in the area. John respond ed that there is opportunity to work with Parks Planning to get a better idea of where the regional trail will fall. Commission Questions / Deliberation Vice Chair Shepard ask ed if there will be street trees along Timberline in the parkway? Planner Wray responded that this was looked at and it was determined that the alignment is not determined yet, and that placing interim trees was not the best decision. Chair Shepard asked about the Timberline realignment. Mr. Virata, Engineering DRAFTPacket pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 11 of 12 Dept. responded that there is not yet a design in place yet and it was decided not to plant trees at this moment. The width will be to arterial standards, but to the North, similar to Vine and Le may that it would be a grade separated crossing. Commissioner Hogestad is curious about deliveries. Will this all be through the front door? John responded yes on the east side. This will be a dedicated emergency access easement and the turning radius has been looked into. Where will pool maintenance be parking, on the street? John responded that they would park in the street or parking lot and probably during off hours. Vice Chair Shepard questioned the condensing unit location. He would like to ma ke sure that they are properly screened. Chair Haefele asked that in cases where there are specific code requirements, how are they handled as projects are built? Planner Wray responded that staff finalizes this during final plan. At this level of PDP, it is not 100% designed yet in compliance with final plan approval. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for modification to Section 3.2.2. This is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, this hearing, the Commission discussion, and that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good per 2.8.2(H)1 equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard in sup port of this project development plan. Commissioner Schneider seconded. Commissioner Hansen commented that he did look to see what other uses might be competing with the parking spots, he is not seeing a lot . He will be supporting the modification. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Shepard would like the applicant and staff to look creatively at complying with the standard in a way that would be considered alternative compliance. Commissioner Schneider mad a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve Mosaic Neighborhood Center PDP210003 based on the agenda materials, the information provided to us during the work session, this hearing, the Commission discussion and with the findings of fact that the information and analysis an d findings of fact and conclusion contained within the staff report are meeting the approval of the adopted code. Member Katz seconded. Vice Chair Shepard complemented the design team and staff. This is a real example of a neighborhood center. Vote 6:0 For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video -archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business Commissioner Schneider asked if anyone knew the status of filling the vacant commission seat. Interim Director Sizemore responded that originally the previous Council was looking to fill the spot, but due to the elect, they chose to wait until the new Council was seated. A new liaison was appointed, and she and City Council members are going to begin the process of figuring out how they would like to go about filling the seat. Commissioner Schneider asked if Emily would be doing a meet a nd greet? Interim Director Sizemore responded that he has had a chance to speak with Council Member Gorg o l, and her intention is to try to get into a work session to visit, potentially next month. Commissioner Schneider asked if the commission could look at going back into a hybrid meeting setting? Interim Director Sizemore responded that from a staff perspective we have not received a clear plan for boards and commissions yet, but it is being worked on. He agrees that everything has changed, and we wil l work to get things in motion for hybrid meetings soon. Commissioner Hogestad mentioned that this morning he attended the Civic Center planning meeting. He feels the final design is a bit to conservative and not anything special. The big take away was that there was no public input DRAFTPacket pg. 16 Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2021 Page 12 of 12 in the process. There were several master plan meetings all with City departments and staff, and none with the public and he is disappointed with that. Vice Chair Shepard also attended and has nothing to add. Chair Haefele announced to the public that there will be another meeting on Wednesday to hear the additional items for this month’s agenda. This hearing will be remote. There will also be two June hearings, June 17th, and June 30th. Do we want to have an additional work session for the June 30th meeting, or do we want to cover everything in the one work session? Commissioner Hansen would like to cover everything in the one work session. Commissioner Schneider commented that if the commission is in -person it will be more expeditious. Interim Director Sizemore commented that the reason to consider a seconded work session is that it is a different layout with the second hearing being six days after the first. In June, the work session is on the 11 th and the second hearing will not be until the 30th. Commissioner Schneider asked how many items are anticipated? Interim Director Sizemore responded four items lined up on discussion. Commissioner Schneider prefers one meeting as opposed to multiple. Commissi oner Hogestad agrees that one session would be best. Commissioner Hanses suggested that the Commission try to get through all items and if needed, then a provisionary hearing could be held. Interim Director Sizemore asked that if in a hybrid format, does this influence the number of items that they would like to see on the agenda? Chair Haefele feels that the ideal would be in -person, then zoom and that hybrid might be potentially longer due to technology. Interim Director Sizemore responded that staff w ould monitor and that the Commission would like to have just the one work session regardless of how the items get divvied up over the hearings. Chair Haefele asked if there was a reason that things have to be shoved into the first available hearing just b ecause they are ready, or can we require some schedules and slot and say that this hearing is full? She has not received an answer. Interim Director Sizemore responded that there was a higher number of submittals and this results in the potential for bac klog. The plan that has been laid out seems manageable. Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing . The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno . Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: ____________. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE May 26, 2021 P&Z SPECIAL HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the May 26, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission Special hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft May 26, 2021 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 18 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard , Vice Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV , Channel 14 on Connexion & Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221 -6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Special Hearing May 26, 2021 Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Claypool, Sizemore, Mapes, Hahn, Virata, Stephens , McHaffey , and Brennan Chair Haefele provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She d escribed the following procedures : •While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. •The Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission once for each item. •Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. •Should a citizen wish to address the Co mmission on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well . •This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas , stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised . Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 19 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 2 of 12 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: None noted. Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Haefele noted there were no items on the Consent Agenda for Commission action. Discussion Agenda: 1. West Willox UE Density Modification (Stand -Alone) Project Description: This is a request for a Modification of a Standard in the Urban Estate zone district to increase allowable density from 2 dwelling units per acre to 4 per acre on a 19 -acre property. The applicants intend to submit a development plan with the requested density, but they find it important to resolve the fundamental question of how many homes would potentially b e built, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief overview of this project . Mike McBride, land planner and owner of MMLA Landscape + Planning , and Ken Mitchell, owner and manager of Mosaic Land Development, also provided a verbal/visual overview of this project . Commission Questions Secretary Brennan reported that Charles Eichman left a voicemail in opposition to the modification of standards for the Willox property because it doesn’t fit with the rural character of the existing neighborhood. In particular, he voiced concerns about the height of the potential futur e buildings . Planner Mapes spoke with Mr. Eichman after the message and Planner Mapes was able to clarify the plan and satisfy Mr. Eichman’s questions. At the end of the conversation, Mr. Eichman was agreeable to the modification. Member Shepard asked if there was an opportunity for bike or pedestrian connection to the Hickory mobile home park. Mr. Mitchell stated there is an existing connection from Soft Gold Park to Hickory Village. Member Shepard asked other than that connection, was there an opport unity to connect farther North to connect this project to Hickory Village. Mr. Mitchell responded they have a 20-foot easement on the upper Northeast corner of the property that acts as a sanitary sewer easement for connection to a manhole that sits about 260 feet into Hickory Village. He needed to review the utility easement, but he believed it would give enough allowance to put a connection there. If the owners of Hickory Village would allow it, after making the connection to the manhole, they could po ur a short section of sidewalk. It would be about 150 -200 feet to make the connection. Mr. McBride said if they could find a place, they would gladly put them in. Member Shepard asked if Garden Sweet Farm was currently served by utilities. Mr. Mitchell had worked extensively with Garden Sweet. Several years ago, there was a development plan for this property, and at the time there was an agreement for a sanitary sewer connection because they have a septic system, as well as all the DRAFTPacket pg. 20 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 3 of 12 properties West. He felt that within the City, they should have City facilities so they have committed to bring out a street connection for sewer, as well as a stub for water. The owners of Garden Sweet live in an old home that is falling apart and would like to build a new one. He wanted to set them up to build a new one when they decided to do that, which meant they had access to all the utilities we think of when we think of the City of Fort Collins. He added the lack of adequate water to that area, particularly water p ressure, created a gap in fire protection and safety that also translates into insurance rates. Everyone in this area is paying a higher insurance premium. Member Shepard stated Garden Sweet must be on a well, but asked where they were getting electricit y. Mr. Mitchell could not remember the name of the utility, but there was a utility across the street providing their electric. There was another rural water company providing their water. They were getting their facilities from rural utilities outside Fort Collins. They do have non-potable irrigation water from the Larimer and Weld Canal. Member Hogestad asked how the 50 percent open space was derived and if it was a requirement. Planner Mapes stated it is a standard in the Urban Estate planning zone, meaning it is a requirement. Member Hogestad asked if it was a description in the Land Use Code for that zone. Planner Mapes said yes, the Urban Estate zone allows the option of either subdividing into half -acre lots or doing a cluster development with 50% open space. It is really intended as an incentive to do the clustering. He was unsure if he had ever seen a development come in with half - acre lots in the Urban Estate zone. Member Hogestad questioned whether it was still a 50% open space requirement whether it was 2 units per ac re or 4 units. Planner Mapes said that is the starting point, but he would warn everyone that in a development plan with a 4-dwelling units per gross acre structure there would be a modification to reduce it. There was one other standard for cluster developments: density. The s tandard was 5 units per acre within the cluster. It is a little bit complicated, doing the math with 4 units per cluster and having the dwelling units limited to 5 units per acre. There would be more modifications in a development plan for those things. It would not surprise him if the density ended up being a little bit more than 5 units per acre, maybe 6 or 7 in the single-family portion. He would expect other modifications, but the basic 4 per acre was something they wanted to get before the Commission before working o n the other numbers. Member Hogestad asked if they would be asking for a modification to increase the density, but Planner Mapes said it would be to reduce the percentage required of open space. Member Hogestad asked if lowering the open space requiremen t would increase density. Member Katz stated overall density would not increase when including the open space, but cluster density may exceed 5. Planner Mapes commented they were looking at 76 homes over the property, and he knew the Applicant wants to m ake them all single-family detached. He pointed out that if you were to put some attached in there, it would be a way to get 50% open space. That is to be determined in a development plan, but they were anticipating single-family detached. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to clarify the density range in the City Plan Structure Plan Map for the suburban neighborhood place type. It is a description, 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Typically, projects come in more in the 7 to 12 range but zoning in that place type could be LMN to MMN. That is a wide range of 5 to 20, and the City Plan describes it as typically being more in the 7 to 12 range. It is very descriptive but not specific. After reflection, Planner Mapes said he needed to go back and apolog ized to Member Shepard. He confused the mixed neighborhood place type with the suburban neighborhood place type, and this was the latter. It is described as being between 2 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The neighboring area was mixed neighborhood place type, so Urban Estate zoning would be at the lower end of development in this place type. Member Shepard asked if sidewalks were required in Urban Estate zoning from the standpoint of Larimer County Urban Area Streets if you do not do a cluster plan, bec ause Planner Mapes had shown a slide of Hearthfire. Planner Mapes said that was not in the Land Use Code as far as he knew. Member Shepard pointed out the slides of Hearthfire showed no sidewalks. Planner Mapes responded Hearthfire was a PUD but it was an interesting idea that he touched on showing the street edge of the pictures along Willox. As they conjure up plans for the rural edges of the City, they did not have a street edge for the rural area that was not the standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk to consider. Engineering staff was present and looking to see if Code addressed it . Planner Mapes did DRAFTPacket pg. 21 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 4 of 12 have a recent project on Douglas Road, even more at the edge of the City than this one, and that project has been approved with the standard curb, gutte r, and sidewalk with a row of street trees. It is going to really stand out as not being consistent with the area. The idea of a different curb for rural areas is something he is interested in, but with Hearthfire he is not sure what happened. Member Sc hneider commented the ponds on the furthest West side were located in the UE zone district and they did not have sidewalks. That is another example of UE with no curb and gutter requirements. Engineer Virata stated generally we do have a rural local stre et standard that he had yet to see used. He was unsure if this project would qualify, because there is a specific requirement for internal local streets with minimum lot sizes of 1 acre or larger and when the traffic volume on the street is anticipated to be less than 300 vehicles per day. Without a formal development plan, he could not say if this proposal would meet those requirements. Planner Mapes stated there is such a thing as a street without a sidewalk not in the Urban Estate zone. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to confirm that single -family attached within the Urban Estate could be up to a duplex but no greater. Planner Mapes said no, the Code states within a cluster, the houses are duplexes and single-family attached, so it is not limited to single-family attached in groups of two. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to confirm that within a cluster, the developers would get the benefit of greater than a duplex, and Planner Mapes confirmed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jean Pitt, owner of the property to the West of the development, she had several concerns about doing a Metro District. If you do something like that, you cannot provide affordable housing, which was discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Prices would b e quite high for what was provided. The other issue she had was the number of homes developers were trying to put in there. She think s the reason is getting developer costs paid for, but the way it is zoned now they could not pay to get infrastructure to that lot. There is only one entrance and exit onto Willox. That is a really red flag. She has barbed wire fences, cows, horses, donkeys, and chickens to the West of the property. It does not fit with the agricultural feel. They did not have any probl em with water pressure there. They have all had their septic systems redone and spent a lot of money on those so they do not need sewer. The water service is Northern Colorado Water District. They have Excel for gas and REA for electric. One more issue is how much fill dirt they would have to bring in because the water level here is the old riverbed. They hit water at 4 feet there. The developer had said the project was net zero, but she did not see 76 homes that are going to pollute with gas as net zero. Ryan, from Garden Sweet, the neighbors to the West of the property, for the record the last time he was in a meeting was in December in the neighborhood meeting. As far as working closely with the developer, he only gets information from the meeting s. He had a little insight early on but he really does not know what is happening next door, although it sounds like he might have a whole bunch of neighbors at some point. For utilities they are on Northern Water and City of Fort Collins Electric. They are the last guys on the electric line. To clarify more about services to the property next to them, they did not have any big plans other than to keep growing food next to the property, but if they are saying they can bring utilities and service the nei ghbors, he wanted to know how the City approached a development that promised bringing utilities. Would it be on the basis of servicing one bathroom? He did not know how it all works. Staff Response Planner Mapes responded to Ryan’s comment. What he has observed in other projects is when a water line or electric line is extended to another property, it is extended and is able to be stubbed. Utilities do not operate by giving the minimal amount for each development, and then dealing with the ne xt development as it comes. There is planning. For the purpose of the hearing on density, the two more units per acre would make no difference in that regard. The whole thing is more feasible with more homes to pay for it. Whatever utilities would bring service to this area would not depend at all on 2 more units per acre. Mr. Mitchell responded to Ms. Pitt’s comment. Each individual housing unit would generate more electricity on the lot for the household than would be consumed. At the end of the year, there would be a net zero consumption of energy. If you looked at the combination of roof and geothermal energy, they would be putting more energy back DRAFTPacket pg. 22 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 5 of 12 into the grid than would be required of the grid. He has talked to residents of Revive, and they all get a check back from the utility at the end of the year for that reason. They are actually a local generator of electricity. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying Questions Mr. Schneider was playing with the numbers, and if you leave half as open space with the 76 units, that is 8 units per acre, not 4. At the work session, he asked if changing 2 to 8 per acre would change gross versus net. That is a substantial difference in his opinion. Single-family attached would be townhomes. Without an actual plan to review, it is really hard to say he is OK with this on the density they are asking for. They would have to start playing games with the structure if they are really try ing to keep the 50% open space. His concern is that he is hearing there will be modifications to standards to lower the 50% open space in an Urban Estate cluster development. Without seeing what they were proposing, it is really hard to say yes today. H e was struggling with the numbers. He understood from a business standpoint what makes sense. There were six different ways to play with this, and some fit the character of the area but some did not. He wanted to know if the developers were guaranteeing the 50% open space. Mr. Mitchell has been doing this for 40 years, so the question of density is uppermost in his mind and he was familiar with the various forms density takes. He had a current project in Larimer County with two units per acre, and the price was $850,000.00 to $1 million per unit. The challenge in Fort Collins is there are more people that needs houses that cost less than we can provide lot supply for. The property could be developed at 2, 4 or 8 per acre. At the neighborhood meeting, they committed to avoid townhomes because they were inappropriate as a buffer. The original intent was to ask for LMN zoning with a cap of 4 units per acre and to avoid the 50% issue. They see the 50% as a moot point, given the area is surrounded by p arks and open space. From the standpoint of public land use, it does not make sense to have such great facilities next door and to arbitrarily require 50% open space in the land area. They believe that open space is more useful in things like regional tr ail connections. The Parks Department wants the developers to work with them to provide non -potable water to the City park. The development team thinks the 50% is less important than moving water from the Larimer and Weld Canal across the property to the park, because they are using potable water right now which is energy inefficient. They can solve that problem and create good connectivity to parks and open space. Getting back to the original issue, the two properties he is working on now that had 4 un its to the acre ranged in price from $425,000.00 to $800,00.00 or $900,000.00. The upper range had incredible mountain views or lake and mountain views. The preponderance of the properties cost $425,000.00 to $600,000.00. If you are looking for attainab ility for the combined income of most people, you cannot get there with two unit to the acre density with large lots. They want to develop a product that is more in tune with the times as far as energy and water efficiency. With 4 units to the acre as a benchmark, they would like the opportunity to work with Planner Mapes on a plan acceptable to the Commission. They would spend a lot of time and money to develop a plan. They do not have plans right now to have a Metro District; th at could change but it was not the plan now. The three properties they are working on now have a Metro District, but they are the right size for it. A smaller plot of land costs too much for a Metro District. There is no way to get 4 units on an acre and 50% open space, but t he benefits they could provide to the Natural Areas department and to the City Parks Department are strong benefits to the City. They just need some direction, because they have spent a significant amount of time and money, working with City Staff for roughly a year and a half on utilities. They just need to get to the next step so they can do land planning. If they could get permission for 4 units to the acre, they could develop a plan. The Commission had the right to deny any plan brought to them. They wanted the Commission to feel comfortable with their plan. 4 units to the acre would be a benchmark, and they could review the plan brought to them. Planner Mapes specified gross density was kind of like what is allowed by zoning. When zoning is c onceived, there is no land plan to review. If the Commission thinks zoning can be appropriate they could move forward. This is a shift away from a re-zoning to LMN, which would have been harder. This is just updating the standard from allowing 2 to allo wing 4. If they think a developer can come in under that benchmark and accomplish the things that need to be accomplished on that property, they can support it. Member Hansen asked for clarification from Planner Mapes if the property would remain as Ur ban Estate zoning, the standard is now 2 units per acre gross, either doing two half -acre lots or cluster development. Planner Mapes affirmed. Member Hansen asked if the modification was approved, would developers have the option of dividing DRAFTPacket pg. 23 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 6 of 12 the whole thing into quarter-acre lots or doing a higher cluster density with 50% open space. Planner Mapes said the higher cluster density would require townhomes, so that is out. Quarter -acre lots, no. Member Hansen stated if you do 50% open space, that leaves ab out 9.5 acres to put 76 dwelling units on, about 1/8 th of an acre per lot, and we see a lot of properties in Fort Collins with that size lot. Planner Mapes said the subdivision option is to divide the whole entire property into half -acre lots . This would not enable anyone to divide the whole property into quarter-acre lots. In the cluster, the lots will be smaller than a half or quarter -acre. Member Hansen reiterated his positions about the 1/8th acre lots, and Planner Mapes agreed it was possible. Tha t was the point of a cluster plan, and maybe they could get to 50% open space with that scenario. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to clarify when the future plan was brought before the Commission it would be a Type II P & Z review and not a Type I Admi nistrative Review. Planner Mapes confirmed it would be a Type II. Member Shepard also asked Planner Mapes to confirm that if the y proceed tonight, they should fully expect two modifications: 1) less than 50% open space, and 2) there will be greater than 5 units per cluster. Planner Mapes said he would think so, it might be close to 5. Mr. Mitchell responded to public comment regarding the water table. They had done their own soils report, and the water table across the property runs anywhere from 5 to 8 feet. In the process of land development, typically developers excavate the streets and put the land from excavation on the lots, so he did not see an issue with the water table. The only issue with the water table would be basements, but more units these days do not have them due to high cost of materials. They would not be concerned if they could not do basements. This was not what he considered to be a shallow water table. He was confident the property could be developed and marketed in its current condition. Member Schneider asked Mr. Mitchell if they were planning a single entrance point off Willox because he was concerned about access for the fire department. Mr. Mitchell stated they had talked with the fire department about the issue. They were stubbing a street to the West to whatever point the City directs them, so there would be two points of connectivity. Until that was done, anything that was not within 600 feet would have to include a sprinkler. They would have to work that out with the fire department. Mr. McBride stated they did not have the frontage on Willox to put in another entrance point due to the intersection. Planner Mapes stated whether sprinklers would be required would not change whether there were 2 or 4 dwelling units p er acre. Member Schneider noted the single point of contact and need for fire suppression contradicted their goals of affordability. Mr. Mitchell stated he had built townhomes in Fort Collins and the City allows a system called RS -something that allows fire suppression to pull from domestic water supply. It is in the $1.50 per square foot range, which is not too expensive and does no t affect the price too much. The system works for single family, as well. Deliberation Member Shepard pointed out a lot of things were mentioned that would not factor into his decision, to include local buyers, zero energy homes, the rural landscape buf fer along Willox, the potable water for Soft Gold Park, and developing other projects in Larimer County. None of those fit into the criterion for decision making. Member Katz stated his decision was considering how the site transitions from high -density to low and if it fits within the Comprehensive Plan. It was difficult to do but his job is to focus just on the density and standalone modification. Based on that, and looking at the structure plan, that is going to be his North Star, if there is one. Member Schneider stated he agreed, many good goals of the project had been stated but those were not relevant. What was relevant and should be considered is a modification to density. He was looking at density and how it fits into the structure plan of the City . That was the only thing to consider tonight. Member Shepard asked the Chair permission to go on a brief tangent. He brought up a particular piece of code regarding the Planned Unit Development (PUD), but unfortunately that only starts with a plot above 50 acres. That requirement is an Article II procedural requirement, so it is not modifiable. If the PUD standard was in Article III, it would be modifiable. They could have had a discussion about a 19-acre PUD on a parcel of land that is probably not suited for Urban Estate and not the full -on LMN which allows up to 9 units per acre. That is what the PUD was for. As we move forward and contemplate policy changes, we should put our heads together on the benefits a smaller parcel might gain from the PUD process. DRAFTPacket pg. 24 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 7 of 12 Member Hansen stated they had the conversation recently about whether there sho uld be a minimum size for PUDs, and he was of the opinion there should be smaller PUDs. He thanked Member Shepard for bringing it up. The Chair commented it seems there are pros and cons to smaller PUDs. She would not be opposed to a modifiable standard , but that was outside the issue. Member Schneider stated the goals and aspirations of the project would fit well. However, he was concerned about the density that could be proposed in the future based on the surrounding areas. There are so many ways to play the numbers game and lay it out. With 76 units that would be 5545 square feet per lot, which is above the minimum standard of 4500 but not by much. This would mean pretty high-density homes. For him it was a challenge to approve the modification without seeing the layout of a plan, including where on the lot the higher density would be. He was concerned because saying yes no w almost guaranteed the developers would come back to the Commission for further modifications, and he preferred seeing the w hole plan at once. He understood why the developers would do it this way from a business model and strategy viewpoint, and he respected their honesty in admitting they would be back for more modifications in the future. He was struggling to say yes until he could actually see the layout and the design, and the Chair agreed with him. Member Katz also agreed it was hard to conceptualize the plan. He pointed out the density to the East was quite a bit higher so it would fit in better than Member Schneider expressed. All the risk is on the developers because they are the only ones spending money on this. They have the right to take a sh ot at it, and if they can come up with a plan that satisfies 2.8.2(h) “as good or better”, then let them bring it to the Commission. For now, they needed to put the blinders on and look at it as just density, which he understood was very difficult to do. Member Schneider clarified that if density is higher in the East because that is compatible with neighboring property , that is what he was meaning about sloping density East to West . Member Katz said he thought someone had mentioned that density would be higher in the East and sloping to the West. Member Hogestad agreed with Member Schneider’s concerns. The package given to the Commission showed open space and a rural character, which conflicted with the density now being requested. He was having a really difficult time with the fact the plan would almost guarantee more modifications and not being able to truly see what they are being asked to vote on this evening. He found it dif ficult to support the item. Member Katz could see what the others were saying, but they were still in the PDP and they had to put the blinders on. Until they received a plan, they could not weigh the merits of it. The plan could come in with 62 houses, which was not likely, but it could. The risk was only on the applicant, so he did not see the harm. There would be a lot of work to do with Staff, and if they wanted to take the risk it was on them. Member Hansen noted when he ran the numbers, it is pos sible for them to create a development that satisfies everything they claim. It may or may not need a modification. From a designer’s point of view, he has confidence in the skill and creativity of the design team, especially when they are going to be wo rking with Staff. Staff has the highest regard for the requirements in the Land Use Code, City Plan, and the concerns of impact from the neighbors. The application that comes before the Commission in the future will not disregard the impacts to the surro unding neighbors. There will be challenges, but he agrees with Member Katz that the risk of the challenges is on the Applicant. The neighbors, Commission, and City have a huge buffer to that risk, because the next level of design is on the design team and the developer. He is willing to approve the modification, and although he is a little bit cautious, he is excited to see what the design team comes up with. It deserves a lot of scrutiny. He wants to see them take a try at it. Member Schneider unders tood the hesitancy of other members without a plan. He wanted to point out that Planner Mapes had said at no point would the gross density exceed 4 units per acre and wanted to emphasize that. Depending on the size of the cluster, that may inform what sh ape the housing takes. He also wanted to mention that he heard from Planner Mapes that at one point there was the intention to re -zone the property to LMN, but then they would have the challenges that LMN was too intense at about 9 units per acre and othe r non-residential land uses. That was good advice on the part of Staff to the Applicant that a better approach would be to modify the Urban Estate. We have two zone districts that do not meet in the middle, and there is a conflict or a gap between Urban Estate and LMN. The discussion showed they were experiencing that gap. Member Hogestad was still struggling with the idea of character, and what they had to discuss had nothing to do with that. You could do 4 per acre, but that would eat up all the open space. The whole concept of doing that open DRAFTPacket pg. 25 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 8 of 12 space does not make sense any longer. He wished the package that came to them was more clear and understandable as to what the developers wanted. He did not like the intermediate step that was of no value. He would have rather seen a rezone because it would be more straightforward and honest as to the intentions for the property. Member Katz agreed there were t wo zoning districts that did not meet in the middle. There is a lot of gray area in the standards, and they were never going to be perfect. That is why the Commission is granted the luxury of 2.8.2(h) to grant modifications that can actually be better th an the standard. This property is not consistent with the structure map within the Comprehensive Plan right now in its density. This modification brings it up to the suburban density as defined within our City’s Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that is wh y Planner Mapes made the prudent decision to do it this way instead of re -zoning for LMN, which would have opened up the gates to a lot more. He thinks this was done properly and is excited to see what the design team will do. He would be supporting it. Member Hansen reiterated what Member Shepard said. They are looking at 4 gross units per acre. A density of 8 units per acre is not honest to the discussion. You might see that within a cluster, but it will be 4 gross and they need to remember that and keep the discussion in context. Member Schneider asked Planner Mapes a clarifying question regarding the 50% cluster: within the cluster, does Code say how many units per acre the cluster can be? Planner Mapes said yes. He also clarified with lot sizes if 4500 it would still be possible to have 50% open space, so he was unsure if it would absolutely be a requirement. Take the open space out and the remainder is not to exceed 5 units per acre by the standard. With this density, that standard will be ex ceeded. Member Schneider noted that even with the 50% open space, they can have lots of 5445 or at the 5 units per acre, they are at 47.5 units total. They will have to have some sort of modification if they are asking for 76. Planner Mapes stated the t wo modifications, the 50% and the 5 per acre, push and pull against each other. Once the lot has the 50% open space taken away, there are about 9.5 acres, but you cannot just divide that by 76 to get lot size. Local streets come off the top. Member Schn eider had emailed Planner Mapes about how much land is lost to infrastructure because he wanted to know exactly what the lot size was. He asked if 4700 or 4800 for lot size was more likely, and Planner Mapes agreed. Planner Mapes said we do not call that net. When we take the area that is not open space, it contains local streets and the lots. That is how he is getting to something like 4790 if there is 50% open space. The density of that would be higher than 5 units per acre, which would require a mod ification. It might be close to 5. He was just giving a warning there would be modifications to the plan and maybe even to the 50%. It is possible to do it without modifications, though. Member Schneider asked if that included 76 units, and Planner M apes said yes, that would be about 5 units per acre. Member Schneider said 5 units per acre was roughly 40 units. Planner Mapes agreed and said there would have to be a modification to the 50%, the 5 units or both. What the designers do will determine t hose numbers. Member Schneider was trying to understand what we were looking at in terms of numbers and what can be done to maintain the Urban Estate character with the 50% open space. Planner Mapes appreciated the chance to correct his earlier statement about absolutely not being able to meet 50% open space. Member Shepard asked Member Hogestad about saying if they do 4 units per acre there will not be open space. Member Hogestad stated he did not say that, but to maintain 50% open space the numbers in the cluster have to greatly increase. The problem is 50% open space is not accurate. Member Shepard said that clarifies it, and he is hearing from Mr. Mitchell and Planner Mapes there might not be 50% open space. Member Hogestad he was offended it came packaged the way it was, even with the graphic. Member Shepard agreed the graphic was not helpful. The Chair partly felt more housing would be beneficial, but she was picturing a lot of big houses. She could support a plan with smaller houses. Having done the math on her own lot, which is 9,000 square feet or .21 acres, which is 5 units per ac re. She said it is cozy enough in her neighborhood and it is 50% or more below the average house size. She cannot imagine a neighborhood built so densely with big houses mushed together or a neighborhood with half acre lots. Her problem with the process is they are being asked to give this modification without seeing any of the things they are being promised. Now they are hearing there are issues with making the promises feasible. She will not support it and she would rather see it come as a package wi th a modification to the density, as well as a credible and well thought out plan that truly demonstrates it will be better than or equal to and not DRAFTPacket pg. 26 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 9 of 12 detrimental to the public. Member Schneider and Member Hogestad had summed it up nicely. She would rather see it as a package, even if it requires a long hearing with a lot of modifications. Member Hansen said they needed to stop trying to design the development in their heads during the meeting. A development like this takes months and months of thinking a nd drawing things out. There is no way to visualize the ultimate outcome. They should separate this from any future development and solely consider if 4 dwelling units per acre gross fits within the City Structure Plan for this lot. He thinks it is very appropriate for this location. There could be solutions that are not appropriate but some are. That risk is on the developer and should not be what they are discussing tonight. Member Shepard pointed out that once zoning standards are set, the Commissi on does not get the benefit of a plan. That is what they are doing here, modifying the density standard without going further into the planning process. He emphasized Urban Estate zoning this close to College Avenue, downtown, King Soopers, industrial zo ning, and the varied land uses on the East side of North College Avenue, he was not sure this parcel of land was the prototypical Urban Estate parcel. He is comfortable with the request and appreciates Member Katz’s comments about how it fits with the size and Structure Plan. He believes the discussion is inspiring the design team to come up with a great plan, just like Montava did. Member Hansen made a motion the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the West Willox Lane standalone modification request #MOD210001 based on the findings of fact and supporting explanations found in the Staff Report. This approval is also based on information presented during the Work Session and this hearing in the Commission discussion. Th is meets the requirements of provision 2.8 of the Land Use Code, that is not detrimental to the public good and that it is equal to or better than the provisions in the Code. Member Katz seconded. Member Schneider stated he would support this and let the design team try to figure out how to make this happen, although he would be very critical of the numbers and outcome of what would happen. There are a lot of opportunities to change the character of what is currently out there. He would support the moti on and let the design team try to comply with the 4 dwelling units per acre without any modifications to the Standards. It would be a challenge for them. He was thinking with a 6 -person commission, he would like to at least let it move forward to see wha t the PDP looks like. That is where the attention to detail will come into play. Member Shepard would be supporting the motion but encouraged the design team to firstly make a great plan and let the numbers fall where they may. He does not want them to make 76 units the first step. He wants them to meet as many Article III Standards as they can. Vote: 4:2. The Commission took a brief, 10-minute recess. The Chair called the meeting to order at about 8:2 7 p.m. and a roll call vote was taken. All members were present. 2. Stanford Senior Living Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to build a four -story long -term care facility for seniors. Parking is both underground within the building and in a parking lot that is shared with the Marriott Hotel next door. The site is a platted lot served by the existing street system, with utility infrastructure in place to serve the lot. Access is proposed from Stanford Rd. to t he east and Monroe Dr. to the north. The property is within the General Commercial (CG) zone district and requires Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) Review. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Brennan reported that there was no additional citizen emails or letters received . Member Hansen reported a conflict of interest on this item and recused himself. He left the meeting before discussion began on the item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief overview of this projec t. DRAFTPacket pg. 27 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 10 of 12 Stephanie Hansen and Matt Oermann of United Properties gave a brief verbal overview of the project, a senior assisted living facility with memory care. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response None. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying Questions Member Shepard asked Chris Aronson of VFLA Architecture + Interiors which materials would be on the outside of the building. Mr. Aronson stated the brown is cementitious siding, and the basement level on th e base is split -face CMU. Above the base is synthetic stone. The off -white color is stucco. The dark gray is another color of stucco. Member Shepard asked if the cementitious siding is comprised of panels with seams. Mr. Aronson stated they come in lengths and they are still playing with the pattern, deciding whether it would be a pattern as depicted in the presentation or it would be overlapping so vertical joints would be concealed . Member Hogestad asked if Stanford Road was a transit route. Ms. Hansen replied there is a bus stop there. Planner Mapes stated there are two routes on it. Member Hogestad wanted to know if they were North and South, but Planner Mapes was unsure because he had not looked into it. What Member Hogestad really wanted to know was how close was the bus stop on the same side of the street as the proposed project, because he had heard in the Work Session there would be roughly 30 employees who might take the bu s. He thought there might be a standard for bus stops that calls for requiring one and the project may be obliged to provide one. If one was close by, it might serve the same purpose. Mr. Aronson answered there is a bus stop on the West side of Stanford one block North by the Cycle Apartments. It would be fairly easy to get to with sidewalks. Member Hogestad asked about the parking lot belonging to the property that was currently being used by Marriott to ensure that Marriott had met the parking requirement on their own property. Ms. Hansen said they had. Member Hogestad wanted to ensure if the parking lot was used for construction, Marriott would still have parking for guests and employees. Ms. Hansen said they still meet the Land Use Code with park ing on their own property. Member Shepard emphasized his desire that the materiality from the top of the building remain consistent. He was worried because there are buildings in Fort Collins that become less interesting, less varied, and less articulate d on the upper floors. He requested as they go to plan, since this is a fairly large building, that the architecture at the top remain as interesting as at the base. Deliberation Member Katz commented the property was a strange one to work with and the team had done a really nice job. He recalled Mr. Aronson had stated he looked to relieve the sharp angles on the triangle -shaped lot. Member Katz thought this building would really freshen up Midtown, which is considered kind of stale. Nice job to the t eam at VFLA and Ripley Design. Member Hogestad felt he should comment on the design. What he likes about the design is the materials reflect residential imagery, even if the scale does not. It fits nicely on the site with the neighboring buildings. M r. Aronson had done a good job getting both a residential and commercial component done. Member Katz asked Mr. Yatabe if the alternative compliance needed to be called out in a motion. Mr. Yatabe said in the past we have not dealt with alternative compli ance separately. The alternative compliance provisions state it is up to the decisionmaker. Past and present practice has been if you are approving the project and accepting the recommendations from Staff and the findings, we have not asked the Commissio n to make a separate determination about that. You could comment on it. He had discussions with Staff asking how it was different from DRAFTPacket pg. 28 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 11 of 12 a modification of standard. That is what the practice has been. It would be sufficient to adopt the Staff report and the findings, because it would include the alternative compliance. If you want to address it separately, you can make a comment specific to it or pull it out and make a separate motion about it entirely. Member Shepard really liked the tree protection program. He wishes that could become a standard because he would like to see more of it. When you drive around the City, you see a lot of trees at risk. He also stated this project could perhaps have been on consent. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Stanford Senior Living Project Development Plan (PDP) 200022 to also include the alternative compliance to Section 3.2.2(K)(2) for allowable up to 133 parking spots. This determination is based on the findings of fact, based on the Staff material that has been presented to us tonight, the Work Session, and all the information gathered in this hearing and the Board discussion on the side of it. It’s also based on the general materials that are contained within the Staff report. Member Katz seconded. Mr. Yatabe asked if he was correct that there were two different alternative compliances. He wanted to make sure if by calling out one the intent was to approve both. Planner Mapes agreed there were two different alternative compliance requests and he regretted putting one into the recommendation if the motion could just recommend approval of the PDP and stay silent on alternative compliance. That is the way he likes to think abou t alternative compliance. He would prefer it be part of the overall approval. Member Schneider was trying to capture all of it and has no problem with both alternative compliances. The Chair asked if the motion needed to be restated. Mr. Yatabe said it was clear based on the first sentence of the motion M ember Schneider want s to approve the project, but he just wanted to clarify. It was not necessary to restate the motion . Member Schneider appreciated the plan, the infill with surrounding buildings, and how it ties into the area. It is an overall good -looking plan. Vote: 5:0. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://reflect -vod - fcgov.cablecast.tv/CablecastPublicSite/show/1194?channel=1 Other Business Mr. Yatabe mentioned if the Commission wants to handle alternative compliance in a different way, they c an do that. He had just mentioned the way it had been done in the past. The Chair said it would be helpful to have some standard language for PDPs, then realized Member Hansen should re -join the meeting. Once Member Hansen was back in the meeting, the Chair suggested going forward Mr. Yatabe provide a sample motion . Mr. Yatabe said if you are OK with the alternative compliance and you adopt the findings of the Staff report, that is sufficient and how the Commission could deal with them moving forward. If it becomes an issue, they can deal with it. It is not set in stone, but that is how it was handled. The Chair suggested as these things come up, they have a conversation about them in the Work Session. Member Shepard was in favor of how they have been handling it, consistent with past practice. The Chair suggested the longer-serving members of the Commission explain past practice at the Work Session. Member Hansen suggested a brief discussion or presentation on the difference between alternative compliance and modification of standard and how the determination is made. The Chair suggested they cover it in another meeting than June, unless there was some alternative compliance on the agenda, because June is busy. The Chair stated after talking to Interim CDNS Director Paul Sizemore, she is aware that Boards and Commissions may move to hybrid hearings. She asked Interim Director Sizemore to talk about it. He was awaiting direction from the Clerk’s office, but he got it today. There is no uniform gu idance for Boards and Commissions, so each can decide when they are comfortable with returning to in-person meetings as long as Staff can support it. They had hybrid experience from last Fall before Covid numbers increased and they switched to fully remot e, so we know we can support it. He has heard a lot of discussion about the benefits of retaining electronic participation. He wanted to hear the Commission’s thoughts on the subject and whether they thought June was appropriate for the switch. They pot entially had three meetings in June, a Work Session on June 11 th, at least one hearing date on June 17th, and a second date held for June 30th for a potential second hearing date. Member Schneider preferred to go back to in-person. He did not mind the hy brid to encourage participation but he felt the Commission should be in person because it was more efficient. Member Shepard agreed with Member Schneider. Member Katz agreed, as well. Member Hogestad agreed it was far more efficient to meet in person. Member Hansen stated meeting in person DRAFTPacket pg. 29 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 12 of 12 was better for the Board and anyone trying to participate in the meeting. The Chair commented it was pretty unanimous, and she agreed, although she would miss the advantage of standing there in her shorts and Birkens tocks. The casual attire was a perk, but she was ready to leave it behind. Interim Director Sizemore asked if they would be ready as early as the June Work Session. The Chair stated she thought so, that at some point they just had to say, “We’re vacci nated, and…” The important criteria would be that all Commission members and Staff were vaccinated. It is better to be in person. Member Schneider pointed out there was no dress code, so the Chair could wear what she wanted. The Chair laughed and said she had put on a nice shirt. Member Hansen said they were behind a wall so no one would know about her Birkenstocks and shorts. The Chair commented her husband had been dressing exactly like he does for the office, but she was the opposite. Interim Director Sizemore thanked them for the feedback, said it would be a big change, and he would work with Staff to do an in-person Work Session as early as June. He was looking into retaining remote participation, but he kno ws there are staffing and technical im plications so he will do his best to get it to work in June. He w ill let them know in advance what the plan looked like so they c an plan accordingly. The Chair commented for a Work Session in a small room allowing citizens to listen remotely should not b e too difficult. Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing . The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: ____________. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 30 Agenda Item 3 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE June 17, 2021 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the June 17, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft June 17, 2021 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 31 DRAFT MINUTES FROM THE June 17, 2021 P&Z HEARING TO BE APPROVED AT THE August 19, 2021 P&Z HEARING Packet pg. 32 Development Review Staff Report Item 4 Water Utilities Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com 1. Introduction Over the past two years Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) has developed an update to how Water Supply Requirements (WSR) are calculated for new and redevelopment. WSRs are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights (cash-in-lieu) to ensure adequate water supplies and associated infrastructure are available to serve both new development and re-development in the Utilities water service area. For non-residential customers, the WSRs are translated into an annual water allotment (allotment), with an Excess Water Use surcharge (surcharge) applied to any water use that exceeds the allotment. Goals of this update include increasing the accuracy and equity of the calculations and encouraging water efficient designs in development projects. As part of the update Staff proposes basing the WSR and allotment for irrigation taps off the Water Budget table required for all landscape plans by section 3.2.1(E)(3) of the LUC. The WSR would be based on the total estimated annual water use found in the table. This is an industry best practice that ensures WSR and allotments reflect the variable water needs of landscaping in Fort Collins’ semi-arid climate.. To properly align, Staff is also seeking an update to the Hydrozone values defined in section 3.2.1(E)(3) of LUC to ensure WSRs and allotments reflect plant water needs. The May 2021 Council Work session materials outline all proposed changes. This staff report focuses on the proposed amendments to the LUC and development review process. BACKGROUND___________________________________________________________________________________ Water Service Providers in Fort Collins Utilities’ water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. Utilities supplies water to approximately 75% of residents and business within the Fort Collins city limits. Water service in the surrounding areas is provided by other water Planning and Zoning Commission: July 15, 2021 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments Summary of Request This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of Land Use Code (LUC) updates to section 3.2.1(E)(3) in alignment with the parallel Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirement (WSR) update. Next Steps • The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration on September 21, 2021 (First Reading) • Note: This material was presented the May 2021 Council Work Session and the proposed approach was generally supported. Applicant City of Fort Collins PO BOX 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Staff Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager Liesel Hans, Interim Utilities Deputy Director Contents 1. Introduction ................................................ 1 2. Drivers, Outcomes and Benefits ................ 2 3. Proposed Approach – WSR Updates ........ 3 4. Land Use Code Changes .......................... 7 5. Public Outreach ......................................... 9 6. Recommendation ..................................... 10 7. Attachments ............................................. 11 Staff Recommendation Approval Packet pg. 33 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 2 of 11 Back to Top providers, including water districts like East Larimer County (ECLO) and Fort Collins-Loveland (FCLWD) water districts, as seen in Attachment 1. Each water service provider has their own drivers (source of supply, development patterns) that determine their WSR calculations and the policies, options, and costs for meeting their WSR. For this proposal, all WSR proposed concepts apply only within the Utilities water service area; however, changes to the LUC would affect all development applications within City Limits. Key Terms and Definitions A complete list of terms and definitions can be found in Attachment 2. Developers, including both greenfield development and redevelopment, must meet a Water Supply Requirement within the Utilities service area: • Water Supply Requirements (WSR): A requirement for water service from Utilities. A WSR accounts for the additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of water, brought into the Utilities water service area by a new development or redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by dedicating water rights or paying cash-in- lieu to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop reliable water resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure. WSRs are in line with the City’s long-standing philosophy that development pays for itself. • Cash-in-lieu: A developer can meet a WSR by making a direct payment to the City, instead of providing water rights. The cash-in-lieu rate is based on the cost to meet future water needs and includes the expected cost to acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The current cost is $42,422 per 1 acre-foot (325,851 gallons) of water and is updated every two years. Post-development, Utilities customers have an annual water allotment and may face Excess Water Use surcharges. NOTE: These are not the focus of this agenda item. They are, however, related and it is important to understand the connections. • Allotments: All non-residential taps (commercial businesses and irrigation taps) installed after March 1984 have an allotment (volume of water in gallons) that is based upon the WSR that was satisfied at the time of development or redevelopment. Currently only about 1,000 or 33% of existing commercial customers have allotments. Customers can turn in more water rights or pay additional cash-in-lieu to increase their allotments at any time. • Excess Water Use surcharge: Non-residential taps with allotments face this surcharge if their annual water use exceeds their allotment. This charge is in addition to the standard water use rates. The surcharge provides revenue to purchase additional water rights and/or infrastructure to account for the additional water demand over the allotment and therefore over the WSR satisfied for the property. The surcharge is based on the cash-in-lieu rate. The surcharge is currently $10.39 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment and is updated every two years. About 300 non-residential customers pay surcharges each year in the current system. The current system aims to ensure customers only exceed when they use water inefficiently. 2. Drivers, Outcomes and Benefits Utilities is responsible for ensuring our customers have enough water today and into the future. Utilities also upholds the City approach that development and redevelopment pay their own way. As the costs of acquiring and developing water resources have increased, the cost to secure water for the additional demand have increased, too. Since 2018 there has been a significant increase in both the cash-in-lieu rate and surcharge. This is not unique to Utilities – all water providers across the Front Range are facing a significant rise in costs. Most water providers are shifting to plan for populations much larger than previously expected, and at the same time, climate change is dramatically increasing the variability in water availability from year to year. Responsible water management is essential to meet the needs of Fort Collins today, and to maintain our quality of life into the future. Packet pg. 34 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 3 of 11 Back to Top The current WSR system uses tap size to determine the WSR for all non-residential developments. This can be problematic because tap size is determined by peak daily demand, which does not always correlate to annual water demand. Additionally, within a tap size, the current WSR calculation methodology is based on the average annual demand for all customers who currently have that tap size. Within any given tap size, there are many different business types, including mixed-use taps and irrigation taps that serve a variety of different sizes and types of landscapes that are all treated the same. Since it is an average, the actual water use of some developments will be above the WSR and some will be below. This creates equity issues for developers and customers alike; it means some developments subsidize other developments. And, in situations where the WSRs are too low relative to the property’s actual water use, the allotments are also too small, placing the burden on the eventual customers, who many have pay substantial surcharges each year. The proposed update can help Utilities, developers, and customers (the water users) by requiring a WSR volume much closer to the water demand that the property is predicted to use. This will minimize mismatches between actual use, the WSR, and the customer’s allotment. This is also the first WSR update that incentivizes water efficiency and innovation. Addressing these opportunities now can ensure the utility and the community are proactively implementing measures to meet future needs and manage increasing costs, while ensuring the problem of mismatched allotments and WSRs are not perpetuated into the future. The proposal aims to meet these needs by: • Increasing Accuracy: In response to the rising costs of water, adjusting WSRs to be more data-driven, detailed, and reflective of development-specific demand is becoming an industry standard. Increased accuracy benefits Utilities, developers, and future customers by ensuring WSRs, costs, and allotments are truer to the specific development’s predicted water use. • Improving Equity: Increased accuracy leads to increased equity by ensuring each development project pays their fair share. By better connecting the WSR calculation to expected water use, Utilities ensures each development pays their share of costs to acquire and develop additional water resources and makes it less likely that a development will pay too much or too little. It will also improve equity for the actual water users, our Utilities’ customers, by ensuring they are not left facing an allotment that is too small for their water needs. • Promoting water efficiency and innovation: Aligning WSR calculations to demand allows highly efficient developments, with lower water demand, to pay less, creating a cost incentive for more water-efficient designs. From the perspective of both Utilities and developers, integrating efficient design strategies at the time of construction is one of the most efficient and cost-effective strategies for managing water demand. Efficient designs also benefit the customer by lowering water bills. 3. Proposed Approach – WSR Updates A summary of the current and proposed systems is found in Table 1: Current and Proposed WSRs. More detail is provided later in this document. Table 1: Current and Proposed WSRs Sector Current calculation is based on: Proposed new concept is based on: Residential Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms + Outdoor Area Only Multifamily Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms* Commercial Tap Size Business Type* Packet pg. 35 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 4 of 11 Back to Top Irrigation Tap Size Landscape Type *All multifamily and commercial developments would be required to have a separate tap and WSR for irrigation. Some potential impacts of the proposed concept include: • Resource Implications: In alignment with industry best practices, the proposed concept requires additional information (e.g., outdoor area square footage, business type, and landscape type) to better predict the development’s future water demand. As a result, developers will be required to provide information at different points and, sometimes, earlier in the development review process. More staff resources will be needed for review and enforcement (estimated 5 hours/week). • Cost Implications to Developer: In the proposed concept, water-efficient developments and developments with lower water demand will pay less, while less efficient developments and developments with higher water use will pay more. While some developments will pay more in the proposed concept compared to the current system, the changes aim to increase accuracy and equity by better connecting the WSR calculation to expected water use and, as a result, ensure each development project pays their share of costs to acquire and develop additional water supply. • Cost Implications to Utilities: The proposed changes are not anticipated to impact Utilities’ finances; the changes are refinements of the current calculations. While lower water use developments would pay less, high water use development would pay more. As a result, there is a neutral impact to Utilities’ finances. • Customer Implications: While these changes are focused on development and redevelopment and, therefore, have the largest impact on the development community, the changes indirectly affect future customers by creating more accurate allotments. Better alignment between allotments and water use decreases the likelihood the actual water user, the customer, will incur large surcharge bills due to an allotment that does not match the development’s water need. To prevent all surcharges, customers will still have to manage water use wisely by avoiding excessive water use, inefficient practices, and leaks. MORE DETAILS More details about each sector are described below. Referenced equations can be found in Attachment 3. Non-residential (Commercial and Irrigation) As described earlier, the current WSR is based only on tap size, customers can have mixed use taps (outdoor and indoor use on the same tap), and tap size is determined by peak daily demand, which is largely uncorrelated with actual annual water use. The WSR amount is based on a historical average of all non-residential customers with the given tap size, which includes a mix of commercial businesses, irrigation, and mixed-use taps. There is a wide variation of annual water demand in each tap size. The new approach proposes eliminating mixed-use taps and separately predicting the WSR for indoor and outdoor water use. To this end, the new approach proposes that all commercial businesses and multifamily developments with landscape irrigation have a separate irrigation tap. • Commercial WSR: The new concept for commercial development calculations is based on business type and size of the business instead of tap size. This reflects that different types of business have different water demands (e.g., retail vs. restaurant water use). In the proposed concept, common business types have an assigned WSR value that was calculated using a predictive model informed by Utilities’ water use data and other information. Packet pg. 36 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 5 of 11 Back to Top High-water-use businesses and businesses that do not fit into an assigned category would be required to submit an engineered estimate that outlines estimated annual water use. Table 2: Proposed Commercial WSRs shows a draft of business types and corresponding WSRs: Table 2: Proposed Commercial WSRs Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay Childcare 28 gal/sq ft Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft Grocery 25 gal/sq ft Hospital Case by Case Hotel 24,000 gal/room Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft Nursing Homes Case by Case Office 7 gal/sq ft Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft Recreation 36 gal/sq ft Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft Retail 5 gal/sq ft Other Case by Case In this proposal, if a 100,000 square foot retail space was developed, the WSR would be calculated by multiplying 100,000 sq ft x 5 gal/sq ft, resulting in a 500,000 gallon WSR. Post-development, the customer would then also have a 500,000 gallon annual allotment. No approach or calculation methodology will be perfect. We know there will be variation within a business type and year-to year for a given business (e.g., not all 100,000-square-foot retail spaces use the exact same amount of water, nor does one customer use the same amount of water each year). However, the proposed approach addresses more variability than the current tap size system, resulting in a more accurate WSR and allotment, which benefits the end-user. Packet pg. 37 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 6 of 11 Back to Top • Irrigation WSRs: The new concept for landscape calculations is based on the amount of water needed by different categories of landscapes. This will reflect that some plants require more water in our semi-arid climate, while other plants require less water. The best tool to accomplish this is a Water Budget, which breaks down landscape types by estimated water use instead of tap size. Water budgets are already required in the LUC. In addition to leveraging the Water Budget table in LUC, Staff also proposes updating the Hydrozone values defined in LUC to better reflect plant water needs. These changes are described in detail in Section 4. The Water Budget in Table 3: Example Irrigation WSRs is made up of four different categories. Plants are grouped into each category depending on their annual water need as defined by the City of Fort Collins Plant List and industry standards. The WSR would be based on the total estimated annual water use found in the table. This proposed approach is already widely used by landscape architects, irrigation system designers, and landscape managers. Here is an example to illustrate how it would work: Table 3: Example Irrigation WSRs Water Budget Table Example development w/ 7,000 square feet of landscaped area Water Use Updated Water Value (gal/sq ft) Square Feet Water Requirement (gal) High 18 5,000 90,000 Medium 14 1,000 14,000 Low 8 1,000 8,000 Very Low 3 0 0 Estimated Annual Water Use (gal) 112,000 In the example above, the developer would need to satisfy a WSR of 112,000 gallons. Post-development, this WSR would be translated into a 112,000-gallon allotment for the customer. Like the shift to business type, the Water Budget approach does a better job accounting for different water demands by relying on landscape type rather than tap size, resulting in a more accurate WSR and allotment, which ultimately benefits the utility and the end-user. Additionally, in this model, lower water use landscapes will pay less, incentivizing efficient landscape design and creating more flexibility for developers. • Residential (2 units or less) and Multifamily (3 units or more): The current calculation for residential and multifamily WSRs is based on the number of bedrooms and total lot size per development. Number of bedrooms aims to estimate indoor water use by approximating occupancy, and the lot size aims to estimate outdoor water use. Given current data availability and analysis, number of bedrooms continues to be the strongest predictor for indoor water use in residential and multifamily settings. Lot size, however, is no longer the best predictor for outdoor water use. As a reminder, residential and multifamily WSRs are not translated into annual allotments. Only non-residential (commercial and multifamily) customers have allotments. The proposed concept for updating outdoor water use calculations in each sector is: o Residential (2 units or less): To reflect variations in outdoor irrigable area, staff recommends using outdoor area as a predictor of outdoor water instead of lot size. It is a better predictor of outdoor water Packet pg. 38 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 7 of 11 Back to Top use and also accounts for the variability of lot designs (e.g. a 7,000 square foot lot with 1,000 vs. 5,000 square feet of outdoor area). Additionally, this change allows for the possibility of indoor-only taps when there is no outdoor irrigation. o Multifamily (3 units or more): Due to the size and set up of multifamily developments, staff recommends requiring a separate irrigation tap that meets the irrigation sector requirements, described above, to account for outdoor water use in multifamily settings. This change will allow for better water management, proper tap sizing, and more accurate calculations. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING UPDATES________________________________________________ Several other items were identified as essential complements to the proposed WSR updates. These include: • Update WSR calculations every two years: To ensure WSRs reflect best practices and new building efficiencies, staff proposes WSR calculations be revisited and updated every two-years. • Water Plant Investment Fees (WPIFs): Water Plant Investment Fees (WPIFs) are the other large component of water development fees and cover the transmission, treatment, and distribution of water. Currently, there is one non-residential WPIF that is applied to both irrigation and commercial taps. To align WSR and WPIFs, staff proposes separating the non-residential WPIF into a commercial WPIF and irrigation WPIF. Compared to today’s rates, commercial indoor PIFs will decrease in cost by roughly 50%, while irrigation PIFs will increase by 50%. • Surcharge Waived for Landscape Establishment: Native and water-wise landscapes require up to three years of supplemental water to become fully established. To account for this establishment period, staff proposes waiving the surcharge for the first three years. During this time, customers would still pay standard water rates but would not pay any surcharges if they exceed their allotment. • Non-Residential (Commercial and Irrigation Only) Alternative Compliance: To encourage innovative and efficient design, staff proposes an alternative compliance option for non-residential designs to meet a lower WSR if they provide an engineered estimate that demonstrates lower water use. Currently, staff recommends to only provide alternative compliance for non-residential customers because there are limited tools to regulate alternative compliance in residential settings. See “Next Steps” for additional information. • Redevelopment: Currently WSRs are only evaluated in redevelopment scenarios when a new water meter is installed. No evaluation takes place if there is only a change of use (e.g., retail space is redeveloped into a brewery). To account for these situations, staff proposes including a WSRs revaluation any time a change of use permit is filed with the building department. In the future, if a development has a higher water need, they will be credited for the current WSR and required to meet the difference to satisfy the higher WSR. If the future development has a lower water need, they will not be required to meet any additional WSRs, and their WSR and allotment will stay the same (i.e., it will not be lowered). • Require Preliminary Irrigation Plan: Irrigation design is also essential for landscape water use. Currently staff reviews irrigation plans for all commercial and HOA landscapes. To ensure irrigation design matches the irrigation WSR landscape, staff proposes requiring a preliminary version of the irrigation plan earlier in the development review process to allow for a joint review and better alignment with the Landscape Plan. 4. Land Use Code Changes To ensure an adequate WSR and associated allotments, staff proposes requiring an individual Hydrozone table for every tap, which currently is a requirement only on irrigation plans, and increasing the Hydrozone Values found in section 3.2.1(E)(3) of the LUC. Staff analyzed approximately 40 existing landscapes on development projects, corresponding landscape plans, and water use to understand how the existing Hydrozone values correspond to plant need and efficient Packet pg. 39 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 8 of 11 Back to Top water use. Using industry best practices and watering recommendations for specfic plant zones, water budget values were adjusted to find the optimal values that ensure plant health while reflecting efficient watering practices. The result of this analysis is a proposal to increase the water values for the moderate, low, and very low value that are required for water budget tables on landscape plans. Specifically, staff proposes: Table 4: Current and Proposed Hydrozone Values Hydrozone Current Water Value Proposed Water Value High 18 gal/sq ft 18 gal/sq ft Moderate 10 gal/sq ft 14 gal/sq ft Low 8 gal/sq ft 8 gal/sq ft Very Low 0 gal/sq ft 3 gal/sq ft The potential impacts of this change include increased water budgets, and subsequent WSR costs, and challenges meeting the LUC’s requirement that landscapes use no more than an average of 15 gallons of water per square foot. Of the 44 landscapes reviewed, 4 would not meet the 15 gallon per square foot requirement under the proposed water values, summarized in Table 5: Landscape Plan Analysis. All four landscapes were installed in the 2010s, shortly after the 15 gallon per square foot requirement was implemented. Staff feels that these details, coupled with feedback during Public Outreach and an observed shift towards developments adopting more water-wise resilient landscapes, minimize risks associated with the proposed Hydrozone value changes. Requiring a separate Hydrozone table for each tap, rather than for the entire landscape, could require additional design analysis earlier in the development review process. However, it would ensure that irrigation and landscape plans align and that the developer is verifying that each tap is properly sized and has adequate water supply for the landscape it would be serving. As a result, it would also encourage a more efficient use of water resources and make the need for costly adjustments to meter size or water supply less likely. Table 5: Landscape Plan Analysis Development Site Current Average Gal/Sq Ft Future Average Gal/Sq Ft Country Club Reserve 0.4 3.4 River Modern 3.1 6.1 Fox Grove Phase One 3.8 6.2 Lakeview on the Rise 4.0 6.8 Manhattan Townhomes 3.9 8.2 Mountain's Edge 4.5 8.3 Pateros Creek 3.9 8.7 Foothills Mall Redevelopment 4.2 9.0 The Lyric 4.9 9.3 Village on Redwood 5.0 9.3 Bucking Horse Filing One 5.0 9.7 Timbervine 5.5 10.1 Prospect Station 7.3 10.2 Milestone Apartments 5.7 10.3 Union Place 6.8 10.6 East Ridge Second Filing 6.1 10.7 Village on Horsetooth 7.0 10.7 Packet pg. 40 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 9 of 11 Back to Top Serious Texas BBQ 7.0 11.1 Fairview Apartments 6.9 11.3 The Wyatt 7.6 11.3 Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care 7.9 11.5 Waterfield 8.4 11.8 Brinkman Headquarters Office 7.5 11.9 Harmony Technology Park 4 7.5 11.9 West Plum Housing 8.5 11.9 Arrowhead Condos 8.6 12.5 Willow Springs PUD 2nd 8.6 12.8 One Boardwalk Place 8.6 12.8 Old Town Flats 9.6 12.9 Banner Health Medical Campus 10.2 13.2 The Overlook 9.8 13.3 Spring Creek Farms North Filing No. 2 11.0 13.4 Capstone Cottages 10.0 13.4 Northfield Multi-family Development 9.8 13.8 One Boardwalk Place 10.0 14.0 East Ridge Third Filing 10.0 14.0 Standard at Fort Collins 10.8 14.4 Harmony Cottages 12.5 14.6 Max Flats 12.3 14.7 Carriage House 12.6 15.0 Aspen Heights 13.3 15.1 Brookdale Senior Housing 13.4 15.7 Warren Federal Credit Union - East Drake 14.0 16.0 Stadium Apartments 14.8 16.4 5. Public Outreach Staff has completed extensive internal and external outreach, summarized below. Staff are grateful to the many individuals who contributed to the proposal. • Internal: City Departments including Parks Planning, Parks, Natural Areas, Building Services, Utilities Finance, and Planning and Development Review all provided extensive feedback. A few notable comments and suggestions include: o Support changes, particularity in the irrigation and commercial sector. o Plan for additional staff time needed to review and enforce. • External: Staff met with a variety of external stakeholders including the Chamber of Commerce, credit and certificate holders, certified landscape professionals, the Board of Realtors, Key Utilities Accounts, the restaurant community, and property owners. A few notable comments and suggestions include: Packet pg. 41 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 10 of 11 Back to Top o Help provide education for business owners and highly impacted business sectors (e.g. restaurants) to ensure customers understand the implications when redeveloping and/or developing by expanding to a new location. • Focus Group: In addition to the individual external stakeholder engagement, staff completed four 2-hour focus groups to gather in-depth feedback from highly impacted groups. 68 developers, landscape architects, irrigation designers, and builders were invited to participate. 17 were ultimately able to attend the sessions. Each session covered a specific topic. Feedback gathered at each focus group is summarized below in Table 4: Focus Group Summary: • Other Water Providers Within City Limits: Both Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) and East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) were informed of these changes. Each water provider has their own unique drivers, and governing bodies, that set WSRs. While ELCO uses a similar Water Budget table methodology, neither would be impacted by the proposed changes. • Boards and Commissions: Staff presented to the Water Board (Oct 2019, April 2021, June 2021), Building Review Board (April 2021), Natural Resource Advisory Board (June 2021) and to many Board and Commission members at a Super Issue meeting (April 2021). Meeting minutes and notes from these events can be found in Attachment 4. A few notable comments and suggestions include: o Support of changes, especially requiring separate irrigation tap. o Desire to include alternative compliance for single and multifamily developments in future WSR update efforts. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council adopt the proposed amendments to LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(3) related to water conservation requirements. Table 4: Focus Group Summary Focus What We Heard What We Incorporated Irrigation • Like that cost is reflective of how much a landscape will use. • Request for alternative compliance option. • Alternative compliance method allowed if supplemental design information is provided that demonstrates lower water use. Commercial • Like that cost is more reflective of actual businesses water use. • Request for alternative compliance option. • Request to not require separate irrigation tap if there is minimal outdoor irrigation. • Alternative compliance method allowed if supplemental design information is provided that demonstrates lower water use. • If landscape requires less than 30,000 gallons a year, a separate irrigation tap will not be required. Residential and Multifamily • Like that multifamily is required to have separate irrigation tap as it allows for lower costs with efficient design. • Request for alternative compliance option. • Ensure water use analysis is reflective of efficiencies in new builds. • Exploring building and land use code updates that would make alternative compliance feasible in the future. • Requirements updated every two years to reflect any efficiencies due to new building codes or other relevant changes. Packet pg. 42 P&Z - Agenda Item 4 Water Supply Requirements Land Use Code Amendments July 15, 2021 | Page 11 of 11 Back to Top 7. Attachments 1. Fort Collins Water District Map 2. Definitions and Terms 3. Water Supply Requirement Calculations 4. Boards and Commission Meeting Minutes Packet pg. 43 !!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!INTERSTATE 25S SHIELDS STS COLLEGE AVES TAFT HILL RDE VINE DR S TIMBERLINE RDLAPORTE AVE E PROSPECT RD S LEMAY AVEE DOUGLAS RD W DRAKE RD STATE HIGHWAY 392N OVERLAND TRLE MULBERRY ST E DRAKE RD S COUNTY ROAD 5C O U N T Y R O A D 5 4 G N U S H I G H W A Y 2 8 7 N SHIELDS STW MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD S OVERLAND TRLE COUNTY ROAD 30ZIEGLER RDW TRILBY RD E HORSETOOTH RDN COUNTY ROAD 23W COUNTY ROAD 38ECARPENTER RDS COUNTY ROAD 23 E LINCOLN AVEN TAFT HILL RDE COUNTY ROAD 38 W HORSETOOTH RD TURNBERRY RDW ELIZABETH ST N LEMAY AVETERRY LAKE RDS COUNTY ROAD 19N COUNTY ROAD 5S CENTENNIAL DR G R E G O R Y R D GIDDINGS RDW LAUREL ST KECHTER RD S US HIGHWAY 287E COUNTY ROAD 54 E COUNTY ROAD 52 / Fort Collins Area Water Districts 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles Water Districts East Larimer County Water District Fort Collins Loveland Water District Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Sunset Water District West Fort Collins Water District !!City Limits GMA Major Streets Railroads Figure Updated: 9/23/2015 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 44 Information current as of May 2021 Definitions and Terms related to Water Supply Requirements Update •Acre-foot: An acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. One acre-foot can supply around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year. For comparison, the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-feet. •Allotment: The volume of water a given tap can use per year before incurring Excess Water Use surcharges. Only non-residential taps installed after 1984 have water allotments. The allotment volume is based on the amount of Water Supply Requirement satisfied at the time of development plus any increases to the allotment paid for after development. A customer may increase their allotment at any time by paying cash or providing additional water rights. •Allotment Management Program: Provides eligible Utilities water customers with a temporary waiver from their Excess Water Use surcharges if they meet certain qualifications and submit an application detailing a project that demonstrates long-term water reductions. •Cash-in-lieu: The cash equivalent of the water supply required to meet the needs of development. The cash-in-lieu rate is based off the cost to meet future water needs and includes the expected cost to acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The current cost is $42,422 per 325,851 gallons and is updated every two years. •Duplex: Residential buildings of two dwelling units. •Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms and a single kitchen designed for or occupied as a unit by one family for living and cooking purposes, located in a single-family or multifamily dwelling. •ELCO: East Larimer County Water District. Water district that generally serves the northeastern portion of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Map found here. •Excess Water Use (EWU) surcharge: A volumetric charge assessed on all water used through the remainder of the calendar year once a non-residential customer has exceeded their annual allotment. The EWU is applied in addition to the regular utility rates. This surcharge is tied to the cash-in-lieu rate for the Water Supply Requirements and is evaluated every two years. Revenue from the EWU surcharge goes toward acquiring, developing and improving Utilities’ water supplies to address the impact of customers exceeding their planned allotment. The current EWU surcharge is $10.39 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment. •FCLWD: Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. Water district that generally serves all areas south of Harmony Road in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Map found here. •Multifamily: Residential development with three or more dwelling units •Non-residential: All commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes, fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools, including HOA common spaces and irrigation accounts. •Plant Investment Fees: Water Impact Fee paid by the developer to cover the cost of transmission, treatment, and distribution of water to a new development. •Residential: Single-family, duplex, mobile / manufactured homes, and multi-family dwelling units, including fraternity and sorority multifamily housing. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 45 Information current as of May 2021 • Water Impact Fees: Fees met by developers to cover the costs of acquiring water supply, the transmission, treatment, and distribution of water, as well as installation of cost of the water meter. • Water Supply Factor (1.92): Factor historically included in Water Supply Requirement calculations to account for annual variation in water right yields, different sources of supplies, losses between water sources and the taps, and annual variations in water demands. • Water Supply Requirements (WSR): Water Supply Requirements (WSRs) are part of the Water Impact Fees met by developers to account for the additional demand created from new development. WSR is a requirement for water service from Utilities. A WSR accounts for the additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of water, brought into the Utilities water service area by a new development or redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by dedicating water rights or paying cash-in-lieu to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop reliable water resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure. WSRs are in line with the approach that development pays for itself. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 46 Page 1 of 4 Summary of Current and Proposed Water Supply Requirement (WSR) Calculations Single Family: All residential single family and duplex (2 dwelling units) developments. •Current calculation: 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =1.92 × [7.048 × 𝐿𝑚𝑞 𝑅𝑖𝑧𝑑 (𝑞𝑞.𝑑𝑞.)+[12,216.9 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞] 325,851 where, o 1.92: Water supply factor to account for variability in supplies due to annual variation in water right yields, difference sources of water supply, losses between water sources and taps, and annual variation in water demand. o Lot Size: Area of parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet, excluding public street right-of-ways, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner of premises or an agent of the owner. o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. o 325,851: Conversion factor from gallons to acre-feet. •Proposed new concept based on: 𝐼𝑚𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =12,200 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑁𝑞𝑞𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =10 × 𝑁𝑞𝑞𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝐴𝑞𝑑𝑎 (𝑞𝑞.𝑑𝑞.) where, o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. o Outdoor Area: Area of the parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet, less: the area of any buildings, paved driveways, City sidewalks, public street rights-of-way, City-maintained tracts and rights-of-way, ditches, railways, and other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 47 Page 2 of 4 Multifamily: All residential developments with 3 or more dwelling units. • Current calculation: 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =1.92 × [9.636 × 𝐿𝑚𝑞 𝑅𝑖𝑧𝑑 (𝑞𝑞.𝑑𝑞.)+[13,592.8 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞] 325,851 where, o 1.92: Water supply factor to account for variability in supplies due to annual variation in water right yields, difference sources of water supply, losses between water sources and taps, and annual variation in water demand. o Lot Size: Area of parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet, excluding public street right-of-ways, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner of premises or an agent of the owner. o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. o 325,851: Conversion factor from gallons to acre-feet. • Proposed new concept based on: 𝐼𝑚𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =13,100 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞 Required to have separate irrigation tap. See Irrigation Tap (page 4) for details. where, o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 48 Page 3 of 4 Non-Residential (Commercial and Irrigation): All commercial, irrigation, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes, fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools. • Current calculation: Tap size. Table 1 outlines WSR and allotments by tap size. • Proposed new concept based on: Separate commercial and irrigation WSR calculations and methodologies to estimate water use for each sector. o Commericial: Table 2 outlines proposed WSRs by common business types. Case by case or business types not on this list required to submit engineered estimate. Unique or highly efficient designs will be allowed to apply for alternative compliance and, if approved, meet a lower WSR. Table 2: Proposed Concept for Commericial WSRs Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay Childcare 28 gal/sq ft Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft Grocery 25 gal/sq ft Hospital Case by Case Hotel 24,000 gal/room Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft Nursing Homes Case by Case Office 7 gal/sq ft Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft Recreation 36 gal/sq ft Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft Retail 5 gal/sq ft Other Case by Case Table 1: Current Non-Residential WSRs by Tap Size Tap Size (inches) WSR (acre-feet) Annual Allotment (Gal/Year) 3/4 0.90 293,270 1 2.27 739,680 1.5 4.72 1,538,020 2 7.91 2,577,480 3 or above Engineered estimate required. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 49 Page 4 of 4 o Irrigation: Table 3 outlines proposed WSRs calculated by grouping common plant types into water use categories. Different plant types are categorized into each water use category based on industry standards and the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Unique or highly efficient designs will be allowed to apply for alternative compliance and, if approved, meet a lower WSR. Table 3: Proposed Concept for Irrigation WSRs Water Use Water Value (gal/sq ft) High 18 Medium 14 Low 8 Very Low 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 50 City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 25, 2021 Alan Cram, Chair Tim Johnson, Vice Chair Brad Massey Katharine Penning Eric Richards Justin Robinson Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Rich Anderson Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes March 25, 2021 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held virtually on Thursday, March 25, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Mr. Anderson read a statement regarding authorization and procedures for remote meetings. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Penning, Richards, Teplitsky ABSENT: Robinson STAFF: Anderson, Manno, Havelda, Schiager AGENDA REVIEW No changes to the published agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:07 a.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28, 2021 MEETING. Mr. Richards moved to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2021 meeting. Mr. Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Building Review Board ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 51 City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 25, 2021 2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to provide information on the proposed changes to Water Supply Requirements Calculations, Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, and the potential impacts they will have on the Building Review Process. STAFF: Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager Staff Report Ms. Neel presented the staff report, explaining that water supply requirements refer to irrigation needs. She explained the formula that is currently being used is based on lot size, but staff has determined it would more accurately be calculated based on outdoor area. She talked about the process changes that would be needed to make this change and explained that this change would mean properties with no outdoor area would not have any water supply requirements. She also explained the pros and cons of the proposed approach noting it allows for indoor-only taps. She noted an analysis of single-family developments built between 2015 and 2019 showed 10% of the time, the proposed new system would have cost more and 90% of the time, it would have cost less. She stated staff is seeking a motion from the Board in support of the changes. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Richards asked if all hardscaped areas will be removed from the lot size calculation. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative but noted sidewalks are not included as they are not consistent throughout the city and can easily be changed. Mr. Richards asked if the City reviews whether the developer or homeowner actually installs proposed hardscaping and calculations are therefore accurate. Mr. Anderson replied some type of process will need to be implemented depending upon what Council decides. He stated he has worked in communities wherein impervious cover surveys were required as part of final documents and that type of model could be used. Ms. Neel clarified the difference between impervious and pervious surfaces noting the building footprint, garage footprint, driveways, and those types of structures are deemed impervious. Mr. Richards asked if there are benefits to the developer for xeriscaping. Ms. Neel replied in the negative as there is no way of ensuring xeric landscaping will remain in the future. Ms. Penning asked about the current requirements for identifying impervious and new impervious area based on modifications to a site. Mr. Anderson replied he would need to do research on those specific requirements regarding the building permitting process and get back to the Board. Ms. Penning asked if that process may only occur during the planning and development process. Ms. Neel replied she believes that is correct but noted it would need to be required as part of the building permit process should these changes be implemented. Ms. Penning commented determining new impervious area should be readily attainable though the cost of having a finalized survey may be a deterrent for custom home builders. Mr. Anderson replied the policy that would be implemented would likely not require the survey unless it couldn’t be verified. Public Input Mr. Hill asked how things like necessary water for maintenance of turf lawns and the placement of aggregate material is taken into account. He commented on challenges with establishing xeric-style grasses. Ms. Neel replied there is a great deal of opportunity to refine the current proposal to take those kinds of issues into consideration. She commented on the need to refine calculations and create a more formalized process to take into account specific landscaping details and possible future changes thereto for single-family homes. She noted there is a process in place commercially and for HOAs and that does include incentives for xeric landscaping. Mr. Hill asked if landscape plans are required for residential projects. Ms. Neel replied that is not required there are currently no landscape or irrigation standards for single-family lots; however, staff is discussing moving forward with some type of standards for those items moving forward. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 52 City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 25, 2021 Mr. Hill asked if a percentage of landscaping is required to be installed in order for a single-family project to get a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Anderson replied there are zoning requirements, particularly commercially; however, those standards are not as restrictive for single-family homes and backflow preventers are the only item inspected for single-family homes. Board Questions and Discussion (continued...) Mr. Teplitsky asked about the average cost of a single-family water tap and approximate range of savings if this were to be implemented. Ms. Neel replied she would share that information with the Board upon doing additional research. Mr. Teplitsky asked if the fees are being paid to the City. Ms. Neel replied they are being paid to Fort Collins Utilities. Mr. Teplitsky asked if these changes would mean less revenue for the Utilities. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative but noted that would be offset by the lack of need for the water. Mr. Richards stated it would be helpful for the City to implement a rebate program or system that would require a homeowner to reapply every couple years for water rate reductions based on maintaining xeriscaping and that type of thing. He asked if developments could opt for no exterior water taps. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative and noted those fees would be dropped to zero should a building be able to prove no outdoor tap is in use for irrigation purposes. She noted this helps to account for scenarios wherein the only irrigation is occurring in common spaces. Ms. Penning asked if there is a conservation benefit of this proposal from the City’s point of view. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative and noted it is much more cost effective to conserve than acquire new supply. Mr. Teplitsky commented on the high cost of water in Fort Collins being linked to housing affordability. He concurred with the idea of continuously refining this program. Ms. Neel commented on Fort Collins being serviced by different water providers who have differing charges. Chair Cram stated he is uncomfortable with the number of details that have yet to be addressed and he noted full build-out of the city’s lots will likely occur in the not-to-distant future. Given this only applies to new developments, he questioned the future of the program. Ms. Neel replied she would be willing to come back before the Board with additional detail and noted there is currently an extensive incentive and conservation program for existing developments. She also commented briefly on existing programs that address redevelopment. Mr. Johnson stated he likes where this is headed; however, he was unsure about supporting the suggested broad-ranging motion that may be too substantial of an approval at this point. Ms. Neel stated she would be open to recrafting the motion and stated she would like to return before the Board with specific responses given there is ample time to do so before the consideration of this item goes to Council. Ms. Neel commented on the City’s desire to not necessarily require xeric landscaping, but rather to incentivize its use by lowering maintenance costs. Chair Cram suggested common areas be more specifically addressed in this presentation. Ms. Neel replied she did not include that as it is not included in the building review process; however, she noted the development review process requires an improved landscape plan and matching irrigation plan for common areas which allows staff to determine an estimated water use for the landscape. Mr. Anderson noted the Board does not appear to be ready to take any formal action at this time. Chair Cram suggested tabling this item until additional information could be provided. Members agreed with that approach. [Timestamp: 10:07 a.m.] 3. RUCKER HILL MENTORSHIP PROGRAM REQUEST DESCRIPTION: The purpose for this item is for the Board to consider approval of a request by Rucker Hill to enter into a Contractor Mentorship Agreement in order to gain credit toward the project verifications required to qualify for the license level he seeks. STAFF: Rich Anderson, Chief Building Official ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 53 City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 25, 2021 Disclosure of Conflicts Mr. Richards stated he had a conflict of interest as he has worked for Mr. Hill and his company and they are also close acquaintances. Mr. Richards left the meeting. Staff Presentation Mr. Anderson presented the staff report as written in the agenda packet materials. He stated Mr. Hill is seeking the Board’s approval for the Building Official to allow him to construct a building for which he does not have a supervisor certificate or license. He is seeking a mentor for the project which would allow him to add this project to his list of completed projects and receive credit toward his project verifications required by the City’s contractor licensing code. Appellant Arguments Mr. Hill stated his name for the record and agreed to the remote format of the hearing. He explained his request and identified his chosen mentor as Paul Bruck of Bruck Enterprises. Staff Response Mr. Anderson clarified that the Board had previously approved Mr. Hill had for a mentorship arrangement on a different permit. If approved, this would be Mr. Hill’s third and final job verification needed to obtain his requested D1 license. Ms. Manno confirmed that was the case and stated Mr. Hill currently holds a D2 license. Board Questions of Staff and Appellant Ms. Penning expressed support for the mentorship program. Mr. Massey asked who is ultimately responsible for the project. Mr. Anderson replied the permit would typically be issued to the mentor, and Mr. Hill would be allowed to perform the work under that. Mr. Massey expressed support for the mentorship. Mr. Teplitsky expressed general support but wanted to ensure a fair and consistent approach. He asked with whom the contract to purchase the house is written. Mr. Hill replied this is a spec home and typically construction is completed before the home is sold. Mr. Teplitsky expressed concern about the mentee being encouraged to be the contractor, but his abilities are limited to the capacity of a supervisor from a City licensing standpoint. Mr. Anderson suggested this could be addressed by allowing a temporary assignment of another supervisory certificate to Mr. Hill’s license allowing him to obtain the permit. Mr. Teplitsky agreed with that approach and suggested looking at these situations on a case-by-case basis in the future. Board Deliberation Chair Cram closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Johnson moved that the Building Review Board approves the Rucker Hill request, allowing the Building Official to review, approve and implement this mentorship as discussed, and empowering the Building Official to monitor and revoke this privilege if the mentor or mentee are not performing their duties. Mr. Massey seconded. Mr. Teplitsky asked to confirm that the permit would be issued in Mr. Hill’s name, but the mentorship agreement would be in place. Mr. Anderson answered in the affirmative and stated Staff work out the logistics. Mr. Johnson stated he is comfortable with allowing the Chief Building Official to resolve the details. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 10:30 a.m.] Mr. Richards returned to the meeting. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 54 City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 25, 2021 4. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY’S CONTRACTOR LICENSING CODE – CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE V, SECTION 15-157 (e) DESCRIPTION: CBO Rich Anderson is seeking the Board’s support of the proposed changes to a sub-section of the contractor licensing code. Staff Report Mr. Anderson presented the staff report explaining the proposal. He read the proposed text for the Code section and noted if the Chief Building Official is granted this ability, his or her decision would still be appealable to the Building Review Board. Public Input None. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Teplitsky asked why the examination requirement would be waived. Mr. Anderson replied the intent is to allow individuals the time to pass the exam while still allowing them to start their project. He noted that language could be stricken, however, and this could only apply toward project verification. Mr. Teplitsky replied he would prefer the aforementioned path with the exception of significant circumstances such as testing centers being shut down due to the pandemic, for example. Mr. Anderson read the code section as currently written and further detailed the proposed changes. Ms. Penning agreed with Mr. Teplitsky regarding testing requirements. Mr. Anderson stated he could amend the wording of a motion so that testing remains a requirement. He also noted all decisions are still appealable to the Board. [Secretary’s Note: The Board took a short break to allow Mr. Anderson to revise the code language. A roll call was taken upon resuming the meeting to ensure all members were present.] The revised Code language was displayed for the Board and read by Mr. Anderson as shown below. (e) The Building Official may grant a temporary upgrade to an existing supervisor certificate valid for thirty (30) days a specific project or a specific timeframe determined by the Building Official, without an examination or the Code required project verification. This approval shall be based upon specific individual extraordinary circumstances and upon finding that any petitioner for such certificate is otherwise qualified. The Building Official shall administer the provisions of this subsection and shall adopt reasonable rules and procedures for such purposes. Any person seeking such temporary certificate must submit a written request describing in detail the their experience, specific extraordinary circumstances, showing just cause for justification for such a certificate the request and a completed application for a supervisor certificate, including all necessary fees as provided in § 15-158. Board Deliberation Based on the Staff Report presented, Ms. Penning moved to allow Building Services to move forward with the proposed changes to City Code Chapter 15, Article V, Section 15-157(e) and that Chair Alan Cram draft a letter in support of these changes for Council consideration. Mr. Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 5. UPDATE ON THE JOINT ADOPTION OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FAMILY OF CODE Mr. Anderson gave a brief update the status of this effort. Board Questions and Discussion Chair Cram thanked Mr. Anderson for the update and stated he looks forward to our codes being more aligned with those of our neighboring jurisdictions. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 55 City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 25, 2021 6. UPDATE ON CONTRACTOR LICENSING Ms. Manno updated the Board on the status of this effort and discussions with Loveland and Larimer County. Mr. Anderson detailed his request to examine current license levels and determine what is needed and what might be missing in licensing regulations by having discussions with Loveland and Larimer County. He noted this includes looking at what it might take to get landscape irrigation contractors and medical gas and vacuum contractors licensed. 7. UPDATE ON WATER HEATER PERMITS AND DORA REQUIREMENTS Mr. Anderson informed the Board he had recently learned that the City had been issuing permits to HVAC contactors for specific types of water heaters and boilers for which DORA requires a licensed plumber to do the work. The City has made process changes to remedy this issue to and has notified all HVAC contractors that these permits would no longer be issued to them. 8. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Board will elect a new Chair and Vice Chair. Mr. Richards asked if Chair Cram was willing to continue as Chair. He responded in the affirmative. Chair Cram asked for any other nominations and there were none. The Board voted 6-0 to have Chair Cram continue as Chair. Chair Cram asked if Mr. Johnson was willing to continue as Vice Chair. He responded in the affirmative. Chair Cram asked for any other nominations and there were none. The Board voted 6-0 to have Mr. Johnson continue as Vice Chair. [Timestamp: 11:12 a.m.] OTHER BUSINESS o In light of recent attendance issues, Chair Cram opened a discussion as to whether the current meeting time for the Board was the best time for everyone. Ms. Penning replied daytime is difficult for work schedules and either earlier than the current time or later in the afternoon would be better. Mr. Teplitsky replied evenings would work and daytime afternoons would be better for him than the current time. Mr. Anderson stated staff would prefer to keep meetings during normal working hours if possible; however, they would accommodate what is best for the Board and any necessary room scheduling requirements. Mr. Johnson stated he prefers daytime meetings, but afternoons are better. Mr. Massey also stated he would prefer keeping the meetings during business hours. Mr. Richards stated he would prefer business hours meetings as well. Members and staff had a discussion regarding the difficulty of scheduling in Council Chambers and other issues related to rescheduling. Members expressed a preference for continuing to meet online permanently as it is easier for everyone to participate. Chair Cram stated he will approach the Board’s Council Liaison, Ross Cunniff, to express this preference and discuss whether that would be possible. Mr. Anderson suggested any members who would like to continue remotely should also contact the Council Liaison. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 56 .5< 3< ,02+<6 </3<5 < <16<<-9<1/5 6!/,<,<6 6<74 <3--- 9/7(<<6'"- </83<6 <5711/36<2/(< 03<6 </3< -, - <-:6<+/,6 3<4+<&/73-<6 <+6 , <6< < <<+ ! # #"# # ## !"# ! #"#! # # -765<114/8<;<<8/6</<6 </3< /-< < < ! <-35/-< <7 *$, < %(< )-<4+< #3< ### Rich Anderson Digitally signed by Rich Anderson Date: 2021.05.03 10:37:11 -06'00' ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 57 WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING April 15, 2021, 5:30-7:30 p.m. online via Zoom 0 4/15/2021 –MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL • Board Members Present: Kent Bruxvoort (Chairperson), Greg Steed (Vice Chairperson), Cibi Chinnasamy, Jason Tarry, John Primsky, Michael Brown, Paul Herman, Phyllis Ortman, Randy Kenyon, Tyler Eldridge • Staff Members Present: Katherine Martinez, Samantha Littleton, Matt Fater, Katie Collins, Mariel Miller, Alice Conovitz, Elizabeth Blythe, Donnie Dustin, Liesel Hans, Donnie Dustin, Mark Cassalia, Abbye Neel, John Song, Meagan Smith • Members of the Public: None 3. AGENDA REVIEW None 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Bruxvoort asked for comments on the March minutes. Board Member Randy Kenyon moved to approve the March 18, 2021 minutes. Vice Chairperson Greg Steed seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 8-0, with two abstentions from board members Cibi Chinnasamy and Tyler Eldridge due to their absence at the March 18 Regular Meeting. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Staff Reports (Attachments available upon request) i. Monthly Financial Report (meeting packet only; no presentation) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 58 WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING 0 4/15/2021 –MINUTES Page 2 Discussion Highlights A board member found it worth noting that there were significant unrealized losses in investment funds from Water Utility accounts, i.e. $441K from Water, $233K from Wastewater, and $134K from Stormwater. Staff Liaison Matt Fater consulted with Utility Strategic Finance Director Lance Smith, who stated that the unrealized loss is related to the current market value of the bond market. Utilities only invests in Treasury Bills or other very low risk bonds, and never realizes such a loss because the bonds are held until maturity before rolling them over into new bonds. However, it is an accounting requirement to recognize the current value of any investments, and the bond market does fluctuate. So if the current portfolio of bonds were to be sold, it would have to be sold on the open market, and at this time, yes, Utilities would expect to recover less than if they were held until maturity. The losses shown across the three Water Utility accounts total about $800K on investments totaling $100-120M, or less than 1% due to market fluctuations. ii. Memo: Update on Water Shortage Planning Efforts and Potential for Restrictions in 2021 (meeting packet only; no presentation) Discussion Highlights A board member noted that Northern Water has established the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) quota at 70%. Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager, commented that the City also receives Horsetooth supplies from North Poudre Irrigation Co., and overall, the working quota puts the City in a good position. Mariel Miller, Water Conservation Specialist, added that the memo was sent to the City Council and is awaiting a response from the City Manager regarding the implementation of voluntary water restrictions. iii. Memo: US Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Grant (meeting packet only; no presentation) Discussion Highlights Katie Collins, Xeriscape Programs Manager, spoke about the grant, a $75K request to help support the Commercial Xeriscape Incentive Program that, if awarded, will receive a response from the Bureau of Reclamation in mid to late summer of 2021. A board member inquired whether landscape projects will continue regardless of the reception of the grant. The current budget will indeed allow projects to continue into 2022, but the grant would provide significant rebates to participating customers. iv. Water Resources Monthly Report (no presentation) No discussion. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 59 WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING 0 4/15/2021 –MINUTES Page 3 v. Water Supply Requirement Update Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager, provided an update on the status of the Water Supply Requirement Project that was brought to the Water Board in October of 2020. Water Supply Requirements (WSRs) are met by developers to account for the additional demand created from new development. These water supplies ensure water reliability and are translated into an equivalent annual water allotment. The update focused on feedback from stakeholder outreach and updates to the residential/multifamily water supply requirements. To address opportunities for accuracy and equity, decrease unnecessary financial burden on end users, and ensure that sufficient WSRs are met, Utilities proposed to change the current WSR and allotment methodology. In the new proposal, WSRs and allotments will be determined by a development’s characteristics (e.g. square footage, business type, landscape type, number of bedrooms, etc.) to more closely align its WSR/allotment with its water usage. By increasing accuracy, Utilities aims to continue to responsibly manage water supplies, while preventing unnecessary financial burdens on customers. Discussion Highlights Abbye Neel highlighted that there will be changes to all four sectors to better align with customers’ water use: irrigation, non-residential (commercial), multifamily, and residential. Two more significant updates are the reevaluation in plant investment fees and an outreach effort to about 20 developers, builders, and architects regarding the proposed changes. A board member appreciated the idea of a separate irrigation tap for outdoor use to better calculate water requirements. Another board member would like to see in better detail during the June presentation what the unforeseen consequences of the 2018 update was for customers that the proposal will address, as well as the responses from the 20 organizations of the community. vi. 2020 Water Conservation Annual Report Mariel Miller, Water Conservation Specialist, presented on the 2020 Water Conservation Annual Report. The Water Conservation Team supports policy, community, and operational goals set by the Water Efficiency Plan. Each year, Water Conservation is required to produce an annual report in accordance with the Water Efficiency Plan to summarize water savings associated with conservation programs, education, and other related efforts. Discussion Highlights A board member inquired about the purpose of the residential customer budget, as the City doesn’t currently establish monthly billing in accordance ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 60 WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING 0 4/15/2021 –MINUTES Page 4 to a budget. Ms. Miller assured that it’s informational to help improve the community’s water literacy and help customers better understand their water usage. The City received free technical assistance from the state to develop those budgets to test in the summer and apply in the fall and winter next year. A board member wanted to see a comparison of savings by year and percentage against total usage for perspective. Another board member would like to see a case study of the application of a program for a commercial property in future annual reporting. vii. Utilities Customer Satisfaction Survey Mark Cassalia, Customer Accounts Manager, and Samantha Littleton, Strategic Account Specialist, presented on the 2020 Utilities Customer Satisfaction Survey. This presentation relays the first round of responses to the Water and Wastewater survey created in congruence with J.D. Powers. Discussion Highlights Board members commented on how to better communicate the pricing model to customers and on the difficulties of messaging the bill. Mr. Cassalia responded that they need to highlight how the pricing is comparably low for the region and should communicate that better to customers. Board members asked if the recent staff leadership changes have affected communication at all and how the presented metrics can translate to policy or solution. Mr. Cassalia expressed the desire for focus groups and community member communication groups; there is some hesitancy to over-communicate, but staff has historically seen that better communication results in more customer satisfaction. b. Regular Items (Attachments available upon request) None 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS None 9. OTHER BUSINESS a. Reimagine Boards & Commissions Elizabeth Blythe, Boards & Commissions Coordinator, presented a summary of the changes and direct Water Board impacts regarding the Reimagine Boards & Commissions code changes after City Council’s first reading on March 16th. Pending its second reading on April 20th, the Water Board will officially change its title to the ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 61 WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING 0 4/15/2021 –MINUTES Page 5 Water Commission for its quasi-judicial functions beginning on April 30th. Discussion Highlights A board member expressed gratitude that Council seemed to take into consideration the Water Board’s comments regarding the forthcoming changes. 10. ADJOURNMENT 7:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Water Board on May 20, 2021. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 62 Super Issue Meeting (April 26): Staff presented to a variety of Boards and Commissions. Seventeen Board and Commission representatives attended. Boards that requested additional information will receive individual follow-up. A few notable comments from the discussion and highlights from the Poll Results include: • 76% of participants agreed that water efficiency designs are essential and should be included in every development and redevelopment. • 88% of participants agreed it was fair for high water use developments (e.g. hotels, restaurants) to pay more than low water use developments (e.g. retail, office). • Over 76% of participants agreed the proposal increases equity and accuracy and promotes water efficient design. • Agreement that the proposal is headed in the right direction and, arguably, could be more aggressive in places to tackle future water challenges that will result from growth. • Consider unintended consequences, especially for landscape designs (do designers have access to these materials, will the proposed concepts create divides between new and existing development, how to equitably address redevelopment). ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 63 Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR June 16, 2021 6:00 – 8:00 pm Via Zoom 6/16/21 – MINUTES Page 1 1. NEW BUSINESS a. Water Supply Requirements and Allotments - Abbye Neel − Background − There are multiple water providers within the City of Fort Collins: East Larimer County Water District; Fort Collins Loveland Water District; Fort Collins Utilities (water); Sunset Water District; and West Fort Collins Water District. Each district sets their own water supply requirements. − The water supply requirements and allotments being proposed here would only apply to new development and re-development within the Fort Collins Utilities water service area. − Fort Collins Utilities water impact fees for developers consist of: − Plan Investment Fees (PIF) reflect the impact of new development on Utilities water treatment and distribution systems. − Water meter fees (WMF) cover the cost of installing and maintaining meters in new developments. − The Water Supply Requirement (WSR) reflects the impact to our water supply (from Horsetooth Reservoir and Cache la Poudre River) by new developments. It is translated to water allotments for all commercial and irrigation customers. - Water Supply Requirements (WSR) costs are calculated by multiplying the volume of water needed to meet additional demand times existing water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights. The update of this calculation is the subject of tonight's proposal to the NRAB for consideration. - The proposed changes are in alignment with the City's Strategic Plan, Utilities Strategic Plan, City Plan, Housing Colorado Water Plan, Our Climate Future, Nature in the City, Water Efficiency Plan, Water shortage Action Plan, Water Supply and Demand, and Management Policy. − Water Supply Requirements (WSR) by the City's Utilities (water) began in 1960 and have evolved and incorporated an Allotment Management Program as the City has grown. Council will consider the latest update to ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 64 AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/21 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 WSR to address current growth this fall, with adoption in 2022. - Current proposal drivers are to increase accuracy, Improve equity so each developer pays their fair share of the cost, and to promote water efficiency and innovation. − Proposed new WSR concepts for new development will be more data driven and detailed, and will require more input from developers and more staff time to manage. There would also be alternative compliance for commercial and irrigation taps and appropriate land use code updates. The water allotments will also reflect how different landscapes and businesses use water differently and will reflect appropriate cost implications. Cost will not be part of this update but will be developed at a later time. − The new concept will be based on: − Residential = number of bedrooms + outdoor area − Multifamily = number of bedrooms (all multifamily & commercial developments would be required to have a separate irrigation tap and WSR) − Commercial = business type − Irrigation = Landscape type − Next steps: − Staff will continue with public outreach and education − Formal City Council Consideration (September 2021) − Policy adoption (January, 2022) − Related future efforts: − Update cash-in lieu (late 2021) − Require allotments for all non-residential customers − Add residential alternative compliance option − Evaluate and align Plant Investment Fee calculations − Discussion: − Danielle - Q - Can you explain why native grass landscape is anticipated to use almost as much water need as bluegrass as shown in the graph? A - The comparative example in the presentation shows 50,000 sq. ft of native grass and 20,000 sq ft of bluegrass being compared to use similar amounts of water. Danielle - commented the graph is confusing and suggested ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 65 AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/21 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 highlighting the benefits of landscaping with native grasses because Council may not understand the water savings from native grasses looking at this graph. − Danielle - Q - Can you incentivize using native grasses for landscaping in new development? A - Yes. Utilities will be communicating with developers at the very beginning of the process about water conservation. − Barry - Q - Do developers have to purchase water rights since all water is already owned in Colorado per Colorado Water Law? A - A developer can buy water rights or have cash-in-lieu of water rights, which is the more common way developers obtain water. There must also be infrastructure provided for those water rights. − Barry - Q - There is a declining amount of water in Colorado. As development increases, usage increases. How can you continue to build with a decreasing amount of water in Colorado? A - Donnie Dustin - Water ownership can change from agriculture to commercial use. Water can also be stored, as in the Halligan Water project. − Barry - Q - The NISP project says its purpose is to help agriculture usage when, in fact, that water will be purchased for commercial use because of growing development. The Yampa river is at critical stage and the Colorado River's flow is declining. How, as a city, can Fort Collins promote development, when development is based on a dwindling water supply? Barry suggested the wording in the plan should make water savings mandatory, not optional A - The new water supply allotments plan is designed to require less water use. − Kevin - Q - Where does the ability for cash-in-lieu of water rights end and developers are told there are no water rights available for development? A - Liesel Hans - Fort Collins Utilities is one of 3 water districts that serve the City. The other 2 water districts have different policies are mostly feeding development. There have been slowdowns and development pauses because of water allocations with them. The City's efforts are around how to better use existing our city water rights. − Kevin - Q - Will the City be buying more water rights to satisfy development and do we have a target for x number of years out where water usage needs to be tied to reduced availability? A - Yes, but that is not the only strategy. The water strategic plan has reduced water usage goals, including the proposed new strategy being presented here. − Lindsay – shared that NRAB could include these issues and concerns within a memo to Council, if NRAB elects to send such a memo. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 66 AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/21 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 − Danielle - Q - The proposed plan is going in the right direction but she does not agree with the way it gets there through paying for what you use. That is an inequitable way to use resources for those wh o cannot pay as much as others. In addition, Parks are not conserving water by irrigating Kentucky Bluegrass instead of natural grasses. She suggested the plan incorporate language to support doing the right thing and align with City Plan and City values by requiring conservation of resources. This is an opportunity to explicitly incentivize gray water use for irrigation at lower rates in this initiative. Barry would also like the issue of equity mentioned in the proposal regarding paying for what you use. A - Abbye - Use of gray water has been approved at the state level, however, Fort Collins Utilities has not yet adopted it locally. However, they are exploring it, but it would not be part of this update. Liesel - Council is interested and is becoming informed about use of gray water, Colorado Water Law, and what additional kinds of resources would be necessary to provide infrastructure management to have gray water be part of water usage in Fort Collins. − Danielle A - Is there an opportunity to insert language into this proposal referencing a future approval of gray water use and its benefits? A - Liesel - Currently we don't currently have the data. The building and plumbing codes get updated every 3 years and language can be inserted there to anticipate future gray water systems. − Danielle - Q What are the opportunities to apply for Innovation Funds to do testing to arrive at the data needed for the water usage update reports? A Staff is exploring other resources to do this, including the Innovation Fund. − Kevin -Q - Is there an allotment resizing incentive for existing residential customers such as a buy-back program? A - Currently only commercial customers have allotments and there is not a process to sell unused portions back to the City, mainly because of legal implications that water rights add value to a property. − John - Q - Is there a way to re-evaluate existing allotments and to add a surcharge if it is exceeded? A - Abbye - Only 11% of Fort Collins Utilities customers have allotments. Staff is evaluating their usage needs as a next step. − Danielle - Q - Is there an opportunity to evaluate the other 89% of customers' usage as an allotment?. A - This could be an inequity issue and staff has recognized this as a future project. − Danielle - A - What about sale of a property or a property that won't be sold without an allotment that is grandfathered in? A - Currently, that is being addressed in an equity project. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 67 AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/21 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 − John - Q - If a property is sold or redeveloped and doesn't replace the tap , is there a way to add it into these revised allotment requirements? A - Yes. As part of the proposal, when a change-of-use permit is applied for their water requirement will be re-evaluated. − Danielle - asked the board if it wanted to write a memo of support to Council regarding the proposed amended Water Supply Requirements and Allotments proposal presented at this meeting − Barry moved and Dawson seconded a motion that the NRAB will write a memo of support of the amended Water Supply Requirements and Allotments proposal as presented with the addition of the board's comments expressed here. Danielle will draft the memo for the NRAB's review ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 68 1 July 15, 2021 Water Supply Requirements Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager 2Summary of Request This is a request for a Recommendation to City Counicl regarding adoption of Land Use Code updates to section 3.2.1(E)(3) in alignment with the parallel Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirement update. 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 69 2 3 Proposed concepts would only apply to new development and re-development within Fort Collins Utilities water service area. HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 4Water Impact Fees PLANT INVESTMENT FEES (PIF) DISTRIBUTION WATER TREATMENT WATER METER FEES WATER METERS WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT (WSR)CACHE LA POUDRE RIVERWATER SUPPLY HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 70 3 5What are Water Supply Requirements? Development Additional Water Demand Water Supply Requirements (WSR) Calculation of volume of water needed to meet additional demand. Water Rights or cash- in-lieu of water rights. Total WSR Cost 6What are Water Supply Requirements? Development Additional Water Demand Water Supply Requirements (WSR) translated to water allotments for all commercial and irrigation customers. 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 71 4 7 Strategic Alignment City Plan Housing Strategic Plan Our Climate Future Nature in the City Colorado Water Plan Water Efficiency Plan Water Shortage Action Plan Water Supply & Demand Management Policy City Strategic Plan Utilities Strategic Plan Water Supply Requirements 8History of Water Supply Requirements (WSR) 1960 Utilities starts requiring WSR 1960 Utilities starts requiring WSR 1984 Major update to WSR methodology and start assigning allotments 1984 Major update to WSR methodology and start assigning allotments 2018 Major update to WSR methodology and cost 2018 Major update to WSR methodology and cost 2019 Allotment Management Program Launch update to WSR 2019 Allotment Management Program Launch update to WSR 2021 (Sept) Formal City Council consideration 2021 (Sept) Formal City Council consideration 2022 (Jan) New WSRs implemented, if adopted by City Council 2022 (Jan) New WSRs implemented, if adopted by City Council 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 72 5 9Drivers - Outcomes - Benefits Increase accuracy Improve equity Promote water efficiency & innovation 10Proposed Concepts for New Development Category Current calculation based on: Proposed new concept based on: Residential Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms + Outdoor Area Multifamily Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms* Commercial Tap Size Business Type* Irrigation Tap Size Landscape Type *All multifamily and commercial developments would be required to have a separate irrigation tap and WSR. Additional Components: • Alternative Compliance for commericial and irrigation taps • Require Preliminary Irrigation Plans at FDP 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 73 6 11Proposed Updates to LUC Water Budget Table Current Future Hydrozone Hydrozone Water Need gal/sq ft Hydrozone Water Need gal/sq ft High 18 18 Moderate 10 14 Low 38 Very Low 03 91% meet 15 gal/sq ft requirement. Required for each water tap. 12 Examples 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 74 7 3,476,818 1,955,112 Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) 13 Max Annual Water Use (3,600,000) Unit = Gallons 3,476,818 1,955,112 2,701,857 Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Current Water Budget 14 Max Annual Water Use Current Water Budget Table Water Need (gal/ sq ft) Square Feet Water Budget (gal) Hydrozone High 18 13,219 237,942 Moderate 10 238,218 2,382,180 Low 3 27,245 81,735 Very Low 00 0 TOTAL 278,682 2,701,857 Average Gal/Sq Ft 9.7 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 75 8 3,476,818 1,955,112 2,701,857 3,790,954 Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Current Water Budget Future Water Budget & WSR15 Max Annual Water Use Current Water Budget Table Water Need (gal/ sq ft) Square Feet Water Budget (gal) Hydrozone High 18 13,219 237,942 Moderate 10 238,218 2,382,180 Low 3 27,245 81,735 Very Low 00 0 TOTAL 278,682 2,701,857 Average Gal/Sq Ft 9.7 Future Water Budget Table Water Need (gal/ sq ft) Square Feet Water Budget (gal) Hydrozone High 18 13,219 237,942 Moderate 14 238,218 3,335,052 Low 8 27,245 217,960 Very Low 00 0 TOTAL 278,682 3,790,954 Average Gal/Sq Ft 13.6 16Cost Implications Cost Current (Tap Size)$104,000 - $255,000 Future (Water Budget)$500,000 •High-water-use landscapes may pay more. •Large landscapes may pay more. •Low-water-use landscapes may pay less. •Smaller landscapes may pay less. Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price. Customer pays $33,000 a year in Excess Water Use surcharges in current system when watering efficiently . Customer would pay $0 a year in Excess Water Use surcharges in future system when watering efficiently. AN125 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 76 Slide 16 AN125 Abbye Neel, 6/4/2021 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 77 9 17 Landscapes use water differently. Landscapes use water differently. 18 76,000 342,000 278,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds (5,500 Sq Ft) Bluegrass (20,000 Sq Ft) Native Grass (40,000 Sq Ft) Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Max Max Max Max Annual Water Use 17 18 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 78 10 19 76,000 342,000 278,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 67,900 294,000 118,000 Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds (5,500 Sq Ft) Bluegrass (20,000 Sq Ft) Native Grass (40,000 Sq Ft) Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Current Water Budget Max Max Max Max Annual Water Use 20 76,000 342,000 278,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 67,900 294,000 118,000 81,000 302,000 314,000 Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds (5,500 Sq Ft) Bluegrass (20,000 Sq Ft) Native Grass (40,000 Sq Ft) Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Current Water Budget Future Water Budget & WSR Max Max Max Max Annual Water Use 19 20 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 79 11 21Cost Implications Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds Bluegrass Native Grass Square Feet 5,500 20,000 40,000 Current (Tap Size)$38,000 $38,000 $38,000 Future (Water Budget) $10,500 $40,000 $41,000 •High-water-use landscapes may pay more. •Large landscapes may pay more. •Low-water-use landscapes may pay less. •Smaller landscapes may pay less. Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price. 22 Businesses use water differently. Businesses use water differently. 21 22 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 80 12 23Commercial Examples 373,000 104,000 413,000 199,696 Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Average Water UseMax Water Use 100,000 sq ft 11,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft Max (500,000) Max (110,000) Max (500,000) Max (365,000) 24Commercial Examples 373,000 104,000 413,000 199,696 740,000 740,000 740,000 740,000 Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Max Max Max Max 100,000 sq ft 11,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft Max Water Use 23 24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 81 13 25Commercial Examples 373,000 104,000 413,000 199,696 740,000 740,000 740,000 740,000 562,000 116,000 582,000 252,590 Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future WSR (Buisness Type) Max Max Max Max 100,000 sq ft 11,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft WSR: 5 gal/sq ft WSR: 145 gal/sq ft WSR: 11 gal/sq ft WSR: 145 gal/sq ft Max Water Use 26Cost Implications •High-water-use developments may pay more •Large businesses developments may pay more. •Low-water-use developments may pay less. •Small businesses development may pay less. Cost Retail (100,000 sq ft) Place of Worship (11,600 sq ft) Restaurant 1 (4,000 sq ft) Restaurant 2 (1,700 sq ft) Current (Tap Size) $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 Future (Business Type) $74,000 $15,000 $76,000 $33,000 Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price. 25 26 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 82 14 27Community Engagement Who we heard from:What we heard:What we propose to change: Boards and Commissions, Stakeholder Groups, Focus Groups Liked increased flexibility and accuracy. Wanted alternative compliance options. Created alternative compliance options for commercial and irrigation. Wanted frequent updates to address increased efficiencies in new builds. Set calculations to be reviewed every two years. 28 Separate Irrigation Tap Irrigation Residential and Multifamily Commercial Fort Collins Yes Water Budget SF: Beds + Outdoor Area MF: Bedrooms Business Type FCLWD Yes Tap size SF: Lot size MF: # units Tap size ELCO Yes Water budget SF: Lot size MF: # units > 0.75’’ tap = Case by case Westminster Yes Water budget SF: Bed/Bath + Irrigation Area MF: Bedrooms Business type Greeley Yes Water budget SF/MF: Lot size Business type Loveland Highly Encouraged Water budget SF/MF: Units + Lot Size Tap size 27 28 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 83 15 29Next Steps 1. Continued Outreach and Education (Ongoing) 2. Formal City Council Consideration (Sept 2021) 3. Adoption (Jan 2022) 30Related Future Efforts Increase accuracy Improve equity Promote water efficiency & innovation 1.Update cash-in-lieu (late 2021) 2.Require allotments for all non-residential customers 3.Add residential alternative compliance option 4.Evaluate & align Plant Investment Fee (PIF) calculations 29 30 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 84 16 31Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council adopt the proposed amendments to LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(3) related to water conservation requirements. 3,476,818 1,955,112 2,701,857 Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Current Water Budget 32 Max (3,600,000) Water Budget Table Current Water Need (gal/ sq ft) Square Feet Current Water Use (gal) Hydrozone High Hydrozone 18 13,219 237,942 Moderate Hydrozone 10 238,218 2,382,180 Low 3 27,245 81,735 Very Low 000 TOTAL 278,682 2,701,857 Average Gal/Sq Ft 9.7 31 32 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 85 17 3,476,818 1,955,112 2,701,857 3,790,954 Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Current Water Budget Future Water Budget & WSR 33 Max (3,600,000) Water Budget Table Current Water Need (gal/ sq ft) Future Water Need (gal/sq ft) Square Feet Current Water Use (gal) Future Water Budget (gal) Hydrozone High Hydrozone 18 18 13,219 237,942 237,942 Moderate Hydrozone 10 14 238,218 2,382,180 3,335,052 Low 3 8 27,245 81,735 217,960 Very Low 0300 0 TOTAL 278,682 2,701,857 3,790,954 Average Gal/Sq Ft 9.7 13.6 34Mixed Use Development Example Multifamily development Multifamily water supply requirement. Irrigation water supply requirement. Commercial space water supply requirement. 33 34 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 86 18 35Mixed Use Development Example 1,110,000 76,000 Multifamily (Indoor) Irrigation Average Annual Water Use Max (1,200,000) Max (84,000) Max Annual Water Use 100 Bedrooms 5,500 sq ft 36 Current Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ൈሾ 9.636 ൈ𝐿𝑜𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 13,592.8 ൈ 𝐵𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠ሿ 325,851 Indoor Water Use Irrigation Water Use 35 36 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 87 19 37 Current Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation Lot Size: 30,504 square feet Bedrooms: 100 9.636 ൈ 30,504 ሺ13,592.8 ൈ 100ሻ 293,936 ሺ1,359,280ሻ 1,359,280 ൌ𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑟293,936 ൌ𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1,653,216 ൌ𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑆𝑅ሺ𝑔𝑎𝑙ሻ 9.636 ൈ𝐿𝑜𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 13,592.8 ൈ 𝐵𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠 38Mixed Use Development Example 1,110,000 76,000 1,360,000 290,000 Multifamily (Indoor) Irrigation Average Annual Water Use Current WSR Max Max Max Annual Water Use 100 Bedrooms 5,500 sq ft 37 38 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 88 20 39 Future Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation - Indoor Lot Size: 30,504 square feet Bedrooms: 100 9.636 ൈ 30,504 ሺ𝟏𝟑,𝟏𝟎𝟎 ൈ 100ሻ 293,936 ሺ1,310,000ሻ 1,310,000 ൌ𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒐𝒓 𝑊𝑆𝑅 ሺ𝑔𝑎𝑙ሻ Future WSR 9.636 ൈ 𝐿𝑜𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝟏𝟑,𝟏𝟎𝟎 ൈ 𝐵𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠 40 Future Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation - Outdoor Water Budget Table Hydrozone Square Footage Hydrozone Water Need gal/sq ft Annual Water Need gal/sq ft High 2,390 18 43,020 Moderate 2,205 14 22,050 Low 940 8 2,820 Very Low 0 30 Total 5,535 81,410 Future WSR & Allotment 39 40 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 89 21 41Mixed Use Development Example 1,110,000 76,000 1,360,000 290,000 1,310,000 81,000 Multifamily (Indoor) Irrigation Average Annual Water Use Current WSR Future WSR Max Max Max Annual Water Use 100 Bedrooms 5,500 sq ft 42Mixed Use Development Example Multifamily development Multifamily water supply requirement. Irrigation water supply requirement. Commercial space water supply requirement. 41 42 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 90 22 43Mixed Use Development Example 50,000 Commercial Average Annual Water Use Max (67,000) Max Annual Water Use Restaurant (1,500 sq ft) 44 Current Commercial Water Supply Requirement Calculation Tap Size (inches) WSR (acre-feet)Annual Allotment (Gal/Year) 3/4 0.90 293,270 1 2.27 739,680 1.5 4.72 1,538,020 2 7.91 2,577,480 3 or above Engineered estimate required. 43 44 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 91 23 45Mixed Use Development Example 50,000 293,000 Commercial Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Max Max Annual Water Use Restaurant (1,500 sq ft) 46 Future Commercial Water Supply Requirement Calculation Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay Childcare 28 gal/sq ft Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft Grocery 25 gal/sq ft Hospital Case by Case Hotel 24,000 gal/room Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft Nursing Homes Case by Case Office 7 gal/sq ft Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft Recreation 36 gal/sq ft Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft Retail 5 gal/sq ft Other Case by Case 1,428 s.f.*145 gal/s.f./yr = 207,060 gal WSR & Allotment Building Square Footage Business type’s estimated use based on real customer data. 45 46 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 92 24 47Mixed Use Development Example 50,000 293,000 171,000 Commercial Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future WSR (Buisness Type) Max Max Annual Water Use Restaurant (1,500 sq ft) 48Mixed Use Development Example Current WSR (gal) Future WSR (gal) Current Cost Future Cost Multifamily (100 Beds) 1,360,000 1,310,000 $178,000 $166,000 Irrigation (5,500 Sq Ft) 293,000 81,000 $20,000 $11,000 Commercial (Restaurant 1,500 sq ft) 293,000 171,000 $20,000 $22,000 Total 1,947,000 1,562,000 $218,000 $199,000 Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price. 47 48 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 93 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 5 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: July 15, 2021 BDR140003, Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado Summary of Request This is a request for a one-year extension of the approved Basic Development Review (BDR) know as Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado. The project converts a single family detached structure to a place of worship and includes an addition to the building and a new parking lot. Zoning Map (ctrl + click map to follow link) Next Steps If the extension is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant will have another year to complete the public improvements associated with the project to become fully vested. Site Location 1201 S Shields Street, located on the northwest quadrant of S Shields Street and Westward Drive. (parcel # 9715443001) Zoning Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Property Owner CHABAD-LUBAVITCH OF NORTHERN COLORADO INC PO Box 271756 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Applicant/Representative Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik Executive Director PO Box 271756 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Staff Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Contents 1. Project Introduction ....................................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards ............................................................. 3 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ......................... 3 4. Recommendation .......................................... 4 5. Attachments .................................................. 4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the extension. Site CC N-C-B Colorado State University M-M-N R-L Packet pg. 94 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 BDR140003 | Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 2 of 4 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Basic Development Review (BDR) converts an existing single family detached house into a place of worship. The conversion identified additions to the building and a new parking lot to be built in four different phases. These phases were independent of each other; however, all public improvements are required for whatever phase is completed first. • The site is .52 acres in size. o Existing structure is 1,441 SF o Phase 2 include a building addition elevation designs, parking lot, square footage and footprint location o Phase 3 and 4 include only the square footage and footprint of building additions. It was identified that a Minor Amendment would be required before proceeding to a building permit for final elevation design approvals. B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Basic Development Review Expiration In 2014 the Basic Development Review was submitted for review. The project completed three formal rounds of review from June of 2014 to November 2015. Remaining items for approval completed in June of 2016. After approval the project had three years to construct the necessary public improvements. These were not completed. In 2019 the first extension request was submitted. The Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director approved the first 1-year extension for the project. The following year another extension request was submitted to the CDNS Director. The second 1-year extension for the project was approved and the applicant was notified any further extension requests would need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) Low Density Residential (RL) Colorado State University Land Use Detached Single Family Dwelling, that fronts onto S Shields Street Westward Street and Detached Single Family Dwelling, that fronts onto S Shields Street S Shields Street (Four- lane Arterial) and Colorado State University Detached Single Family Dwelling, that Fronts onto Westward Drive Packet pg. 95 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 BDR140003 | Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 3 of 4 Back to Top 2. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. FINAL PLAN AND OTHER SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS 1. Extensions Section 2.2.11(E)(4) Allows the CDNS Director to approve 2 successive 1-year extensions. Additional, extension requests are then reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviews extension requests through either one of the following criteria. • The plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements or • Due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would r esult in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good 2. Applicants Justification The applicant’s request is based on latter criteria specifically “unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant.” We had planned to complete the engineering improvements in order to secure the longevity of the BDR however the pandemic upset this plan. COVID 19 profoundly affected our community, our center’s financial stability as well as our family personally. The past year, all attention was diverted to simply surviving and supporting our members. We feel it safe to assert that COVID 19 was indeed an "extraordinary and exceptional" hardship. Granting the extension would not only not be detrimental to the public good but the reverse is verily true. The planned Jewish Center of Northern Colorado will be an architectural standout but more importantly a beacon of inclusion and diversity in the region. It will breathe hope and inspiration into a nation that has been beset by racial strife and division. The Center will be a response and salvation to the unprecedented rise in antisemitism in our country and around the world including, regrettably, our own fair city. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the extension request for the Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado BDR140003, Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The world-wide pandemic in the last year resulted in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties in completing the necessary engineering improvements. 2. The original approval of the project was found not to be detrimental to the public good. 3. And an 1-year extension does not create a detriment to the public good. Packet pg. 96 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 BDR140003 | Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 4 of 4 Back to Top 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve one year extension for the Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado, BDR140003 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials. 5. Attachments 1. Approved Basic Development Review Plans 2. Approved Plat 3. Applicant’s Extension Request 4. 2019 Extension Approval 5. 2020 Extension Approval Packet pg. 97 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 98 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 99 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 100 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 101 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 102 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 103 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 104 CHABAD JEWISH CENTER of NORTHERN COLORADO POB 271756 Fort Collins, CO 80527 ● 970-407-1613 ● www.JewishNCO.com June 10, 2021 To Whom it May Concern, Please accept sincere apologies for this late BDR extension request as I am currently in the midst of basic army training (for chaplaincy in the Colorado Guard) out of state. Our time and ability to conduct work outside of the army’s demands is necessarily limited. We respectfully request an extension based on Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 "b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good." Our objective of building a Jewish center is to provide Northern Colorado with a landmark of exceptional physical and spiritual proportions. As our region has no such center we wanted to ensure that what we build will ably cater to the religious, social and cultural needs of the community. This is a multi-faceted and complex process that involves extensive fundraising, community and donor input along with the collaboration of other entities in the city to ensure justice is done to such a lofty vision. For example we were considering purchasing adjacent properties which would have impacted the project scope and thus altered the improvements needed. This explains the length of time since the original approval of the BDR. We had planned to complete the engineering improvements in order to secure the longevity of the BDR however the pandemic upset this plan. COVID 19 profoundly affected our community, our center’s financial stability as well as our family personally. The past year, all attention was diverted to simply surviving and supporting our members. We feel it safe to assert that COVID 19 was indeed an "extraordinary and exceptional" hardship. Granting the extension would not only not be detrimental to the public good but the reverse is verily true. The planned Jewish Center of Northern Colorado will be an architectural standout but more importantly a beacon of inclusion and diversity in the region. It will breathe hope and inspiration into a nation that has been beset by racial strife and division. The Center will be a response and salvation to the unprecedented rise in antisemitism in our country and around the world including, regrettably, our own fair city. We thank you kindly for your consideration and please feel free to ask any further questions, Sincerely, Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik Serving the communities of Northern Colorado and Colorado State University Executive Director ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 105 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview March 19, 2019 Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik Executive Director Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado PO Box 271756 Fort Collins, CO 80527 RE: Chabad Jewish Center Request for Extension, BDR #140003 Dear Rabbi Gorelik: Staff has received a request regarding an extension for the Chabad Jewish Center Basic Development Review, BDR #140003. This request is for a one-year extension to the Basic Development Review approval. The project was approved on June 14, 2016 and expires on June 14, 2019. This is the first extension request for this project. The City of Fort Collins has reviewed and approved your extension request in accordance with Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code. The one-year extension will be granted until June 14, 2020. Please note that you may be request additional extensions pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2.2.11(E)(4). Any further extension requests may only be approved at the discretion of the Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director and/or the Planning & Zoning Board. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Tom Leeson Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director cc: Project File # BDR140003 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 106 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview June 24, 2020 Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik Executive Director Chabad Jewish Center of Northern Colorado PO Box 271756 Fort Collins, CO 80527 RE: Chabad Jewish Center Request for Extension, BDR #140003 Dear Rabbi Gorelik: Staff has received a request regarding an extension for the Chabad Jewish Center Basic Development Review, BDR #140003. This request is for a second one-year extension to the Basic Development Review approval. The project was approved on June 14, 2016 and expires on June 14, 2019. The first one-year extension request for this project was granted and extended the expiration date to June 14, 2020. The City of Fort Collins has reviewed and approved your second one-year extension request in accordance with Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code. The one-year extension will be granted until June 14, 2021. Please note that you may request additional extensions pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2.2.11(E)(4). Any further extension requests will have to be approved at a public hearing of the Planning & Zoning Board. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Paul Sizemore Interim Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services cc: Project File # BDR140003 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 107 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 6 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing: July 15, 2021 Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review SPA210002 Summary of Request This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to expand the existing Alternative Sentencing and Community Corrections facility located at located on Midpoint Drive. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide comments on the plan to the governing body (Board of Larimer County Commissioners). Zoning Map Next Steps If the Planning and Zoning Commission is not satisfied with the plan, comments can be provided to the governing body and the Planning and Zoning Commission can request a hearing before the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. Site Location 2307 Midpoint Drive, Larimer County Midpoint Campus (parcel # 8720245901). Zoning Employment (E) and Transitional (T) Property Owner Larimer County Facilities 200 W Oak St, 4th floor Fort Collins, CO 80521 1900 S. Taft Hill Rd. #1227 Applicant/Representative Jeffrey Errett The Architects' Studio 405 Mason Court, Suite 115A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Jason Holland, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction....................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ............................................ 5 3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 ......................................................... 5 4. Staff Evaluation ............................................ 6 5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation ..... 9 6. Attachments .................................................. 9 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the P&Z Commission approve the plan. Packet pg. 108 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 2 of 9 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Information: The site is located approximately 600 feet east of S. Timberline Road and directly south of Midpoint Drive. Access is taken from Midpoint Drive. The site is part of the larger Larimer County Midpoint Detention Campus that includes the Jail, Sheriff’s Administration building, Alternative Sentencing (ASD) and Community Corrections (CC) buildings, as well as associated parking and amenities. The overall campus is approximately 36 acres. This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to expand the existing Larimer County Alternative Sentencing (ASD) and Community Corrections (CC) facilities located at 2307 Midpoint Dr (parcel # 8720245901). The proposed two-story ASD/CC expansion of approximately 50,500 square feet will include dormitories providing up to 174 beds for the Alternative Sentencing and Community Corrections residential programs already located on site, as well as educational and administrative support space. The existing two-story ASD building was approved in 2011 and includes approximately 53,500 square feet. All improvements related to the proposed project are expected to be constructed as a single phase under one construction contract, with an estimated 14-month construction duration. SPAR Review Summary: The property is within the Employment (E) and Transitional (T) zone districts. As a public facility within the City, this proposed expansion of the campus is subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The existing campus was last reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board as a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) in 2020 for the jail expansion. Prior to the 2020 jail expansion review, an overall campus master plan was reviewed in 2011. The first phase of the detention facility was constructed in 1983. Parking and Circulation: The project will reconfigure and expand existing parking areas to add a total of 45 spaces to the site, located south of the ASD building expansion. The staff parking and entrance are oriented toward the south where they interconnect with staff and service areas for other buildings on the campus to the southwest. A new drop off/pick-up area is designed with the expansion, with a new ASD building entrance to the north. Transportation improvements will be limited to interior circulation and onsite parking impacted by the building expansion. No modifications to site access, intersections or offsite traffic improvements are proposed or recommended. There is an existing system of concrete pedestrian walkways from Midpoint Drive through the site that will be supplemented with new concrete walkways around the perimeter of the building expansion. Crosswalks are proposed at appropriate drive aisle crossings. Outdoor Areas: A relocated walking trail with fitness stations for ASD/CC resident use is proposed along the west property boundary, where existing planting beds used to farm food will remain in place. Three enclosed patios are proposed around the new ASD/CC expansion to serve as outdoor recreation and meeting spaces for residents and their case managers and counselors. A proposed therapy garden on the east side of the expansion provides a space for group meetings, with various seating opportunities for residents to meet with counselors, and up to six large, raised planters for gardening therapy. This space will have planting that serves as sensory therapy and ornamental and shade trees for shade and seasonal interest. Architecture: All of the existing campus buildings provide neutral exterior colors that comply with City standards, and the proposed ASD/CC expansion building also provides neutral colors complementary materials consistent with the established campus theme. Packet pg. 109 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 3 of 9 Back to Top The ASD/CC expansion building design will mimic the form, scale, character and materials of the existing Alternative Sentencing building, and will utilize a combination of patterned decorative concrete masonry units, precast concrete trim units, native sandstone accents, stucco and composite metal panel systems with aluminum framed glazing systems. Like the existing building, the same palette and design expression will extend to all sides of the building, providing a consistent, 360 degree architectural design. B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS There are no significant natural features on site. No disturbance to wetlands, natural habitats or wildlife are anticipated with the proposed development. A Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) overhead powerline runs along the property’s western border within a 100-foot easement. Also bordering the property to the west is the Great Western Railway. 1. Development History a) The majority of the property was annexed into the city in September of 1973 as part of the East Prospect First Annexation and is part of the Center Point Park Subdivision. b) A small portion of the property was annexed in 1997 as part of the Timberline Enclave Annexation and remains in the Transition (T) zone district. The majority of this annexation area is west of the Great Western Railway and includes the Side Hill and Bucking Horse neighborhoods. Typically, the T-zone is intended to be a temporary designation, which is then rezoned to the final zone district at the time of development. The remaining Transition (T) area was never rezoned to Employment or Industrial because there was no reason to do so. There is no private development that would trigger the need for a rezoning, and because the Larimer County campus is a public facility subject to the SPAR review, there was not a requirement for rezoning this remaining Transition area. c) The initial subdivision for the larger industrial area, Center Point Park, was approved by the Planning and Zoning board in 1981. d) The Detention Facility Phase One was approved in 1983. e) The campus was granted an exemption from the requirements of the City's zoning code by previous action of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This exemption occurred in the mid 1980’s. f) The Alternative Sentencing Unit and Detention Facility Phase Two Expansion were approved in 1991. g) The Detention Facility Phase Three Expansion was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1998 due to the lack of a public sidewalk along Midpoint Drive. The expansion included the addition of a four- story housing intake facility, 144 new cells, new office space, support areas and parking lot. The phase three expansion denial was overturned and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. h) The Sheriff's Office Building was approved in 2000. i) Community Corrections Phase One was initially denied by the Planning and Zoning Board in 2003 but this denial was then overturned and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning and Zoning Board’s denial was a 4:1 vote, due to concerns with correction facility’s “close proximity of the school”, referring the Seven Oaks School. j) Community Corrections Phase Two was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in January of 2006. k) On July 21, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with condition, the Larimer County Midpoint Campus Expansion. The condition required the preservation of the existing Crack Willow Tree and re- design of the southern parking lot. The 2011 proposal included a new, 53,500 square foot, two-story building for the Alternative Sentencing Department. Also, the existing Sheriff's Administration Building was expanded by 15,007 square feet bringing the total up to 51,144 square feet. The existing Community Corrections building was expanded Packet pg. 110 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 4 of 9 Back to Top by 3,500 square feet bringing the total up to 58,658 square feet. The existing Alternative Sentencing Unit building was remodeled for new functions. The 2011 expansion comprised a total of 72,000 square feet of new building and additions and a total of 8,500 square feet of remodeled floor area. Improvements to the overall campus plan were also made, including new parking spaces, new internal and external sidewalks and enhancements to the water quality and stormwater system. The 2011 SPAR site plan is attached to this staff report. l) On January 16, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board approved a request to renovate and expand the existing Larimer County Jail facility including a new prison housing unit, a support services facility, an interior parking area for patrol cars and a connector to the existing sheriff’s building. A new parking lot was also provided to the south. These improvements are currently under construction. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use The zoning and land uses surrounding the property are as follows: North South East West Zoning Employment (E) Industrial (I) Industrial (I); Employment (E) Industrial (I); Employment (E); Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Land Use Multi-tenant office buildings and convenience center. Great Western Railway and Larimer County services building at 2555 Midpoint Drive. Advanced Energy and multi-tenant industrial flex space. Building materials supply and multi-tenant office building; Bucking Horse/Sidehill residential dwellings C. REVIEW PROCEDURES 1. State Requirements for City Review Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (C.R.S.), govern the City’s review of development plans for public facilities. These Statutes supersede the City’s typical processes for development plan review of private land. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. generally governs all public facilities with the following pertinent provisions: o “no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission.” o “In case of disapproval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership.” o “The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval.” Packet pg. 111 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 5 of 9 Back to Top 2. Land Use Code Requirements The Land Use Code incorporates the statutory requirements above into Sections 2.1.3(E) and 2.16(H) under the Site Plan Advisory Review Process (“SPAR”). Following are pertinent excerpts for convenient reference: “2.1.3(E) Site Plan Advisory Review. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and approval of a site development plan that describes the location, character and extent of improvements to parcels owned or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public and charter schools, the review also has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan.” “2.16.2 Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures (H) Standards: [LUC standards are] Not applicable, and in substitution thereof, an application for a Site Plan Advisory Review shall comply with the following criteria: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible.” 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A remote/virtual neighborhood meeting was held on April 28, 2021. No members of the public attended the meeting. No public comment has been received. Any communication received between the public notice and the hearing will be provided to the Board for the hearing. 3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 A. SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review A conceptual review meeting was held on April 16, 2021. 2. Neighborhood Meeting Held on April 28, 2021 and satisfies the applicable requirement of Section 2.16.2 – Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures. 3. Submittal The project development plans were submitted on May 21, 2021. One round of review was provided prior to scheduling the SPAR hearing. Comments provided were related to drainage and utility plans, which will Packet pg. 112 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 6 of 9 Back to Top continue to be reviewed prior to final approval. As a Larimer County facility, all plans must also be reviewed and approved by Larimer County staff, and the final utility plans will be reviewed and approved by both City and County staff after the SPAR review. 4. Notice Posted notice: April 22, 2021, Sign #618 Written notice: July 1, 2021, 278 letters sent. Published Notice: July 4, 2021, Coloradoan Confirmation no. #0004809030 4. Staff Evaluation A. BACKGROUND The City’s review of a public facility is governed by State statutes. Plans are evaluated based on the requirements explained below. Location Criterion: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Character Criterion: (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Extent Criterion: (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible.” B. LOCATION The first criterion for the review of the application is ‘location.’ This criterion requires that the site location for the proposed public facility be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The campus has developed over time, starting in the 1980’s, under two sets of Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Codes. Further, the campus was specifically exempted from zoning regulations by an action by the City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals at the request of Larimer County. Consistency with City Plan: With the 2019 Fort Collins City Plan, the campus is designated Research & Development/Flex District with the City Structure Plan Map. The campus remains consistent with this structure plan designation, which is intended for employment uses. Key characteristics noted on page 104 of City Plan for the R&D/Flex District include: Research & Development/Flex District Key Characteristics/Considerations: » Accommodates a wide range of business types and sizes allowing the City to remain flexible in the types of employers and employment uses it can support and attract. » While more-intense uses should be buffered from the street and surrounding areas, pedestrian and bicycle connections should be integrated into the overall design of a site or project. Packet pg. 113 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 7 of 9 Back to Top » Any outdoor storage must be screened from the street and from less-intense uses in adjacent Districts or Neighborhoods. Background on Compliance with City Zone Districts: The campus remains generally consistent with the zone district standards contained in Article 4 of the City Land Use Code. The majority of the campus is spread across two zone districts – Employment and Industrial. There is also a parcel zoned Transition that is owned by the County and is part of the proposed expansion. In terms of land use – Jails, detention and penal centers is a permitted use in both the Employment and Industrial zone districts. With the 2011 campus expansion, the overall campus layout of the property was established, with 72,000 square feet of new building space added to the campus. At that time, city staff evaluated the overall campus site design, providing the following comments which confirmed consistency with the applicable zone district standards. With the ASD/CC building expansion proposed with this staff report, the campus remains consistent with these standards. A. Employment and Industrial Zones - Prospect Road Streetscape Program The campus does not have any land fronting on or adjoining East Prospect Road so the standards do not apply. B. Employment Zone - Building Design This standard requires, to the extent reasonably feasible, that industrial buildings provide a primary entrance that faces and opens directly onto the abutting street sidewalk or a walkway, plaza, or courtyard that has direct linkage to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to cross any intervening driveways or parking lots. Buildings may orient away from the street if the development provides a campus or park-like development with a unifying formative internal framework of outdoor spaces and connecting walkways that function as an alternative by connecting buildings within the site and to off-site destinations. The Alternative Sentencing Department building approved in 2011 is separated from Midpoint Drive by a parking lot. Staff comments with the 2011 site plan was that the overall plan was a vast improvement as compared to the existing facilities in creating a viable campus alternative. A new public sidewalk was provided along Midpoint Drive, which was a point of contention with the previous expansion plans in 2000. With the 2011 campus plan, internal connecting walkways were installed linking existing and future buildings within the campus. Combined, the external and internal walks contained within the 2011 plan included approximately 4,500 linear feet of additional sidewalk. The proposed 2021 ASD/CC building expansion supplements the existing campus walkway system with new concrete walkways around the perimeter of the building expansion, allowing residents and employees to walk safely between buildings, parking lots, and amenity areas. Crosswalks are proposed at appropriate drive aisle crossings along the main entrances to the north of the building expansion. The existing exercise walking track is proposed to be redesigned and located along the west property boundary. All of these measures are consistent with, and improve upon the campus master plan. C. Industrial and Employment Zones – Maximum Height The maximum permitted height is four stories. The 2011 Alternative Sentencing Department building is two stories, the Sheriff’s Office Addition is two stories. The proposed 2020 campus expansion included a new prison housing unit that is three stories. The 2021 ASD/CC expansion is two-stories. D. Industrial Zone – Building Character and Color This standard requires that color shades be neutral, with a medium or dark color range and not white, bright or reflective. All of the existing campus buildings provide neutral exterior colors that comply with this standard and the proposed ASD/CC expansion also provides neutral colors consistent with the established campus theme. Packet pg. 114 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 8 of 9 Back to Top C. CHARACTER AND EXTENT The second and third criteria for the review of the application are ‘character’ and ‘extent’. These criteria typically require the plan to conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. As a Larimer County facility, all plans must also be reviewed and approved by Larimer County staff, and the final utility plans will be reviewed and approved by both City and County staff after the SPAR review. For ‘extent’, the plan must identify the level of functional and visual impact to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. Since the character and extent criteria are overlapping in nature they have been combined and addressed in the following subsections. Building Placement There are no character or extent issues with the proposed placement of the ASD/CC building expansion. Where feasible, buildings within the campus meet the City’s build-to line requirement along Midpoint Drive. The campus includes four existing buildings. Three of these buildings comply with the city’s building placement standards, including the Sheriff's Office Building, Community Corrections Building and the main Detention Center Building. Institutional buildings are typically required to be extended to a required “build-to” line, with at least thirty (30) percent of the total length of the building along the street required be extended to the build-to lines along the street or intersection. One existing building does not comply with the build-to line requirement – the Alternative Sentencing Department Building (ASD). When this building was approved in 2011 with the Larimer County Midpoint Campus SPAR plan, this building placement was supported because the overall master plan was generally consistent with the “campus exception”. This exception allows industrial buildings to be clustered when located within the Employment zone district, with parking between the building and surrounding streets: “Buildings may orient away from the street if the development provides a campus or park-like development block with a unifying, formative internal framework of outdoor spaces and connecting walkways that function as an alternative to street sidewalks by connecting buildings within the site and directly connecting to common destinations in the district…” Potential Historic Resources There are no historic resources on the site or within 200 feet of the development site (buildings over 50 years of age). Transportation The SPAR submittal includes a review of anticipated change in vehicular traffic. The general conclusions of the traffic memorandum are accepted by staff, and no further changes are recommended. Nearby intersections do not have operational, or safety concerns based on city development standards. Since all vehicular infrastructure is in place along public roads, there is no change to access locations. Building Architecture The proposed building design expands the existing ASD building. The expansion uses materials and colors that are similar to the existing architecture on the campus. Grey, buff, and bronze tones are the predominant building colors. The majority of the expansion facades are masonry, including textured concrete masonry, sandstone and precast sills. A cement stucco system with reveals is used on upper portions of the second floor to provide a receding element. Metal accents are provided, and a rooftop louvered metal mechanical screen is also provided. The building expansion utilizes massing and articulation that is institutional in nature with a similar design character as existing portions of the campus buildings. As an institutional building within the Industrial and Employment zone Packet pg. 115 P&Z Agenda Item 6 SPA210002 | Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, July 15, 2021 | Page 9 of 9 Back to Top districts, the building massing, materials and colors remain compatible with the existing buildings in the surrounding zone districts. Landscaping and Parking Trees are provided throughout the new ASD parking lot and building perimeter. Landscaping is concentrated around the outdoor patio areas. Six trees are proposed to be removed, and eight mitigation trees are provided which complies with City standards. As a Larimer County facility, final plans will be reviewed by County staff after the SPAR review. The proposed 2021 ASD/CC expansion will reconfigure and expand existing parking areas to add a total of 45 spaces to the campus. With the additional 45 spaces, approximately 753 parking spaces are provided on the campus. With the 2020 campus expansion, new parking areas were proposed at the south and southwest portions of the site. Portions of the existing landscaped parking area west of the sheriff’s office were removed and reconfigured into the new parking lot design. The reconfigured and expanded parking lot added 77 additional parking spaces. Lighting A photometric plan and fixture details are provided with the submittal. All parking lot and exterior building lighting is provided with down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. Drainage Improvements Stormwater drainage from the site will not change significantly with the proposed expansion. Existing stormwater drainage generally flows to the south and southeast to a regional detention and stormwater quality pond. Flows are conveyed via both surface and storm sewer pipes. At the time of final plan review, water quality and low-impact development (LID) features will be evaluated to treat run-off from the ASD/CC expansion site. The treatment features must be reviewed and approved by City staff as part of the final utility plans. 5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation In evaluating the request for the Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA210002, City of Fort Collins staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the development plan and send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval: The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the location, character, and extent of the proposed development plan for the Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA210002, is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 6. Attachments Vicinity Map Zoning Map Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Architecture and Lighting Plan Set Utility Plans Traffic Study Larimer County Midpoint Campus – 2011 SPAR approved plans Staff presentation Memo from Planner Holland to answer questions posed at the work session Applicant presentation Landscape Context Plan Drawing LP102 Packet pg. 116 4,514752.3FCMapsThis map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMapsInternet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on thismap may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.3,430City of Fort Collins - GIS572.0Legend1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereFeet0572.0286.00NotesParcelsGrowth Management AreaParksSchoolsNatural AreasCity LimitsAlt.CorrectionsExpansionSiteCountyMidpointCampusJessup FarmBuckingHorse/SideHillGreat Western RailwayITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 117 4,514752.3FCMapsThis map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMapsInternet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on thismap may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.3,430City of Fort Collins - GIS572.0Legend1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereFeet0572.0286.00NotesParcelsGrowth Management AreaParksSchoolsNatural AreasCity ZoningCommunity CommercialCommunity Commercial North ColleCommunity Commercial Poudre RivGeneral CommercialLimited CommercialService CommercialCSUDowntownEmploymentHarmony CorridorIndustrialHigh Density Mixed-Use NeighborhLow Density Mixed-Use NeighborhoManufactured HousingMedium Density Mixed-Use NeighbNeighborhood CommercialNeighborhood Conservation BufferNeighborhood Conservation Low DNeighborhood Conservation MediumPublic Open LandsRiver ConservationRiver Downtown RedevelopmentResidential FoothillsLow Density ResidentialRural Lands DistrictTransitionUrban EstateCity LimitsAlt.CorrectionsExpansionSiteCountyMidpointCampusJessup FarmBuckingHorse/SideHillGreat Western RailwayE - EmploymentI - IndustrialI - IndustrialL-M-N Low DensityMixed Use Nbhd.P-O-LR-CT - TransitionITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 118 GENERAL LAND USE DATAEXISTING ZONINGE (EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT)LOT 18.475 ACLOT 2 18.798 ACEXISTING LAND USEDORMITORY - ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMSPROPOSED LAND USEDORMITORY - ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMSPROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE DATAPROPERTY LIMIT IMPROVEMENTSSITE AREA (AC)SITE AREA (SF)BUILDING 0.64528,110PARKING AND DRIVEWAY 1.9685,400LANDSCAPE AREA (turf, shrub beds, seeding)1.0445,525CONCRETE WALKS/PLAZAS0.41718,150CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT0.1697,360BUILDING DATA: PROPOSEDTYPICAL PARAPET HEIGHT: 30'MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 33’-9” TO TOP OF WALL38’-6” TO TOP OF EQUIPMENT SCREEN1ST FLOOR = 28,110 SF2ND FLOOR = 22,400 SFTOTAL AREA = 50,510 SF174 BEDSVEHICLE PARKINGEXISTING VEHICLE PARKING TO BE REMOVED:STANDARD PARKING72 BUS PARKING7TOTAL SPACES = 79 SPACESNEW VEHICLE PARKING TO BE PROVIDED:STANDARD PARKING117BUS PARKING7TOTAL SPACES 124 SPACES (+45 SPACES)BIKE PARKINGPROVIDED BIKE PARKING: 60 SPACESN O R T HCONTEXT MAPSHEET INDEXG001 COVER SHEETLS100 OVERALL SITE PLANLS101 SITE PLANLS102 SITE PLANLS401 SITE ENLARGEMENT PLANLS402 SITE ENLARGEMENT PLANLS403 SITE ENLARGEMENT PLANLS501 SITE DETAILSLS502 SITE DETAILSLS503 SITE DETAILSTR101 TREE PROTECTION AND MITIGATION PLANLP001 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND SCHEDULELP101 LANDSCAPE PLANLP102 LANDSCAPE PLANLP501 LANDSCAPE DETAILSE100 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANE101 SITE PHOTOMETRIC CUTSHEETSA201 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSA202 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSA901 CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSA902 CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSDESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET:ASD/COMCOR EXPANSIONZONING MAPG001COVER SHEETLEGAL DESCRIPTIONBEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 LARIMER COUNTY MIDPOINT CAMPUS, A PORTION OF THE NORTHWESTONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADORECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ASDASDITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 119 4908490949094910490949094908490849084909490849094910490949094907490849084909UPREF. REF.UPDWF.D.F.D.AEDUPE - DDE - DDW6W6W6W6W6W6 W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6 W6 W6W6 W6W6W6W6W6W6W6AAAW6W6SBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AASBAAAASBE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAAARL - AARL - AARL - AARL - AARL - AARL - AACCCCRL - AAAASBLARIMERCOUNTY JAILMIDPOINTDRIVESPECHT POINT DRIVE PROSPECT PARK WAY ASD/COMCOREXPANSIONEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGPARKING LOTRELOCATEDWALKINGTRACK WITHEXERCISESTATIONSLARIMERCOUNTYCOMMUNITYSERVICESNEW PARKINGLOT RE: CIVILEXISTINGGARDENEXISTINGBASKETBALLCOURTSITE PLAN NOTES:1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEFINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED ANDAPPROVED BY LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING PRIOR TO THEIMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS.2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS ANDCONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES,UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREETIMPROVEMENTS.3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACTLOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS,TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION.4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUSTBE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLICSTREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOTACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREENWALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALLBE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT,METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TOMATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES.5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BECOMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITHTHESE PLANS.6.ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THEFOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USECODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCEWITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILLLIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION.7. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNINGDOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMITPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGNCODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY.8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITYSTANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIREEXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED.10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS.ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVEINTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NOMORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN1:48 CROSS SLOPE.11. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OFWAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TOCOMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY APROPERTY OWNER OF THE COMMON AREA. THE PROPERTY OWNER ISRESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREETSIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS.12.FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWEDAND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OFANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRECODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICESTHAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BEPROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCHROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BYWHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED ORREPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY.13. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BEREVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIREAUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENTSIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY FINDING. ALL BUILDINGSSHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVEDBUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLYLEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THEPROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX INCH NUMERALS ONA CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF APRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THEPUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALLBE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE.LS100OVERALL SITE PLAN0 25'50'50'100'N O R T HRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 120 SITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISH4" CONCRETECOLOR: TBDLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONEPAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLINGRECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAPARKING LOT LIGHT, REFER TOPHOTOMETRICPA491049094909491049094909UPREF. REF.UPDWAEDUP1/8 MILEWALKING TRACKMAIN VISITORENTRANCEDROP OFF/PICK UPEXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING,RE: ARCHITECTUREPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPATURFEXISTING PARKING(3) ADA SPACES10913118 EXISTING PARKING7PAPAPAPALOT 1BIKE PARKING36 SPACESBIKE PARKING24 SPACES14PAYYLOADINGDOCKSCREENWALLEXISTINGGARDENBOXESEXISTING SIDEWALK AND BIKERACKS (RELOCATE 2 RACKS FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC)EXISTINGBASKETBALLCOURTEXISTING ISLANDR20'-6"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"19'-0"25'-4"6'-0"8'-6"5'-0"6'-0"6'-0"10'-7"8'-0"6'-0"R60'-0"R8'-0"R15'-0"R26'-10"R25'-0"24'-0" UTILITYAND EMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENT 24'-0"28'-6"28'-1"12'-0"19'-0"17'-0"6'-0"6'-0"5'-0"TYP.6'-0"MATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 1023) REFER TO COMCOR THERAPY GARDEN ENLARGEMENT1) REFER TO ASD OUTSIDE SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENT2) REFER TO COMCOR GENERAL & TREATMENT SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENTCOURTHORSESHOELS50XX5'-612"PAPAVEMENTLIMESTONECRUSHEDLS50XXFUTURE EXERCISEEQUIPMENT NODESR30'-0"R30'-6"R9'-0"R14'-0"R25'-6"R49'-6"R30'-6"R10'-0"R12'-0"R111'-6"R8'-6""R35'-6"R23'-6"R20'-6"R18'-6"R57'-6"R29'-6"9'-0"TYP.9'-0"TYP.30'-0"15'-0"15'-0"010'20'20'40'N O R T HLS101SITE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 121 4908490949094908490849084909490849094907490849084909RAIN GARDEN, RE: CIVILPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPARAIN GARDEN, RE: CIVILEXISTING PARKINGLOT TO REMAIN7878887BUS PARKINGPALOT 223'-0" UTILITYANDEMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENTR20'-6"199'-0"TYP.17'-0"R26'-10"24'-0"30'-0"24'-0"26'-0"31'-0"13'-0"TYP.8'-0"17'-0"17'-0"MATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102R8'-6"R29'-8"SITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISH4" CONCRETECOLOR: TBDLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONEPAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLINGRECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAPARKING LOT LIGHT, REFER TOPHOTOMETRICPA010'20'20'40'N O R T HLS102SITE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 122 W6W6W6RL - AASBRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITPAPAPABENCH, TYP.LS50XXTYP.CIGARETTE RECEPTACLELS50XXCONCRETE PAVEMENTLS50XX(LARGE)SHADE STRUCTURELS50XXARTIFICIAL TURFLS50XXCURBCINCRETE LANDSCAPELS50XXCONCRETE SEATWALLLS50XXGARDEN WALLLS50XXSITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONE PAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLING RECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREEPAW6W6W6RL - AASBRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITPAPAPAR15'-0"R10'-2 1 2 "R8'-0"R11'-7"33'-1012"24'-0"12'-0"16'-0"16'-0"05'10'10'20'N O R T HLS401SITE ENLARGEMENTPLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021CALLOUT PLAN1 ASD OUTSIDE SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENT PLANLAYOUT PLANITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 123 SITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONE PAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLING RECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREEPA49104910W6W6W6SBSBSBSBAAAASBAARESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITMECHANICALBENCH, TYP.LS50XXRECEPTACLERECYCLINGTRASH ANDLS50XXPAVEMENTCONCRETELS50XXSEATWALLCONCRETELS50XXARTIFICAL TURFLS50XXRECEPTACLE, TYP.CIGARETTELS50XX(TYPE 1)SHADE STRUCTURELS50XXBENCH, TYP.LS50XXGARDEN WALLLS50XXTYP.CIGARETTE RECEPTACLELS50XXCONCRETE PAVEMENTLS50XXCONCRETE SEATWALLLS50XXARTTIFICIAL TURFLS50XXCONCRETE EDGERLS50XX49104910W6W6W6SBSBSBSBAAAASBAARESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITMECHANICALR9'-0"R10'-0"R8'-0"R13'-0"R10'-6"7'-8"R9'-6"5'-0"79'-9"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"20'-8"LS402SITE ENLARGEMENTPLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021CALLOUT PLAN05'10'10'20'N O R T H2COMCOR GENERAL & TREATMENT SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENT PLANCALLOUT PLANITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 124 W6W6W6SBSBSBSBSBE - AAGARDEN WALLLS50XXLOADINGDOCKEMPLOYEEANDKITCHENENTRANCERESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITBOX, TYP.4' X 4' GARDENLS50XXPAVEMENTCRUSHED LIMESTONELS50XXBENCH, TYP.LS50XXRECEPTACLES, TYP.TRASH & RECYCLINGLS50XXPAPAPAARTIFICIAL TURFLS50XXCIGARETTE RECEPTACLELS50XXBENCH, TYP.LS50XXTABLE, TYP.LS50XX(TYPE 2)SHADE STRUCTURELS50XXSITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONE PAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLING RECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREEPAW6W6W6SBSBSBSBSBE - AALOADINGDOCKEMPLOYEEANDKITCHENENTRANCERESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITPAPAPA4'-0"R6'-0"R6'-0"R10'-6"R8'-0"R6'-0"R6'-0"R11'-0"R16'-0"3'-0"3'-0"R11'-0"R20'-0"R27'-0"R11'-0"R13'-6"49'-1012"16'-0"32'-012"16'-0"39'-9"LS403SITE ENLARGEMENTPLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021CALLOUT PLAN05'10'10'20'N O R T H3COMCOR THERAPY GARDEN ENLARGEMENT PLANLAYOUT PLANITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 125 SCALE:NTSDT-FURN-BNCHCOMPANY:MODEL:MOUNT:MATERIAL:COLOR:INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSCALE:NTSDT-FURN-CIGA-RECPCOMPANY:MODEL:MOUNT:MATERIAL:COLOR:INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSCALE:NTSDT-FURN-TRSH-RECPCOMPANY:MODEL:MOUNT:MATERIAL:COLOR:INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSLS501SITE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 126 SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"DT-WALL-GARD8'-0"NOTES:1. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO APPROVE ALL COLUMN FOOTINGS AND WALL DESIGN CONNECTIONS.8'-0"316"X6"X6" THICKNESS CORTENSTEEL TUBE POST316" CORTEN FLAT SHEETWALL PANEL8'-3"WALL ELEVATION3'-6"6"38" GRAVEL BEDCONCRETE FOOTING, PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER1'-4"95% COMPACTED SUBGRADEF.G.316"X6"X6" THICKNESS CORTENSTEEL TUBE POST316" CORTEN FLAT SHEETWALL PANEL38" GRAVEL BEDCONCRETE FOOTING, PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER95% COMPACTED SUBGRADEF.G.18"x1 12" x 1 12" ANGLE CORTENSTEEL WELDED TO POST1'-0"TYP.12" STEEL BOLT18"x1 12" x 1 12" ANGLE CORTENSTEEL WELDED TO POST12" STEEL BOLTWALL SECTION8'-0"8'-3"3'-6"6"WALL CHARACTER: OPPORTUNITY FOR STEEL CUTOUT ACCENTS PORTIONSWALL CHARACTERLS502SITE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 127 SCALE:NTSDT-SHAD-LARGECOMPANY: TENSILEMODEL: SUNAMI IIMOUNT: FOOTING PER STRUCTURALMATERIAL: METALCOLOR: TBDINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSCALE:NTSDT-SHAD-SMALLCOMPANY: TENSILEMODEL: VISORMOUNT: FOOTING PER STRUCTURALMATERIAL: METALCOLOR: TBDINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSLS503SITE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 128 W8W8W8W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W6W6 W6 W6 WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WSWSWSWSWSWSWSSA8 SA8SA8SA8SA84908490949094910490949094908490849084909490849094910490949094907490849084909UPREF. REF.UPDWAEDUP1234567910118TREESUNDER 4" DIA.TREE UNDER4" DIA.TREE MITIGATION CHARTTREESPECIESDIAMETERCONDITIONACTIONMITI. TREES REQ'D1 HONEYLOCUST 7" FAIR + PROTECT 12 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 7" FAIR + PROTECT 1.53 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 10" FAIR + PROTECT 1.54 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 10" FAIR + PROTECT 1.55 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 10" FAIR + PROTECT 1.56 MULTI-STEM SUMAC (6 STEMS) 2-5" FAIR - REMOVE 17 SUMAC 10" FAIR REMOVE 18 SIBERIAN ELM 25" FAIR REMOVE 2.59 ARBORVITAE 6" FAIR REMOVE 110 ARBORVITAE 6" FAIR REMOVE 111 ARBORVITAE 6" FAIR REMOVE1TOTAL MITIGATION TREES REQUIRED: 7.5TOTAL MITIGATION TREES PROVIDED: 8TREE PROTECTION NOTES:1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONESSHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCHDEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREEPRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINSARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREESWITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METALT-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER ISGREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THEFENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OFEQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS,ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINEOF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LANDCLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THANERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BEACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON ORROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED.8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATIONDEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTEDEXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROMTHE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED INTHE CHART BELOW:TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES)AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET)0-2 13-4 25-9 510-14 1015-19 12Over 19 159. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRSTHAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANYACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTALPLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERALREPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTIONAPPLYPROTECT TREELANDSCAPE LEGEND:REMOVE TREETR101TREE PROTECTIONAND MITIGATIONPLAN0 15'30'30'60'N O R T HRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 129 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULEQUANTITYSYMBOLBOTANIC NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE HEIGHTSPREADDECIDUOUS TREES5 CATALPA SPECIOSANORTHERN CATALPA2" CAL./B&B 50-60' 30-40'5CELTIS OCCINDENTALISHACKBERRY2" CAL./B&B40-60' 40-60'5GYMNOCLADUS DIOICAESPRESSO KENTUCKY2" CAL./B&B 50-60' 30-35''ESPRESSO'COFFEETREE(MITIGATION TREE)5QUERCUS MACROCARPABUR OAK2" CAL./B&B 50-60' 35-45'9ULMUS 'ACCOLADE'ACCOLADE ELM2" CAL./B&B65-75' 60-70'(MITIGATION TREE)ORNAMENTAL TREES8CRATAEGUS CRUSGALLITHORNLESS COCKSPUR1.5" CAL.15-20' 15-20'INERMISHAWTHORN5KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA GOLDEN RAINTREE1.5" CAL.25-30' 25-30'8MALUS X 'DAVID'DAVID CRABAPPLE1.5" CAL.15-20' 15-20'10QUERCUS GAMBELII GAMBEL OAK6' HT.15-30' 12-20'(MULTI-STEM)EVERGREEN TREES9 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM WOODWARD COLUMNAR6' HT.15-20' 4''WOODWARD'JUNIPER4PINUS EDULISPINYON PINE6' HT.12-20' 12-15'5PINUS NIGRAARNOLD'S SENTINEL 6' HT. 25'7''ARNOLD'S SENTINEL'COLUMNAR AUSTRIAN PINETOTAL TREES = 78 (MAX 15% OF EACH SPECIES = 11)SHRUBSCEROCARPUS INTRICATUS LITTLE LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 5 GAL.3-5'3-5' CERCOCARPUS LEDIFOLIUS CURL LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 5 GAL.10-20' 8-12' CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS DWARF RABBITBRUSH 5 GAL.2-6'2-6'CORNUS SERICEA 'ISANTI' ISANTI DOGWOOD 5 GAL.4-5'4-8'EUONYMUS KIAUTSCHOVILUS MANHATTAN EUONYMUS 5 GAL.4-6'4-6' 'MANHATTAN'PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA RUSSIAN SAGE 5 GAL.4-5'4-5'PHILADELPHUS MICROPHYLLUS JUNE BRIDE MOCK ORANGE5 GAL.4-6'4-6' 'JUNE BRIDE'PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS DWARF NINEBARK 5 GAL.4-6'4-6' 'NANA'PRUNUS BESSEYI WESTERN SANDCHERRY5 GAL. 5-6'5-6'RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' GRO-LOW SUMAC 5 GAL.2-3'6-8'EUONYMUS ALTA 'COMPACTUS' DWARF BURNING BUSH 5 GAL.5-6'5-6'VIBURNUM LENTAGO NANNYBERRY 5 GAL.12-18' 8-10'VIBURNUM TRILOBUMCOMPACT AMERICAN 5 GAL.4-5'4-5' 'COMPACTUM' CRANBERRY VIBURNUMORNAMENTAL GRASSESCALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL.4-5'1-2' 'KARL FOERSTER'MISCANTHUS SINENISMAIDEN GRASS 1 GAL. 5-6'5-6'PANICUM VIRGATUM SWITCHGRASS 1 GAL.3'3'SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM 1 GAL.2-3'2'SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROP SEED 1 GAL.2-3'18-24"ORGANIC WOOD MULCH SHRUB BEDNO WEED BARRIERDEPTH: 3"LANDSCAPE LEGEND:IRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)ROLL TOP STEEL EDGER (6" ht. / 7gauge min.)A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ONTHIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONESBETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVETHE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITYOF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING ORRELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE – FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITYAND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALLBE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT.2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATICIRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENTPRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALLSHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, ORWITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEETTHE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENTFOR MAINTENANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS MANAGER AND MEET PARKS IRRIGATION STANDARDS. DESIGN REVIEW SHALL OCCURDURING UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ANDINSPECTION BY PARKS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATERUSE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING.4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALLLANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHESAND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHESBY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND(1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BESUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED,CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132.5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNERDESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED ORTHE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THEVALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE.6. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANSSHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THEAPPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OFALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER,AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN ASTRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION.7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEREQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS.8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES:40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a).10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS.NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITHTHE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHTDISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN.11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORMDRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPEELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN.12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANTAVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OFCONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OFPLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES.14. ALL TREES ALONG EAE TO BE LIMBED AND MAINTAINED AT 14'-0" HEIGHT FOR PFA ACCESS.15. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONALECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEYSHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE ANDFEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLYNATIVE SEED MIX NOTES:1. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH LOOSENING AND ADDITION OF AMENDMENTS THATPROMOTE WATER ABSORPTION AND RELEASE, THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALLINDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS.2. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.3. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOTBE USED).4. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH DEPTH. FOR BROADCAST SEEDINGINSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES ANDAPPLICATION RATES.5. TREAT NATIVE SEED MIX AREA PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SEED WITH APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE TO PROACTIVELY MITIGATE HERBACEOUS WEEDSPECIES GROWTH DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD THEN AFTER APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD APPLY NATIVE SEED AS CALLED FOR ON APPROVEDPLANS.6. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS AND PROVIDED TEMPORARY IRRIGATIONUNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TOESTABLISH COVER.8. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING OCCURS INNATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH.9. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT TOTAL COVER IS REACHED WITH NO LARGER THAN ONE FOOTSQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES.SOIL AMENDMENT:1. SOD AREAS: 4 C.Y. PER 1,000 S.F. OF COMPOST TILLED INTO 4" OF EXISTING SOIL. APPLY DIAMONIUM PHOSPHATE (18-46-0) AT ONE HUNDRED (100)POUNDS NITROGEN PER ACRE.SHRUB AND PLANTING BEDS - 4" OF COMPOST TILLED INTO 6" OF EXISTING SOIL.2. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT: CLASS I COMPOST. COMPOSTED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AGED ORGANIC MATTER, FREE OF WEED OR OTHERNOXIOUS PLANT SEEDS, LUMPS, STONES, OR OTHER FOREIGN CONTAMINANTS HARMFUL TO PLANT LIFE, AND HAVING THE FOLLOWINGCHARACTERISTICS BASED ON A NUTRIENT TEST PERFORMED NO LONGER THAN 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION INTO THE PROJECT:A. ORGANIC MATTER: 25% MINIMUM.B. SALT CONTENT: 5.0 MMHOS/CM MAXIMUMC. PH: 7.5 MAXIMUM.D. CARBON TO NITROGEN RATIO OF 10:1 TO 20:1MESIC SEED MIX(Drill rate: 12.31 lbs/ac, Broadcast: 24.62 lbs/ac)COMMON NAMESCIENTIFIC NAMEPLS/ACSMOOTH ASTER ASTER LAEVIS 0.19WHITE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA CANDIDA 0.65PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA PURPUREA 0.81INDIAN BLANKETFLOWER GAILLARDIA ARISTATA 1.85BLACK-EYED SUSAN RUDBECKIA HIRTA 0.14BIG BLUESTEM ANDROPOGON GERARDII 1.3SALT AND PEPPER GRASS DESCHAMPIA CAESPITOSA 0.07INLAND SALTGRASS DISTICHLIS STRICTA 0.35STREAMBANK WHEATGRASS ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS SSP.LANCEOLATUS 1.36SWITCHGRASS PANICUM VIRGATUM 0.71WESTERN WHEATGRASSPASCOPYRUM SMITHII 1.61FOWL BLUEGRASS POA PALUSTRIS 0.18LITTLE BLUESTEM SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 0.7YELLOW INDIANGRASS SORGHASTRUM NUTANS 1.38PRAIRIE CORDGRASS SPARTINA PECTINATA 1COBBLE MULCH SHRUB BEDNO WEED BARRIERDEPTH: 3"EXISTING TREELP001LANDSCAPE NOTESAND SCHEDULERECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 130 LANDSCAPE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERMESIC SEED MIXORGANIC WOOD MULCH SHRUBBED3"-6" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBEDIRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)EXISTING TREE491049094909491049094909UPREF. REF.UPDWAEDUPDROP OFF/PICK UPEXISTING BUILDINGEXIPROPOSED BUILDING,RE: ARCHITECTUREEXISTING PARKINGLOT 1TYCYTLOADINGDOCKSCREENWALLEXISTINGGARDENBOXESEXISTING SIDEWALK AND BIKERACKS (RELOCATE 2 RACKS FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC)EXISTINGBASKETBALLCOURTEXISTING ISLANDMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102010'20'20'40'N O R T HLP101LANDSCAPE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 131 4908490949094908490849084909490849094907490849084909EXISTING PARKINGLOT TO REMAINLOT 223'-0" UTILITYANDEMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENTMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102LANDSCAPE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERMESIC SEED MIXORGANIC WOOD MULCH SHRUBBED3"-6" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBEDIRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)EXISTING TREE010'20'20'40'N O R T HLP102LANDSCAPE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 132 LP501LANDSCAPE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 133 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.70.50.30.20.20.10.20.20.30.40.60.70.50.30.20.10.10.10.40.50.60.60.60.60.60.50.30.30.30.40.60.60.60.60.60.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.40.50.61.01.31.41.20.80.50.50.40.50.50.61.11.31.41.20.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.40.50.71.01.72.62.02.31.30.80.70.60.70.81.01.92.62.02.21.20.80.70.40.30.20.20.10.10.40.60.91.41.72.44.15.03.51.91.31.20.91.01.31.72.74.34.83.21.91.41.10.70.50.40.30.20.20.50.70.91.32.02.84.66.25.05.73.82.01.71.31.42.03.04.96.15.55.43.52.11.71.10.80.70.50.50.30.20.61.11.51.51.82.63.13.53.73.83.63.42.82.11.71.92.63.23.53.83.83.53.42.72.21.71.61.20.80.50.60.41.42.02.12.31.91.92.22.52.62.52.72.42.11.91.91.92.22.62.72.62.52.52.21.91.92.52.21.71.31.00.70.60.62.33.24.12.92.41.41.21.31.41.41.51.71.82.02.22.42.52.52.52.31.91.61.41.21.11.52.83.13.62.32.11.30.70.80.10.12.03.86.13.93.61.81.00.91.11.21.11.21.42.02.73.64.04.34.23.83.12.31.41.00.70.71.12.53.45.55.73.41.90.90.70.10.10.10.10.91.96.24.53.82.31.20.80.91.41.51.51.21.31.82.33.85.14.85.44.42.81.91.10.70.50.50.91.84.14.15.13.82.31.10.70.50.10.10.10.10.10.40.92.14.23.12.81.40.80.71.01.92.21.71.31.11.61.72.34.95.85.92.71.81.51.10.60.40.40.61.32.73.66.03.21.81.00.80.60.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.51.21.82.73.11.50.80.60.61.22.73.13.01.61.31.21.31.62.52.52.91.91.11.03.57.11.40.40.50.92.03.83.92.81.51.01.00.70.40.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.20.30.51.01.62.11.50.90.60.50.71.43.33.65.12.62.01.31.01.21.62.03.34.82.00.81.212.10.40.40.71.42.72.82.11.61.31.31.00.60.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.40.30.30.30.50.71.11.10.80.50.40.40.71.53.43.95.74.12.41.31.00.61.15.218.45.22.91.39.12.40.30.30.50.91.72.52.11.81.72.01.81.00.50.10.20.30.40.70.80.90.60.40.40.40.60.70.80.80.60.40.40.40.71.63.64.26.23.92.41.20.65.714.23.23.41.80.40.20.40.71.42.12.22.22.32.53.21.91.00.20.40.50.81.41.61.60.90.60.60.91.01.01.01.20.80.50.30.40.71.73.94.25.32.72.01.00.72.514.85.20.60.10.30.61.32.42.62.42.64.03.63.41.70.80.30.50.61.01.72.42.51.30.91.32.12.12.02.41.90.90.50.30.40.71.63.84.44.02.21.30.90.60.20.51.22.73.34.33.76.15.44.62.41.20.40.51.11.63.13.63.51.81.52.13.33.23.83.11.71.00.60.40.40.71.63.74.33.22.01.21.00.60.20.41.12.54.06.28.38.46.84.33.11.70.80.50.71.82.76.44.34.02.32.32.33.24.04.12.51.71.30.70.50.50.81.83.94.44.52.31.60.90.70.20.41.02.14.45.26.68.28.65.14.22.00.90.50.81.92.85.24.34.22.52.72.92.94.03.42.61.61.40.80.50.60.91.84.04.36.63.22.31.10.70.10.30.81.83.04.57.77.15.45.23.82.41.10.50.50.81.82.76.44.44.12.32.32.33.23.94.22.51.71.30.80.60.60.91.93.74.25.24.42.31.20.60.10.30.61.22.44.55.04.73.03.02.92.41.30.60.40.61.11.73.13.83.61.91.62.23.43.33.73.21.81.00.70.50.60.91.83.94.57.03.42.41.10.70.10.20.40.91.73.13.63.02.42.42.42.21.60.90.40.30.60.71.11.82.62.71.51.11.42.22.22.12.42.01.20.70.50.50.81.83.94.24.62.41.71.15.10.10.20.61.12.03.02.72.31.92.02.12.21.30.70.30.50.71.11.72.12.11.30.91.11.51.61.51.41.71.20.70.50.50.71.63.74.33.52.21.51.610.210.40.10.20.40.81.42.12.22.12.12.32.53.22.31.20.60.20.40.60.91.41.81.91.31.01.42.12.22.02.32.01.20.70.50.50.71.63.74.33.52.410.02.19.42.00.10.40.81.21.82.42.72.52.33.23.73.81.91.00.30.50.61.11.72.22.21.61.52.13.43.33.63.21.81.00.70.50.50.81.73.94.24.62.53.21.26.80.50.91.51.82.63.43.63.44.66.04.52.71.50.70.40.60.71.22.02.83.02.02.22.33.13.94.22.41.71.30.80.60.60.81.73.84.36.93.32.41.20.92.71.42.12.42.74.35.27.16.38.14.63.72.00.90.50.61.21.83.43.93.82.32.72.92.84.03.42.61.61.50.80.60.60.81.73.54.05.04.32.21.32.413.21.72.63.53.14.34.87.87.77.56.24.42.41.20.50.81.83.06.64.54.12.42.32.43.24.14.02.41.71.40.80.50.50.81.53.53.86.22.92.11.57.413.12.24.03.93.63.55.16.49.15.86.13.72.91.30.50.81.92.95.34.24.12.11.72.23.33.23.83.11.71.00.60.40.40.71.33.03.33.61.81.31.514.05.01.31.92.66.14.24.23.54.54.55.73.33.43.02.81.60.50.71.72.55.94.23.91.71.11.42.22.22.12.51.91.00.50.40.40.61.12.22.51.91.20.81.67.510.27.14.23.65.54.64.73.23.34.03.52.42.22.32.21.50.40.51.01.52.83.53.31.50.80.81.01.11.01.01.30.90.50.40.40.50.91.61.91.71.20.90.84.417.35.52.44.66.13.53.22.42.92.52.11.71.61.61.70.30.50.50.91.52.22.31.10.60.50.60.70.80.80.80.70.50.40.40.50.81.11.11.01.01.21.21.20.90.40.33.52.62.12.23.73.33.01.81.71.71.31.21.31.62.00.20.30.50.71.31.51.50.80.50.50.60.71.01.10.90.60.50.40.40.60.80.90.80.70.92.03.53.61.61.50.96.43.01.11.21.72.12.31.41.11.11.01.01.31.93.10.10.20.30.40.60.80.90.70.60.60.71.21.61.91.20.70.50.50.50.70.91.00.80.70.71.98.110.66.62.52.218.57.32.61.11.21.41.31.10.90.80.80.91.42.23.00.10.10.20.20.30.50.60.60.70.60.91.52.32.71.80.90.60.60.81.11.21.21.00.80.71.56.613.913.94.91.74.816.17.31.10.80.80.80.70.70.60.60.80.91.31.90.10.10.10.20.30.50.60.71.01.52.14.23.32.31.20.81.01.51.81.81.51.61.31.11.33.712.612.73.31.70.42.11.50.60.50.50.50.50.50.50.60.70.10.10.10.30.50.70.71.32.54.16.03.82.61.51.01.21.82.52.62.12.52.01.41.21.86.16.62.91.07.813.02.314.96.92.81.80.10.10.20.40.80.71.42.15.34.94.02.71.51.51.83.33.63.62.93.53.22.01.31.22.33.21.60.82.416.36.11.93.77.311.016.313.09.50.10.20.40.60.61.32.53.96.04.12.91.82.32.86.04.24.53.44.25.03.22.21.51.31.61.511.81.63.52.43.817.74.12.110.91.52.14.33.92.71.92.54.35.44.44.63.74.75.95.83.11.81.21.31.36.91.03.70.51.67.42.61.01.91.01.62.63.42.41.82.53.66.94.84.83.84.85.66.02.62.01.31.31.00.81.05.60.20.23.41.00.93.20.91.62.32.82.11.51.92.54.54.64.93.94.65.74.22.82.11.61.51.15.20.70.30.10.10.20.31.813.00.91.52.02.42.01.51.52.03.34.24.53.84.64.52.92.32.32.42.11.49.00.60.10.10.77.50.40.93.71.01.62.42.92.11.61.32.13.24.24.33.74.43.82.92.42.63.23.01.50.90.50.10.11.75.10.10.40.41.32.23.53.62.31.61.62.13.74.34.63.94.63.83.43.13.74.73.91.70.70.30.20.10.10.10.11.33.72.23.85.04.22.61.82.32.95.54.65.04.35.14.94.24.47.45.54.42.00.90.50.30.20.10.10.23.217.03.25.85.34.72.61.92.74.36.04.64.94.45.26.45.95.37.15.34.82.31.10.60.50.40.30.20.33.412.53.15.85.54.72.61.92.64.16.24.64.84.25.46.37.85.37.95.75.02.71.61.11.00.90.70.50.53.714.72.13.64.94.12.51.72.22.64.94.34.64.05.26.76.55.25.15.55.33.62.82.42.22.11.81.31.04.117.21.32.13.43.62.31.51.41.73.03.63.93.64.65.84.13.94.24.65.34.53.93.93.73.33.02.21.44.011.81.01.62.42.92.11.51.11.42.12.83.13.13.94.03.23.24.14.44.24.35.45.95.65.03.11.70.12.915.30.91.52.12.52.21.51.11.31.82.32.72.73.22.82.83.03.74.63.52.93.45.05.00.71.32.02.72.71.71.21.31.92.42.82.62.62.22.32.94.64.43.62.52.63.00.91.52.63.63.62.11.31.52.13.03.63.12.72.12.23.06.34.74.52.51.91.71.62.34.74.64.32.21.71.83.24.04.83.92.92.22.63.76.45.24.43.01.61.00.1 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.118.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Luminaire LocationsNo. Label X Y ZLocationMH Orientation Tilt X YAimZ1 AA1 -539.05 -261.64 22.50 22.50 37.19 0.00 -538.38 -260.76 0.0038 AA -268.18 -120.38 12.50 12.50 154.58 0.00 -267.75 -121.30 0.0040 AA -312.30 43.61 22.50 22.50 339.14 0.00 -312.66 44.55 0.0073 AA -347.97 -161.64 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -347.97 -162.65 0.001 AA - E -299.66 185.09 22.50 22.50 90.00 0.00 -298.65 185.09 0.002 AA - E -531.44 36.21 22.50 22.50 156.04 0.00 -531.03 35.29 0.003 AA - E -439.44 68.21 22.50 22.50 156.04 0.00 -439.03 67.29 0.004 AA - E -439.43 68.21 22.50 22.50 336.04 0.00 -439.84 69.14 0.005 AA - E -93.91 -85.75 22.50 22.50 270.00 0.00 -94.92 -85.75 0.006 AA - E -133.14 -156.84 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -133.14 -157.85 0.007 AA - E -211.20 -156.84 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -211.20 -157.85 0.008 AA - E -214.81 -229.48 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -214.81 -228.47 0.009 AA - E -142.42 -229.62 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -142.42 -228.61 0.0010 AA - E -147.98 -147.02 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -147.98 -146.01 0.0011 AA - E -60.80 -144.08 22.50 22.50 333.97 0.00 -61.24 -143.18 0.0012 AA - E -33.14 -170.84 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -33.14 -171.85 0.0013 AA - E -52.42 -287.62 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -52.42 -286.61 0.0014 AA - E -42.42 -229.62 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -42.42 -228.61 0.0015 AA - E -237.57 -293.88 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -237.57 -292.87 0.0016 AA - E -142.30 -295.72 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -142.30 -294.71 0.0020 AA - E -347.44 111.21 22.50 22.50 156.04 0.00 -347.03 110.29 0.0021 AA - E -347.44 111.20 22.50 22.50 336.04 0.00 -347.85 112.12 0.001 AA - RL -482.45 -161.64 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -482.45 -162.65 0.002 AA - RL -415.97 -161.64 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -415.97 -162.65 0.003 AA - RL -589.66 -54.91 22.50 22.50 90.00 0.00 -588.65 -54.91 0.004 AA - RL -589.66 -163.13 22.50 22.50 90.00 0.00 -588.65 -163.13 0.005 AA - RL -512.29 -98.87 22.50 22.50 270.00 0.00 -513.30 -98.87 0.006 AA - RL -328.34 -368.05 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -328.34 -367.04 0.007 AA - RL -427.07 -368.05 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -427.07 -367.04 0.001 CC -427.28 -297.46 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -427.28 -296.54 0.002 CC -346.34 -297.60 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -346.34 -296.68 0.002 HA -350.24 27.99 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -350.24 27.99 0.003 HA -342.24 27.99 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -342.24 27.99 0.004 HA -334.24 27.99 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -334.24 27.99 0.002 SB -181.14 -52.63 3.50 3.50 242.15 0.00 -181.14 -52.63 0.004 SB -212.64 -49.26 3.50 3.50 1.39 0.00 -212.64 -49.26 0.007 SB -210.40 -82.15 3.50 3.50 180.34 0.00 -210.40 -82.15 0.0011 SB -190.01 -101.55 3.50 3.50 354.19 0.00 -190.01 -101.55 0.0012 SB -223.30 -103.38 3.50 3.50 16.19 0.00 -223.30 -103.38 0.0014 SB -328.14 -128.64 3.50 3.50 83.20 0.00 -328.14 -128.64 0.0017 SB -393.21 -130.05 3.50 3.50 36.97 0.00 -393.21 -130.05 0.0019 SB -371.96 -128.13 3.50 3.50 201.24 0.00 -371.96 -128.13 0.0022 SB -310.75 -128.13 3.50 3.50 275.64 0.00 -310.75 -128.13 0.0027 SB -377.30 -151.32 3.50 3.50 39.90 0.00 -377.30 -151.32 0.0028 SB -497.98 -36.98 3.50 3.50 155.15 0.00 -497.98 -36.98 0.001 W6 - E -157.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -157.00 -17.51 0.002 W6 - E -231.64 84.40 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -231.64 84.40 0.003 W6 - E -231.64 70.88 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -231.64 70.88 0.004 W6 - E -243.48 58.96 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -243.48 58.96 0.005 W6 - E -264.11 31.76 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -264.11 31.76 0.006 W6 - E -141.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -141.00 -17.51 0.007 W6 - E -125.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -125.00 -17.51 0.008 W6 - E -109.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -109.00 -17.51 0.0016 W6 -295.50 17.48 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -295.50 17.48 0.0020 W6 -463.19 -39.35 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -463.19 -39.35 0.0021 W6 -473.04 -63.13 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -473.04 -63.13 0.0022 W6 -484.99 -81.80 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -484.99 -81.80 0.0030 W6 -229.49 -51.00 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -229.49 -51.00 0.0031 W6 -239.29 -78.93 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -239.29 -78.93 0.0032 W6 -250.38 -34.52 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -250.38 -34.52 0.0033 W6 -309.30 -119.66 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -309.30 -119.66 0.0034 W6 -393.62 -119.36 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -393.62 -119.36 0.0035 W6 -335.78 -122.00 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -335.78 -122.00 0.0038 W6 -196.65 -15.92 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -196.65 -15.92 0.0039 W6 -230.31 -15.92 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -230.31 -15.92 0.00ScheduleSymbolLabelQTY Manufacturer Catalog NumberDescriptionLampNumberLampsFilenameLumensperLampLLF WattageAA3 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KTwelve Cree MDA LEDs 1 OSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx_PL08879-001A.IES16045 1 126.59AA - E18 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KTwelve Cree MDA LEDs 1 OSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx_PL08879-001A.IES16045 1 126.59AA - RL7 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KTwelve Cree MDA LEDs 1 OSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx_PL08879-001A.IES16045 1 126.59AA11 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx w/OSQ-BLSMFCONFIGURED FROMOSQ-A-xx-3ME-U-57K-ULxxxxx w/OSQ-BLSLFCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III Medium w/Backlight Shield, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KCONFIGURED FROM Cree OSQSeries Area Luminaire, Type IIIMedium w/ Backlight Shield, UInput Power Designator, 5700KCONFIGURED FROMMDA1 OSQ-A-XX-3ME--K-30K-ULXXXXXW_OSQ-BLSMF_CONFIGURED.ies12649 1 130CC2 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-4ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx CONFIGUREDFROM OSQ-A-xx-4ME-B--30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type IV MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KCONFIGURED FROM Cree OSQSeries Area Luminaire, Type IVMedium Distribution, B InputPower Designator, 3000KCONFIGURED FROMEight Cree MDA LEDs1 OSQ-A-XX-4ME--K-30K-ULXXXXX_CONFIGURED.ies16023 1 130HA3 LithoniaLightingLDN6CYL 40/10 LO6ARLSS6IN LDN CYLINDER, 4000K,1000LM, CLEAR, SEMI-SPECULAR REFLECTOR, CRI801 LDN6CYL_40_10_LO6AR_LSS.ies952 1 10.44SB11 Cree IncPWY-EDG-3M-xx-02-E-UL-350-40K /BXBPx318E-UH7Cree Edge Pathway Luminaire,Type III Medium, 18 LEDs, 120-277V, 350mA, 4000KEighteen type XP-G2LEDs1 PWY-EDG-3M-xx-02-E-UL-350--40K_PL05698-001.IES1470 1 21.2W612VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV1VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV.ies4023 1 41.68W6 - E8VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV1VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV.ies4023 1 41.68StatisticsDescriptionSymbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min20' Past PropertyLine0.0 fc 0.1 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/ASite Plan2.2 fc 18.4 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/AEXISTING BUILDINGBUILDING ADDITIONELP1BEEEEEEEEEEEEHAHAHACCCCAA - RLAA - RLEXISTINGEXISTINGRELOCATEDAA - RLRELOCATED 10' POLEAAW6W6W6W6W6W6W6EEEEEEEEEW6W6W6W6SBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBAA - RLAA - RLAA - RLAA - RLAA - RLAAAA1PROPERTY LINE20' PAST PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SITE LIGHTING TO REMAIN, TYP.EXISTING WALLPACK TO REMAIN, TYP.RELOCATED SITE LIGHTING, TYP.PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.A.420 LINDEN ST., SUITE 110, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524970-232-9558 www.pec1.comPEC PROJECT NUMBER: 210025-000RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSSHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525TLPACRE100SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 805240'30'45'15'1" = 30'-0" SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANABIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/210025-000-ELEC-R21.rvt5/18/2021 4:10:23 PMSPAR SUBMITTAL2 05/19/2021PLANNORTH0°ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 134 AA, AA1, CCW6SBHAPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.A.420 LINDEN ST., SUITE 110, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524970-232-9558 www.pec1.comPEC PROJECT NUMBER: 210025-000RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSSHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525TLPACRE101SITE PHOTOMETRIC CUTSHEETSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/210025-000-ELEC-R21.rvt5/18/2021 4:10:24 PMSPAR SUBMITTAL2 05/19/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 135 EXISTING ASD BUILDINGPROPOSED NEW BUILDING12655176351019103472524465351092130' - 0" PARAPET HT.1' - 0"30' - 0" PARAPET HT.33' - 9" PARAPET HT.8821279351017541215517517667545176233510197788222121271. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).2. STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL; COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).3. BUILT-UP CORNICE, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).4. CANOPY, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).5. INTEGRALLY COLORED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CONCRETE SILL OR CAP TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY (ACID ETCHED, SEALED).6. ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).7. ALUMINUM FRAMED CURTAINWALL SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).8. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).9. LOUVERED MECHANICAL SCREEN (PREFINISHED STEEL OR ALUMINUM) WITH PAINTED STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT FRAME.10. WATER MANAGED CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM; BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).11. NOT USED.12. 24 GA. STEEL SNAP ON PARAPET COPING; PREFINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY, WITH FACTORY FABRICATED TRANSITIONS. WORKNOTES -CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSX13. MASONRY CONTROL JOINTS WHERE INDICATED, 30' MAXIMUM.14. ELASTOMERIC EXTERIOR BUILDING EXPANSION JOINT SYSTEM.15. INSULATED EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME (PAINTED).16. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT.17. EMERGENCY EGRESS/RESCUE WINDOW AT SLEEPING ROOM WITH SIGNAGE AND ALARM CONTACT.18. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, WALL MOUNTED. REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS.19. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION, CONFIRM REQUIREMENTS WITH FIRE PROTECTION SUBCONTRACTOR AND VERIFY LOCATION WITH AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.20. 4" DIAMETER STEEL PIPE BOLLARD SET IN CONCRETE WITH HDPE BOLLARD COVER.21. THROUGH WALL ROOF OVERFLOW SCUPPER.22. ROOF OVERFLOW WALL NOZZLE. REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR PIPE SIZE AND SPECIFICATIONS.23. ARCHITECTURAL SUN CONTROL DEVICE INTEGRAL TO ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMING; CLEAR ANODIZED.24. BRUSHED ALUMINUM BUILDING SIGNAGE.25. BACKLIT ENTRANCE NUMERAL.26. 60 MIL FULLY ADHERED EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE OVER 1/2" PRIMED COVER BOARD ON TWO LAYERS POLYISOCYANURATE THERMAL INSULATION. SLOPE TO DRAIN. 27. EXISTING ASD BUILDING, SHOWN HALFTONE.DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL; COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM; BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).BUILT-UP CORNICE OR CANOPY;ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT OR CURTAINWALL SYSTEM;CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).EXTERIOR MATERIAL PALETTE -TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:11:10 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525BDR-BRTAS-JEA201CONCEPTUAL BUILDINGELEVATIONSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 805243/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH3/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTHPDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021010'20'40'010'20'40'ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 136 EXISTING ASD BUILDINGPROPOSED NEW BUILDING15519103512630' - 0" PARAPET HT.33' - 9" PARAPET HT.11515228527EXISTING ASD BUILDINGPROPOSED NEW BUILDING125831091281515153101456612215271. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).2. STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL; COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).3. BUILT-UP CORNICE, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).4. CANOPY, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).5. INTEGRALLY COLORED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CONCRETE SILL OR CAP TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY (ACID ETCHED, SEALED).6. ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).7. ALUMINUM FRAMED CURTAINWALL SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).8. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).9. LOUVERED MECHANICAL SCREEN (PREFINISHED STEEL OR ALUMINUM) WITH PAINTED STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT FRAME.10. WATER MANAGED CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM; BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).11. NOT USED.12. 24 GA. STEEL SNAP ON PARAPET COPING; PREFINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY, WITH FACTORY FABRICATED TRANSITIONS. WORKNOTES -CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSX13. MASONRY CONTROL JOINTS WHERE INDICATED, 30' MAXIMUM.14. ELASTOMERIC EXTERIOR BUILDING EXPANSION JOINT SYSTEM.15. INSULATED EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME (PAINTED).16. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT.17. EMERGENCY EGRESS/RESCUE WINDOW AT SLEEPING ROOM WITH SIGNAGE AND ALARM CONTACT.18. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, WALL MOUNTED. REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS.19. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION, CONFIRM REQUIREMENTS WITH FIRE PROTECTION SUBCONTRACTOR AND VERIFY LOCATION WITH AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.20. 4" DIAMETER STEEL PIPE BOLLARD SET IN CONCRETE WITH HDPE BOLLARD COVER.21. THROUGH WALL ROOF OVERFLOW SCUPPER.22. ROOF OVERFLOW WALL NOZZLE. REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR PIPE SIZE AND SPECIFICATIONS.23. ARCHITECTURAL SUN CONTROL DEVICE INTEGRAL TO ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMING; CLEAR ANODIZED.24. BRUSHED ALUMINUM BUILDING SIGNAGE.25. BACKLIT ENTRANCE NUMERAL.26. 60 MIL FULLY ADHERED EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE OVER 1/2" PRIMED COVER BOARD ON TWO LAYERS POLYISOCYANURATE THERMAL INSULATION. SLOPE TO DRAIN. 27. EXISTING ASD BUILDING, SHOWN HALFTONE.DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL; COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM; BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).BUILT-UP CORNICE OR CANOPY;ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT OR CURTAINWALL SYSTEM;CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).EXTERIOR MATERIAL PALETTE -TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:11:33 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525BDR-BRTAS-JEA202CONCEPTUAL BUILDINGELEVATIONSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 805243/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST3/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELVEATION - EASTPDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021010'20'40'010'20'40'ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 137 RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:12:00 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525AuthorCheckerA901CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021AERIAL FROM NORTHWEST2524424262699121233355110515TYP.17TYP.6TYP.15115TYP.6TYP.10277261522AERIAL FROM SOUTHWEST4269912333511056TYP.17TYP.5TYP.151101747723TYP.2722ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 138 RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:12:13 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525TAS-JETAS-JEA902CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/202142699123351056TYP.17TYP.5TYP.151101723TYP.272612475122612121AERIAL FROM SOUTHEASTITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 139 ''68%0,77$/-XQH' Kd ,Z WKZdKDW> d z'ZKhE E'/E Z/E':KEhD Z͗ϮϬͲϬϬϰϳ ) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B7LWOHGZJ63$57LWOH6KHHW $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 140 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,210,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU67$1'$5'127(6$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524GENERAL NOTES:$67$1'$5'*5$',1*$1'(526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/&216758&7,213/$11. THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE.2. THERE SHALL BE NO EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE LIMITS DESIGNATED ON THE ACCEPTED PLANS.3. ALL REQUIRED PERIMETER SILT AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STOCKPILING, STRIPPING, GRADING, ETC). ALL OTHER REQUIREDEROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AS INDICATED IN THE APPROVED PROJECT SCHEDULE, CONSTRUCTION PLANS,AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT.4. AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING ON-SITE EROSION INCLUDING KEEPING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENTLYWATERED SO AS TO MINIMIZE WIND BLOWN SEDIMENT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHOWN HEREIN.5. PRE-DISTURBANCE VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. REMOVAL OR DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA(S) REQUIREDFOR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, AND FOR THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME.6. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STRIPPING, GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATIONS, STOCKPILING, FILLING, ETC.) SHALL BE KEPT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION BY RIPPING ORDISKING ALONG LAND CONTOURS UNTIL MULCH, VEGETATION, OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL BMPS ARE INSTALLED. NO SOILS IN AREAS OUTSIDE PROJECT STREET RIGHTSOF-WAYSHALL REMAIN EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY FOR MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS BEFORE REQUIRED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL (E.G. SEED/MULCH, LANDSCAPING,ETC.) IS INSTALLED, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.7. IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION POTENTIAL, ALL TEMPORARY (STRUCTURAL) EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL:A. BE INSPECTED AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE EVERY TWO (2) WEEKS AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENT AND REPAIRED OR RECONSTRUCTED AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THECONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION.B. REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL THE SURROUNDING DISTURBED AREAS ARE SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR.C. BE REMOVED AFTER THE SITE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR.8. WHEN TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REMOVED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN UP AND REMOVAL OF ALL SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM ALL DRAINAGEINFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES.9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN UP ANY INADVERTENT DEPOSITED MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY AND MAKE SURE STREETS ARE FREE OF ALL MATERIALS BY THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.10. ALL RETAINED SEDIMENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES, SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER AND LOCATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE THEIR RELEASE INTOANY WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.11. NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED TEN (10) FEET IN HEIGHT. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT TRANSPORT BY SURFACE ROUGHENING, WATERING, AND PERIMETER SILTFENCING. ANY SOIL STOCKPILE REMAINING AFTER THIRTY (30) DAYS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED.12. THE STORMWATER VOLUME CAPACITY OF DETENTION PONDS WILL BE RESTORED AND STORM SEWER LINES WILL BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE TURNING THEMAINTENANCE OVER TO THE LOCAL ENTITY OR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA).13. CITY ORDINANCE AND COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO DISCHARGE OR ALLOW THE DISCHARGE OF ANY POLLUTANT OR CONTAMINATEDWATER FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES. POLLUTANTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO DISCARDED BUILDING MATERIALS, CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT, CHEMICALS, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTS, LITTER,AND SANITARY WASTE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT ALL TIMES TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE PROPER CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL OF POLLUTANTS ON THE SITE INACCORDANCE WITH ANY AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.14. A DESIGNATED AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ON SITE FOR CONCRETE TRUCK CHUTE WASHOUT. THE AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO CONTAIN WASHOUT MATERIAL AND LOCATED AT LEASTFIFTY (50) FEET AWAY FROM ANY WATERWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THE CONCRETE WASHOUT MATERIAL WILL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLYDISPOSED OF PRIOR TO THE AREA BEING RESTORED.15. TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT DOES NOT MOVE OFF OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THELOTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED, AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR, (WITHIN LOVELAND GMA AND CITY LIMITS ONLY).16. CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD MAY WARRANT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT WHATEVER MEASURES AREDETERMINED NECESSARY, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY/COUNTY.17. A VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PERSONAL VEHICLES EXITING EXISTING ROADWAYS. NOEARTHEN MATERIALS, I.E. STONE, DIRT, ETC. SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CURB & GUTTER OR ROADWAY AS A RAMP TO ACCESS TEMPORARY STOCKPILES, STAGING AREAS, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS,CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS, AND/OR BUILDING SITES.18. ADD NOTES TO REFLECT THE STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL PLAN OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT.A. BELOW ALL GUTTER DOWNSPOUTS.B.OUT TO DRAINAGE SWALES.C. ALONG LOT PERIMETER.D. OTHER LOCATIONS, IF NEEDED.%675((7,03529(0(176127(61. ALL STREET CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL NOTES ON THE COVER SHEET OF THESE PLANS AS WELL AS THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS NOTES LISTED HERE.2. A PAVING SECTION DESIGN, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY A COLORADO LICENSED ENGINEER, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY STREETCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, (FULL DEPTH ASPHALT SECTIONS ARE NOT PERMITTED AT A DEPTH GREATER THAN 8 INCHES OF ASPHALT). THE JOB MIX SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOPLACEMENT OF ANY ASPHALT.3. WHERE PROPOSED PAVING ADJOINS EXISTING ASPHALT, THE EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE SAW CUT, A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES FROM THE EXISTING EDGE, TO CREATE A CLEANCONSTRUCTION JOINT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT TO A DISTANCE WHERE A CLEAN CONSTRUCTION JOINT CAN BE MADE. WHEEL CUTS SHALL NOT BEALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IN LOVELAND.4. STREET SUBGRADES SHALL BE SCARIFIED THE TOP 12 INCHES AND RE-COMPACTED PRIOR TO SUBBASE INSTALLATION. NO BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE LAID UNTIL THE SUBGRADE HAS BEENINSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY PASSED A "PROOF ROLL" AS DESCRIBED IN NOTE '8' BELOW.5. WHEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE CUT, THE STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE EXISTING STREET CONDITIONSHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY THE INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. CUTTING AND PATCHING SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 25, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. THEFINISHED PATCH SHALL BLEND SMOOTHLY INTO THE EXISTING SURFACE. THE DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR A COMPLETE OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. ALL OVERLAYWORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ADJACENT LANDOWNERS SUCH THAT FUTURE PROJECTS DO NOT CUT THE NEW ASPHALT OVERLAY WORK.6. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN M.U.T.C.D. (INCLUDING COLORADO SUPPLEMENT) AND AS PER THE RIGHT-OF-WAYWORK PERMIT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN.7. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM A GUTTER WATER FLOW TEST IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR AND PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ASPHALT. GUTTERS THAT HOLDMORE THAN 14 INCH DEEP OR 5 FEET LONGITUDINALLY, OF WATER, SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN PROPERLY.8. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF H.B.P. OR CONCRETE WITHIN THE STREET AND AFTER MOISTURE/DENSITY TESTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL (WHEN A FULL DEPTH SECTION ISPROPOSED) OR ON THE SUBGRADE AND BASE MATERIAL (WHEN A COMPOSITE SECTION IS PROPOSED), A MECHANICAL "PROOF ROLL" WILL BE REQUIRED. THE ENTIRE SUBGRADE AND/OR BASEMATERIAL SHALL BE ROLLED WITH A HEAVILY LOADED VEHICLE HAVING A TOTAL GVW OF NOT LESS THAN 50,000 LBS. AND A SINGLE AXLE WEIGHT OF AT LEAST 18,000 LBS. WITH PNEUMATIC TIRESINFLATED TO NOT LESS THAT 90 P.S.I.G. "PROOF ROLL" VEHICLES SHALL NOT TRAVEL AT SPEEDS GREATER THAN 3 M.P.H. ANY PORTION OF THE SUBGRADE OR BASE MATERIAL WHICH EXHIBITSEXCESSIVE PUMPING OR DEFORMATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, SHALL BE REWORKED, REPLACED OR OTHERWISE MODIFIED TO FORM A SMOOTH, NON-YIELDINGSURFACE THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE "PROOF ROLL." ALL "PROOF ROLLS" SHALL BE PREFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF AN INSPECTOR.&75$)),&6,*1,1*$1'3$9(0(170$5.,1*&216758&7,21127(61. ALL SIGNAGE AND MARKING IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL NOTES ON THE COVER SHEET OF THESE PLANS, AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND MARKING CONSTRUCTION NOTES LISTED HERE.2. ALL SYMBOLS, INCLUDING ARROWS, ONLYS, CROSSWALKS, STOP BARS, ETC. SHALL BE PRE-FORMED THERMO-PLASTIC.3. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE PER LOCAL ENTITY STANDARDS AND THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN MUTCD.4. ALL LANE LINES FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHALL RECEIVE TWO COATS OF LATEX PAINT WITH GLASS BEADS.5. ALL LANE LINES FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHOULD BE EPOXY PAINT.6. PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND SYMBOLS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PLACE TEMPORARY TABS OR TAPE DEPICTING ALIGNMENT AND PLACEMENT OF THE SAME. THEIRPLACEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF STRIPING AND SYMBOLS.7. PRE-FORMED THERMO-PLASTIC APPLICATIONS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN THESE PLANS AND/OR THESE STANDARDS.8. EPOXY APPLICATIONS SHALL BE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED IN CDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION.9. ALL SURFACES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRIPING OR MARKINGS.10. ALL SIGN POSTS SHALL UTILIZE BREAK-AWAY ASSEMBLIES AND FASTENERS PER THE STANDARDS.11. A FIELD INSPECTION OF LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL SIGNS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. ALL DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FIELD INSPECTION MUSTBE CORRECTED BEFORE THE 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD WILL BEGIN.12. THE DEVELOPER INSTALLING SIGNS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.13. SPECIAL CARE SHALL BE TAKEN IN SIGN LOCATION TO ENSURE AN UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF EACH SIGN.14. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF REVIEW. PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE AND/OR STRIPING IF THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT AN UNFORESEEN CONDITION WARRANTS SUCH SIGNAGE ACCORDING TO THEMUTCD OR THE CDOT M AND S STANDARDS. ALL SIGNAGE AND STRIPING SHALL FALL UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (EXCEPT FAIR WEARON TRAFFIC MARKINGS).15. SLEEVES FOR SIGN POSTS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR USE IN ISLANDS/MEDIANS. REFER TO CHAPTER 14, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL.'67250'5$,1$*(127(61. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. MAINTENANCE OF ONSITE DRAINAGE FACILITIESSHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER(S).2. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY (NAME OF THE STUDY AND DATE) BY AVI ENGINEERING PC SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED.3. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF LOVELAND, CERTIFICATION OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER, MUST BY SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BYTHE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF A CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, CERTIFICATION SHALL BY SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THERELEASE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.(:$7(5/,1(127(MINIMUM COVER OVER WATER LINES IS 4.5 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM COVER IS 5.5 FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITY.)38%/,&:$7(5:$67(:$7(567$1'$5'127(61. IN ADDITION TO MEETING APPLICABLE LCUASS, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, STATE OR FEDERAL STANDARDS, ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATERSYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.2. IN CASES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE SIGNED PICP'S AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE MOST RESTRICITVE STANDARD SHALL APPLY.3. IN CASES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LCUASS, RELATING TO WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS, THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE.4. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FROM ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES. THE DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER (970-962-3000) AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY PUBLIC WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.5. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.6. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE, ONSITE AT ALL TIMES, TO (2) SIGNED COPIES OF THE APPROVED PICP'S (ONE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ONE FOR RECORD DRAWINGS.) ONE (1) COPY OF THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND COPIES OF ANY APPLICABLE PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS.7. PRIOR TO INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER SHALL APPROVE RECORD DRAWINGS FOR ALL PUBLIC WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.$33529('9$5,$1&(6$5(/,67('$6)2//2:6 1. ALL STATIONING IS BASED ON CENTERLINE OF ROADWAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS EXISTING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED,DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED IN LIKE KIND AT THE DEVELOPERS EXPENSE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THESEPLANS, PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.3. WHEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE CUT, THE STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE EXISTING STREET CONDITIONSHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. PATCHING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY STREET REPAIRSTANDARDS. THE FINISHED PATCH SHALL BLEND IN SMOOTHLY INTO THE EXISTING SURFACE. ALL LARGE PATCHES SHALL BE PAVED WITH AN ASPHALT LAY-DOWN MACHINE. IN STREETS WHEREMORE THAN ONE CUT IS MADE, AN OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND/OR THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR AT THE TIME THE CUTS ARE MADE.4. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED AND RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, OR TO THEGRADES AND CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY THESE PLANS.5. STANDARD HANDICAP RAMPS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB RETURNS AND AT ALL "T" INTERSECTIONS.6. AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEPICTED IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO B FREE FROM MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP DEFECTS FOR A MINIMUMPERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.7. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPES, FOR THEFOLLOWING PRIVATE STREETS: (PERIDOT AVENEUE).) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B*HQHUDO1RWHVGZJ $01. ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREASTREET STANDARDS, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, AND APPLICABLE STATE ANDFEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS, OR ANY APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE STANDARD SHALL APPLY. ALLWORK SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.2. THE DEVELOPER IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITYCOMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE ENGINEER SHALL CONTACT THEUTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO (UNCC) AT 1-800-922-1987, AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING, TO HAVE ALL REGISTERED UTILITY LOCATIONSMARKED. OTHER UNREGISTERED UTILITY ENTITIES (I.E. DITCH / IRRIGATION COMPANY) ARE TO BE LOCATED BY CONTACTING THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE. UTILITY SERVICE LATERALS AREALSO TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT CONFLICT WITH THEPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.3. NO WORK MAY COMMENCE WITHIN ANY IMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL A RIGHT-OFWAY PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS OBTAINED, IF APPLICABLE. THE DEVELOPERSHALL SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD, TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY, (LOCAL ENTITY, COUNTY OR STATE), FOR APPROVAL,PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN, OR AFFECTING, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AS MAYBE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES. THE DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AT LEAST 2WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY, OR CONSTRUCTION ON ANY AND ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. IF THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IS NOT AVAILABLE AFTERPROPER NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED, THE DEVELOPER MAY COMMENCE WORK IN THE ENGINEER ABSENCE. HOWEVER, THE LOCAL ENTITY RESERVES THE RIGHT NOTTO ACCEPT THE IMPROVEMENT IF SUBSEQUENT TESTING REVEALS AN IMPROPER INSTALLATION.5. THE ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS, BY EXECUTION AND/OR SEAL HEREOF, DOES HEREBY AFFIRM RESPONSIBILITY TO LARIMER COUNTY, AS BENEFICIARY OF SAID ENGINEER'S WORK,FOR ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS, AND APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS OFALL SUCH RESPONSIBILITY. FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE ENGINEER HEREBY AGREES TO HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY THE CITY, AND ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES,FROM AND AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, CLAIMS, AND DEMANDS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS.6. ALL UTILITY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN OR ACROSS THE ROADBED OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ROADS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE FINAL STAGES OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. FOR THE PURPOSES OFTHESE STANDARDS, ANY WORK EXCEPT C/G ABOVE THE SUBGRADE IS CONSIDERED FINAL STAGE WORK. ALL SERVICE LINES MUST BE STUBBED TO THE PROPERTY LINES AND MARKED SO AS TOREDUCE THE EXCAVATION NECESSARY FOR BUILDING CONNECTIONS.7. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE AND COOPERATE WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY, AND ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INVOLVED, WITH REGARD TO RELOCATIONS, ADJUSTMENTS, EXTENSIONS ANDREARRANGEMENTS OF EXISTING UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND TO ASSURE THAT THE WORK IS ACCOMPLISHED IN A TIMELY FASHION AND WITH A MINIMUM DISRUPTION OF SERVICE. THEDEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING, IN ADVANCE, ALL PARTIES AFFECTED BY ANY DISRUPTION OF ANY UTILITY SERVICE AS WELL AS THE UTILITY COMPANIES.8. NO WORK MAY COMMENCE WITHIN ANY PUBLIC STORM WATER, SANITARY SEWER OR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM UNTIL THE DEVELOPER NOTIFIES THE UTILITY PROVIDER. NOTIFICATION SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE WATER UTILITY PROVIDER, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TOCOMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND FOR COORDINATING WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY FOR ANY UTILITY CROSSINGSREQUIRED.10. THE TYPE, SIZE, LOCATION AND NUMBER OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TOVERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE WORK BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.11. WHEN APPLICABLE, THE DEVELOPER SHALL HAVE ONSITE AT ALL TIMES, EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: THE NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI), A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) MAINTENANCE FOLDER, ANUP TO DATE STORMWATER MANGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) THAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS, ONE (1) SIGNED COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS,ONE (1) COPY OF THEAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND EXTENSION AGREEMENTS NEEDED FOR THE JOB.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING, SHORING, TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND SECURITY. REFER TO OSHAPUBLICATION 2226, EXCAVATING AND TRENCHING.13.IF, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED WHICH COULD INDICATE A SITUATION THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE DEVELOPERSHALL CONTACT THE DESIGNER AND THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY.14.ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO THE LATEST REVISION OF SAID STANDARD, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD, TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY. (LOCAL ENTITY, COUNTY OR STATE),FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN, OR AFFECTING, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS, SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS, ORDESIGNATED TO BE PROVIDED, INSTALLED, OR CONSTRUCTED, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE.17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSURING THAT NO MUD OR DEBRIS SHALL BE TRACKED ONTO THE EXISTING PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. MUD AND DEBRIS MUST BE REMOVED BY THEEND OF EACH WORKING DAY BY AN APPROPRIATE MECHANICAL METHOD (I.E. MACHINE BROOM SWEEP, LIGHT DUTY FRONT-END LOADER, ETC.) OR AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY STREETINSPECTOR.18. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS-BUILT INFORMATION ON A SET OF RECORD DRAWING KEPT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND AVAILABLE TO THE LOCAL ENTITY'SINSPECTOR AT ALL TIMES.19. DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM ANY DRAWING. IF PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, CONTACT THE DESIGNER FOR CLARIFICATION, ANDANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON THE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS.20. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COLORADO PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THE EROSIONCONTROL PLAN.21. ALL STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED, AT THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND AT AREAS WITH DISTURBED SOIL, ON- OR OFF-SITE, PRIOR TO ANY OTHERGROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR BY THE DEVELOPER, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ENTIRE DISTURBED AREAS IS STABILIZEDWITH HARD SURFACE OR LANDSCAPING. TO MITIGATE EROSION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL USE STANDARD EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED IN THE URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIAMANUAL, VOLUME 3- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AS PUBLISHED BY THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (UDFCD0.22. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. IN GENERAL, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER SHOULD BECONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE WATER LINES AND DRY UTILITIES.23. THERE SHALL BE NO SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SATURDAYS, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, AND NO SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SUNDAYS ORHOLIDAYS, UNLESS THERE IS PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.24. THE DESIGNER SHALL PROVIDE, IN THIS LOCATION ON THE PLAN, THE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE NEAREST SURVEY BENCHMARK FOR THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS.THE INFORMATION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:25. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED AND RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO, OR BETTER THAN, THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, OR TO THEGRADES AND CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY THESE PLANS.26. EXISTING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THISPROJECT SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED IN LIKE KIND AT THE DEVELOPER EXPENSE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THESE PLANS.27. OVERLOT GRADING CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE STATE OF COLORADO PERMITTING PROCESS FOR "STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY." CONTACTTHE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, PHONE (303) 692-3500.28. A STATE CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO INSTALL UTILITIES OR BEFORE WATER IS DISCHARGED INTO ASTORM SEWER, CHANNEL, IRRIGATION DITCH OR ANY WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.29. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD LOCATING AND VERIFYING ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, CURBS, GUTTERS AND OTHER UTILITIES AT THE POINTS OFCONNECTION SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND AT ANY UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO INSTALLING ANY OF THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. IF A CONFLICT EXISTS AND/OR A DESIGN MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ENGINEER TO MODIFY THE DESIGN. DESIGN MODIFICATION(S) MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.30. AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEPICTED IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE FREE FROM MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP DEFECTS FOR A PERIOD OFTWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.31. THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. USE OF THESE PLANS AFTERTHE EXPIRATION DATE WILL REQUIRE A NEW REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS BY THE LOCAL ENTITY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK SHOWN IN THESE PLANS.32.PAVING SHALL NOT START UNTIL A SOILS REPORT AND PAVEMENT DESIGN IS ACCEPTED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND SUBGRADE COMPACTION TESTS ARE TAKEN AND ACCEPTED BY THELOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER.33.THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING SOILS TESTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOF-WAY AFTER RIGHT OF WAY GRADING AND ALL UTILITY TRENCH WORK IS COMPLETE. IF THE FINALSOILS/PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE RESULTS OF THE ORIGINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A RE-DESIGN OF THESUBJECT PAVEMENT SECTION OR, THE DEVELOPER MAY USE THE LOCAL ENTITY'S DEFAULT PAVEMENT THICKNESS SECTION(S). REGARDLESS OF THE OPTION USED, ALL FINAL SOILD/PAVEMENTDESIGN REPORTS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. THE FINAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TOPLACEMENT OF BASE AND ASPHALT. PLACEMENT OF BASE AND ASPHALT SHALL NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE ENGINEERING DIVISION APPROVES THE FINAL REPORT.34. ALL ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS WILD FIRE HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED IN THE WILD FIRE HAZARDAREA MITIGATION REGULATIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.35. PORTIONS OF LARIMER COUNTY ARE WITHIN OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THE LARIMER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN RESOLUTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO FOR ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR ROADS WITHIN THESEDISTRICTS.36. STANDARD HANDICAP RAMPS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB RETURNS AND AT ALL "T" INTERSECTIONS.37. ALL STATIONING IS BASED ON CENTERLINE OF ROADWAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.38. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPES, FOR THEFOLLOWING PRIVATE STREETS: (PERIDOT AVENUE).) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B*HQHUDO1RWHVGZJ*HQHUDO1RWHV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 141 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU(;,67,1*&21',7,216$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524LEGENDEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING BURIED ELECTRICEXISTING BURIED TELEPHONEEXISTING SANITARY LINEEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING STORM LINEEXISTING SANITARY CLEAN OUTEXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING GREASE TRAPEXISTING WATER MANHOLEEXISTING WATER METEREXISTING YARD HYDRANTEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING WATER BLOWOFFEXISTING VALVE BOXEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING BOLLARDEXISTING BIKE RACKEXISTING SIGN (MISC.)EMERGENCY ACCESSTO MIDPOINT DRIVEEXISTING FIREHYDRANTSHEET MATCH LINELOT LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENT LINELOT 1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOINERS2255 MIDPOINT DR.8.475 ACRESPROPERTYBOUNDARYEASEMENTLINE0030'60'SCALE 1" = 30'EMERGENCY ACCESSTO MIDPOINT DRIVEEXISTING FIREHYDRANTNEW FIRE HYDRANTPER NEW JAIL PLANSEXISTING ALTERNATIVESENTENCING DETENTION(ASD) BUILDINGFF EL: 4913.0LOT 2BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOINERS2405 MIDPOINT DR.18.798 ACRESLOT LINESANITARYSEWEREASEMENT20'20'20' EASEMENTEXISTING PARKING AREA59 SPACESEXISTING PARKING AREA62 SPACESEXISTING PARKING AREA17 SPACESSANITARYSEWEREASEMENTJAIL EXPANSIONCONSTRUCTION TRAILER(TO BE MOVED)8" PVC SANITARYSEWER MAIN8" PVC WATERMAIN36" RCPSTORMSEWER36" RCPSTORMSEWER24" PVCSTORMSEWER8" PVC SANITARYSEWER MAIN18" PVCSTORMSEWER24" RCPSTORMSEWER24" RCPSTORMSEWER8" PVC WATER MAIN15" PVCSTORMSEWER8" PVCSANITARYSEWER MAIN8" PVC WATER MAIN15" PVC STORMSEWER8" PVCSANITARYSEWER6" PVC SANITARYSEWER SERVICEIRRIGATIONWATERSERVICE8" DIP WATERSERVICE6" DIP FIRELINE 3" PVCWATERSERVICEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANT8" PVC WATER MAINEXISTING PARKING AREAEXISTING STORMSEWER MAIN8" PVC WATER MAIN8" PVC WATER MAIN15" PVC STORMSEWER8" PVCSANITARYSEWER MAINNOTE: AERIAL DOES NOT REFLECTRECENT CHANGES FROM THE JAILEXPANSION PROJECT CURRENTLYUNDER CONSTRUCTION.JAIL EXPANSIONPROJECT NOWOCCURRING IN THISAREA.EXISTING GRAVELWALKING PATHLARIMER COUNTYCOMMUNITYCORRECTIONS BUILDINGLARIMER COUNTY JAILBUILDING) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ([&RQGLWLRQV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 142 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU'(02/,7,213/$16+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524REMOVE 305' OFEXISTING STORMSEWEREXISTING ALTERNATIVESENTENCING DETENTIONBUILDINGEMERGENCY ACCESSTO MIDPOINT DRIVESHEET MATCH LINEREMOVE 82' OFEXISTING STORMSEWERCONCRETE REMOVALASPHALT REMOVALHATCH LEGENDCLEARING LIMITSNOTE:1 CLEARING LIIMITS WILL INCLUDE THE REMOVALOF TOPSOIL AND WILL BE BOUND BY THE LIMITSOF THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS.2 CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THEJAIL EXPANSION PROJECT REGARDINGREMOVAL LIMITS, PARKING, ETC.REMOVE 226' OF 8" PVCWATER SERVICECAP 8" WATER SERVICE1' WEST OF WATERVALVEREMOVE EXITINGWATER VALVE AND CAP8" WATER SERVICEREMOVE 146' OF 8" PVCSANITARY SERVICEREMOVE 79' OF 8" DIP WATERAND SERVICED HYDRANT.DISCONNECT AND CAP AT MAINREMOVE 160' OF 3" PVC WATER AND ALLSERVICED VALVES AND MANHOLES.DISCONNECT AND CAP AT MAINREMOVE 140' OF 8" DIP WATERAND ALL SERVICED VALVES.DISCONNECT AND CAP AT MAINREMOVE 94' OF 6" DIP WATER AND ALLSERVICED VALVES AND MANHOLES.DISCONNECT AND CAP AT MAIN23' OF EXISTING SERVICE TOREMAIN16' OF EXISTINGSERVICE TO REMAINNEATLINE SAWCUT ANDREMOVE EXISTINGCONCRETE PAVEMENTNEATLINE SAWCUT ANDREMOVE EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENTNEATLINE SAWCUT ANDREMOVE EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENTREMOVE EXISTINGTREESREMOVE EXISTINGTREESREMOVE EXISTING STORMINLET AND 5.5' OF EXISTING8" PVC STORM PIPEEXISTING LIGHT POLE TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLE TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING VALVE BOXES TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLE TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING VALVE BOXES TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING SIGNS TO BEREMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLES TOBE REMOVEDNEATLINE SAWCUT AND REMOVEEXISTING SIDEWALK AT TOP OFSTAIRSEXISTING LIGHT POLETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING VALVE BOXESTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING VALVEBOXES TO REMAINEXISTING VALVEBOX TO REMAINEXISTING VALVE BOXTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING SIGN TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING VALVE BOXTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING SIGNS TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING ISLAND TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING ISLAND TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING STORM INLETTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING SIGNS TOBE REMOVEDNEATLINE SAWCUT ANDREMOVE EXISTING CURBAND GUTTERDISCONNECT AND CAPWATER LINES (4) AT MAINREMOVE EXISTING TREEJAIL EXPANSIONPROJECT NOWOCCURRING IN THISAREA.LARIMER COUNTYCOMMUNITYCORRECTIONS BUILDING0020'40'SCALE 1" = 20'EXISTING PARKINGAREA TO REMAINEXISTING PARKINGAREA TO REMAIN) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ'HPR $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 143 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU'(02/,7,213/$16+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524EXISTING PARKING AREATO REMAINPROTECT EXISTING STORM SEWER WHENCLEARING AND EXCAVATING FOR NEW 30"RCP STORM PIPECONCRETE REMOVALASPHALT REMOVALHATCH LEGENDCLEARING LIMITSNOTE:CLEARING LIIMITS WILL INCLUDE THEREMOVAL OF TOPSOIL AND WILL BEBOUND BY THE LIMITS OF THECONSTRUCTION AREAS.PROTECT EXISTINGSANITARY WHENCLEARING FOR SWALEREMOVE EXISTINGTREENEATLINE SAWCUT ANDREMOVE EXISTING CURBAND GUTTERREMOVE 105' OFEXISTING FENCEEXISTING CURB AND GUTTERTO REMAIN DURINGCONSTRUCTIONCLEARING LIMITS FORSWALE AND STORM PIPEPROTECT EXISTINGFENCE LINE DURINGCONSTRUCTIONSHEET MATCH LINE0020'40'SCALE 1" = 20'REMOVE EXISTINGTREE) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ'HPR $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 144 4908490949104909 49094907490849094912491149124913491049084910491149084909491049115(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU*5$',1*3/$1$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524EXISTING ALTERNATIVESENTENCING DETENTIONBUILDINGFF EL: 4913.0ALTERNATIVE SENTENCINGDETENTION BUILDINGEXPANSIONFF EL: 4913.0EMERGENCY ACCESSTO MIDPOINT DRIVE0030'60SCALE 1" = 30'LEGENDFINISH GRADE CONTOURS 1' AND 5'FINISH GRADE CONTOUR ANNOTATION 1' AND 5'EXISTING CONTOURSEXISTING CONTOUR ANNOTATIONPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPOSED MANHOLEPROPOSED STORM SEWER PIPEPROPOSED INLETPROPOSED STORM SEWER FLARED END SECTIONSTST49XX.XX49XX.XXCONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. SITE SUB-GRADE PREPARATION (EXCLUDINGBUILDING)1.1. ALL AREAS RECEIVING EITHER ASPHALT ORCONCRETE PAVEMENT SURFACING SHALLHAVE THE SUBGRADE MATERIALSOVER-EXCAVATED A DEPTH OF 3'. THEREMAINING MATERIAL AT A DEPTH OF 3'SHALL BE SCARIFIED 8", MOISTURE DENSITYCONTROL APPLIED, AND COMPACTED TO95% OF ASTM D698. THE OVER-EXCAVATEDMATERIAL SHALL THEN BE PLACED INUNIFORM 8" THICK LIFTS, MOISTUREDENSITY CONTROL APPLIED, ANDCOMPACTED TO 95% OF ASTM D698. ALLOTHER AREAS WITH FLATWORK BEINGPLACED, SHALL HAVE THE SUBGRADESCARIFIED 8", MOISTURE DENSITY CONTROLAPPLIED, AND COMPACTED TO 95% ASTMD698.2. BEFORE AGGREGATE BASE IS INSTALLED,CHEMICALLY TREATED FLY ASH STABILIZATIONSHALL BE APPLIED TO THE UPPER 12" OFSUBGRADE MATERIAL PER CDOT GUIDELINES.3. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE FLOWLINE OF CURBUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4. HANDICAP RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 8.33%SLOPE (1:12). SIDEWALKS IN GENERAL SHALLNOT EXTEED 5.00% SLOPE UNLESS NECESSARYIN WHICH HANDICAP RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED8.33% SLOPE.5. SIDEWALKS SHALL BE PLACED AT A GRADE ASTO ALLOW SHEET FLOW SHEET FLOW DRAINAGEOVER THE TOP.6. MINIMUM - THE FINISH GRADE SHALL SLOPEAWAY FROM THE BUILDING AT A MINIMUM OF 2%TOWARDS SWALES OR OVER CURB TO PAVEDAREA.7. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCEWITH LCUASS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSLATEST VERSION, CDOT STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGECONSTRUCTION LATEST VERSION, AND THEPROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.8. MAX SLOPE AT HANDICAPPED PARKING STALLSIS 2% IN ANY DIRECTION.9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTINGELEVATIONS SHOWN AT TIE POINTS.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER IFELEVATIONS VARY FROM THAT SHOWN ON THEPLANS.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST STORM GRATES,VALVES, ELECTRICAL BOXES, ETC. ASNECESSARY TO PROPOSED TOP OF GRADE INACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECTSPECIFICAIONS.*CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THE GEOTECHNICALINVESTIGATIVE REPORT BEFORE OVERLOT GRADING,SUB-GRADE PREPARATION, AND FINAL SURFACINGWORK COMMENCES.* CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTINGAND ADJACENT PROPOSEDELEVATIONS SHOWN AT TIE POINTS.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEERIF ELEVATIONS VARY FROM THATSHOWN ON THE PLANS AND/OR IF TIE-INLOCATIONS APPEAR TO CAUSE LOWPOINTS IN CURB LINES.6'CONCRETEVALLEY PAN188' LONG23'2' WIDE CURBCUT TO DRAININTO BIOSWALELOW IMPACTDEVELOPMENTLOCATION171'8'LOW IMPACTDEVELOPMENTLOCATION) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HVLJQGZJ*UDGLQJ3ODQ $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 145 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU29(5$//87,/,7<3/$1$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ8WLOLW\/D\RXW $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 146 49105(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU6$1,7$5<3/$1$1'352),/($6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ6DQLWDU\3 3 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 147 4908490949105(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU672503/$1$1'352),/(6+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ6WRUPB3 3 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 148 4909490808490949105(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU672503/$1$1'352),/(6+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ6WRUPB3 3 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 149 4910 4909490949104909 4910 49095(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU:$7(53/$1$1'352),/(6+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ:DWHU0DLQB3 3 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 150 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU:$7(53/$1$1'352),/(6+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ:DWHU0DLQB3 3 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 151 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU3$5.,1*$5($3/$1$1'352),/($6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B8WLOLW\GZJ3DUNLQJ/RW3 3 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 152 491049094909490949124911491249134910491049115(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,210,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU(526,21&21752/6+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B6:03GZJ $00020'40'SCALE 1" = 20') ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B6:03GZJ6:03 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 153 49084909 490749084909910490849084909491049115(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,210,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU(526,21&21752/6+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B6:03GZJ $00020'40'SCALE 1" = 20') ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B6:03GZJ6:03 $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 154 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU67$1'$5''(7$,/66+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524oAABBSECTION A-ADETAIL "A"SECTION B-BCURB FACE ASSEMBLY DETAILGENERAL NOTESPLAN VIEW6 IN. STEEL DECK RING WITH24 IN. HEAVY DENVER COVER BYMACLEAR OR APPROVED EQUAL.6 IN. THICKSIDEWALL (TYP.BOTH SIDES)3 FT.5 FT.3 FT.6 IN.6 IN.BACK OFCURBFLOW LINESEE DETAIL "A"4 FT. OPENINGWARPED CURB &GUTTER (TYP.BOTH SIDES)6 IN.3 FT.-6 IN.6 IN.2 FT.11 FT.6 IN.2 FT.4 FT.- 6 IN.6 IN.SEE CURB FACEASSEMBLY DETAILMANHOLERUNGS-12 IN. O.C.1% SLOPE FORDRAINAGE6 IN.3 FT.-6 IN.4 FT.WARPEDGUTTERDEPRESSED GUTTERNORMAL FLOW LINETOP OF GUTTERALTEREDFLOW LINE6 IN. 6 IN.1% SLOPE FORDRAINAGE6 IN.WALL3 IN.RAD.6 IN.EXTEND CHANNELTO OUTSIDEEDGE OF WALL10 IN.EMBEDMENT8 8.5 FLUSHWITH CURB FACENTS1 1/2 IN. R#4 BAR18 IN. LONG2 IN.2 IN.4:16 IN.MAX/MIN.8 IN.2:1#5 BAR6 IN.1 1/2 IN. PIPE SPACERAND 1 1/4 IN. LOCK NUT4 IN.1/4 IN.1 1/4 IN. DIA. X 24 IN. GALV.3 1/2 IN. AT TOP.3 IN. X 3 IN. X 3/8 IN.PLATE6 IN.1/4 IN.-1 IN. LEGWARPEDGUTTERVARIABLEMAX. HEIGHT-10 FT.2 FT. -6 IN. MIN.(UNLESS SQUASH PIPEIS USED)STEEL ROD - THREADED3 FT.-6 IN.6 IN.1. SEE D-7B FOR REINFORCEMENT.2. FLOOR OF INLET SHALL BE SHAPED WITHADDITION CONCRETE TO FORM INVERTTO PIPE CONNECTIONS.3. MANHOLE RUNGS SHALL BE REQUIRED FORINLET HEIGHT 4 FT. AND GREATER.4. SIDEWALK SHALL BE 6 IN. THICK FOR 3 FT.ON EITHER SIDE OF INLET.5. TOP SLAB OF INLET SHALL BE SLOPE TOMATCH SIDEWALK. SEE D-6.6. EXPOSED STEEL SHALL BE GALVANIZED INACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO M-111.GENERAL NOTES:1. 6 IN. X 6 IN. X 10/10 WWF SHALL BE INSTALLEDIN RADIUS AND PAN.2. MINIMUM 6 IN. WIDE PAN FOR RESIDENTIALSTREET.3. MINIMUM 10 FT. WIDE PAN FOR ARTERIAL ANDCOLLECTOR STREETS.) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ'HWDLOV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 155 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU67$1'$5''(7$,/66+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ'HWDLOV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 156 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU67$1'$5''(7$,/66+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524NOTES:) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ'HWDLOV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 157 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU67$1'$5''(7$,/66+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ'HWDLOV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 158 5(&25''5$:,1*6)25&216758&7,21)25%,')253(50,7'(6,*1,1352*5(66'$7( ),/( 6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,21) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ $00,'32,17'5,9()257&2//,16&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU67$1'$5''(7$,/66+((72)$6'&20&25(;3$16,21/$5,0(5&2817<:(672$.675((768,7()257&2//,16&2© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B'HWDLOVGZJ'HWDLOV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 159 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 160 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 161 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 162 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 163 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 164 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 165 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 166 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 167 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 168 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 169 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 170 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 171 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 172 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 173 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 174 1 1 Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review Planning and Zoning Commission July-15-2021 2 Based on State Law • Planning and Zoning Commission reviews project based on: Location, Character and Extent. • Disapproval of P&Z may be overruled by a minimum 2/3 vote of the public entity's governing board. Advisory Review Process 1 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 175 2 3 2011 Advisory Review Larimer County Midpoint Campus Master Plan 4 • Phase One of the Detention Facility was approved in 1983; • Current Buildings: • Community Corrections, • Alternative Sentencing Department and Unit, • Detention Center, • Sheriff’s Office 3 4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 176 3 5 Proposal Summary 6 • Alternative Sentencing and Community Corrections (ASD/CC) Expansion. • Two-story expansion of approximately 50,500 s.f. Includes dormitories providing up to 174 beds. • Adds educational and administrative support space. • Relocated walking trail with fitness stations to west. • 3 enclosed outdoor patios -- recreation and meeting spaces for residents and their case managers and counselors. • Adds a total of 45 spaces to the site, located south of the ASD building expansion. 5 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 177 4 7 8 •Location Criterion: Consistency with the City’s land use designation. • Zoning land use –Jails, detention and penal centers is a permitted use in both the Employment and Industrial zone districts. • City Plan -- the campus is designated “Research & Development/Flex District” with the City Structure Plan Map. • The campus remains consistent with this structure plan designation, which envisions a variety of potential uses, with a focus on employment uses. Advisory Review Criteria 7 8 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 178 5 9 10 Character Criterion: The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Advisory Review Criteria 9 10 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 179 6 11 Extent Criterion: The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. Advisory Review Criteria 12 • Trees provided throughout the new ASD parking lot and building perimeter. • Landscaping concentrated around the outdoor patio areas. 11 12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 180 7 13 All parking lot and exterior building lighting is provided with down- directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. 14 • Similar architecture proposed – materials, color, massing and design character matches campus. • Transportation: No change to site access locations; area improvements not required by traffic study. 13 14 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 181 8 15 16 15 16 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 182 9 17 18 17 18 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 183 10 19 Location Criterion: (1) “The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.” (2) Higher level review than the City zone district standards. (Property primarily in the Employment and Industrial zones). • With the 2019 Fort Collins City Plan, the campus is designated Research & Development/Flex District with the City Structure Plan Map. • The campus remains consistent with this structure plan designation, which envisions a variety of potential uses, with a focus on employment uses. Location Criteria – Based on City Plan Site 20 • The campus remains consistent with this structure plan designation, which envisions a variety of potential uses, with a focus on employment uses. • No specific exclusion for jails. “Detention and Penal Centers” is a permitted use in both the Employment and Industrial zone districts. Relevant to Extent Criteria -- Research & Development/Flex District Key Characteristics/Considerations: » Accommodates a wide range of business types and sizes allowing the City to remain flexible in the types of employers and employment uses it can support and attract. » While more-intense uses should be buffered from the street and surrounding areas, pedestrian and bicycle connections should be integrated into the overall design of a site or project. » Any outdoor storage must be screened from the street and from less- intense uses in adjacent Districts or Neighborhoods. Location Criteria Research & Development/Flex District 19 20 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 184 11 Environmental Considerations 21 • Impacts are reviewed through lens of City’s “Resource Protection Standards” • Site is Not Designated as a Natural Habitat or Feature. • This applies if site is within 500 feet of an identified “natural habitat or feature” on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or: • if the development site contains natural habitats or features that have significant ecological value, and such natural habitats or features are discovered during site evaluation. 21 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 185 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 14, 2021 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jason Holland, City Planner RE: July 9 Work Session Questions -- Larimer County Corrections Alternative Sentencing Site Plan Advisory Review SPA210002 Below please find staff comments for the topics requested by the Commission at the work session. 1.Walkway lighting bollards - confirm whether they are actually full cutoff or whether the lights shine up/out. Staff response: The bollard lights are full cutoff, and the light source is located at the top of the bollard shroud and illuminates downward. The design of these bollards is essentially a miniature version of a compliant shielded/down-directional parking lot light. 2.Would the lighting meet City code requirements? How does it match up? Staff response: The lighting plan was submitted to reflect the previous City code, with a photometric evaluation for light levels 20 feet beyond the property line and full cut-off, down directional light fixtures. The photometric plan is provided on page 16 of Attachment 3. The applicant has explained that the scope of site lighting for this expansion project includes mostly existing and relocated existing fixtures. The few new fixtures that are required for safety and security are specified to match those used throughout the campus to provide consistent lighting while meeting the light level and cut-off requirements of City and County code. Based on the photometric plan, lighting details and due to the internal nature of the new parking area which is located further away from the adjacent residential areas to the southwest, staff is satisfied the SPAR criteria is met. 3.For screening on south side of the plan, does the landscaping meet City parking lot landscape standards? Is there enough screening? Staff response: The Applicant proposes a berm along the south side of the proposed parking lot, and this is best labelled on Sheet C1.6 of the Utility Plans (Attachment 4). A native seed mix is proposed in this area, but no perimeter shrubs or fencing is proposed per the City standard. Three perimeter evergreen trees are proposed along the berm, and this is shown in the updated sheet LP102. This design would not entirely meet City parking lot perimeter landscape standards; however, the Applicant has said that they intend to meet County standards. This is allowed per the SPAR “Character” criterion which states that the “site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body”. Additionally, in previous discussions regarding landscape Community Development & Neighborhood Services Development Review 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax https://www.fcgov.com/develo pmentreview/ ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 186 2 screening and fencing, security concerns have been raised because landscaping and fencing provide hiding places within the parking lot and parking perimeter. Perimeter screening was proposed with the jail SPAR expansion plans to the south that were approved in 2020. The Applicant has provided an updated Landscape Context Plan which shows the 2020 SPAR landscaping along the west/southwest in relation to the 2021 SPAR expansion area. The context plan also shows the existing privacy fence to the west along the perimeter of the Jessup Farm development. Should the Applicant elect to meet City perimeter parking lot screening standards, the following would be required: • one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along all parking lot perimeter areas; • Screening from residential uses shall also consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened. Should the Applicant elect to meet City parking lot interior landscaping standards, the following would be required. Because the Applicant intends to comply with County standards, Staff did not evaluate the extent to which the project meets these standards: • At least six (6) percent of the interior space of the parking lot shall be landscaped with parking lot islands. • Within the 6% interior area, trees shall be planted at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade tree per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped surface of turf, ground cover perennials or mulched shrub plantings. Additionally, the plan appears to comply with the following City parking lot standards: • Each landscaped island shall include one (1) or more canopy shade trees, be of length greater than eight (8) feet in its smallest dimension, include at least eighty (80) square feet of ground area per tree to allow for root aeration. • Parking bays shall extend no more than fifteen (15) parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula. 4. Did we (at the time of previous approvals) get the proper number of trees on Midpoint Dr? And if not, is the County open to bringing the site into compliance? Staff response: This was evaluated with the 2011 SPAR plan (See Attachment 5, page 2). The street trees proposed with the 2011 Campus plan were installed per this plan. Staff has not evaluated whether there is the potential for additional street tree locations; this was not seen as appropriate because the street tree code requirement has not changed significantly and the City has accepted the street tree locations and maintenance of the trees per the 2011 plan. Staff has reviewed the existing street tree placements in the field and evaluated the existing street tree spacing as well as tree stocking along the buildings and parking areas along Midpoint Drive. All of Midpoint Drive frontage is well stocked, with the exception of intermittent gaps along the jail frontage where it is presumed that there are security concerns. These gaps are accurately reflected on the 2011 plan. 5. Screening from Bucking Horse neighborhood. Staff response: The Commission could discuss any concerns related to screening or other neighborhood impacts with the Applicant. Staff also notes that there could have been an ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 187 3 opportunity to provide more effective private perimeter screening when the Bucking Horse neighborhood was reviewed and approved, since that residential development was proposed adjacent to existing outdoor storage and parking areas associated with the existing jail campus (coming to the nuisance). Because the jail campus has more limited opportunities for screening due to their security concerns, more robust screening could have been applied along the perimeter of the Bucking Horse/Sidehill plan at the time of that development. Staff has discussed with some of the Bucking Horse neighbors options that they may have to install privacy fencing along the Bucking Horse property line. This would require a Minor Amendment to the approved Bucking Horse FDP. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 188 LARIMER COUNTY ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSIONPLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION –JULY 15, 2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 189 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION2307 Midpoint Drive, Fort Collins2ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 190 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3Overview•50,500 SF expansion of the existing 53,500 SF Alternative Sentencing building•174 female Alternative Sentencing and Community Corrections beds, relocated from other facilities on site•Administrative support staff to provide gender specific programming, counseling and education•Addition of enclosed outdoor resident patios, therapy gardens and walking trailITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 191 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3COMMUNITY CORRECTIONSALTERNATIVE SENTENCINGJAILSHERIFF’S OFFICE*JESSUP FARMBUCKINGHORSEITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 192 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3Building Character•Building expansion designed to match scale, form, material palette and character of existing building•Patterned, warm earth tone decorative concrete masonry•Buff cement plaster stucco•Native sandstone accents•Composite metal cornices and canopies•Aluminum storefront and curtainwallITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 193 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 194 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 195 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 196 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 197 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3Site Character•Parking expanded by approx. 45 stalls•Revised vehicular and service circulation through interior of site•Extension of pedestrian connections and sidelwaksthrough site•Landscaping and lighting consistent with MidpointCampus with consideration of safety and security for correctional uses.ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 198 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 199 LARIMER COUNTYALTERNATIVE SENTENCING/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS EXPANSION3ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 200 EXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEALLIEDBUILDINGPRODUCTSSINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENCES ATBUCKING HORSELIMITS OF JAILEXPANSION SPARSUBMITTALLANDSCAPINGINCLUDED WITH JAILEXPANSION SPARSUBMITTALRAILROAD PROPERTYEXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEEXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEEXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEPINYON PINES49084909 490949104909490949084908490849094908490949104909 49094907490849084909UPREF. REF.UPDWF.D.F.D.AEDUPMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 1020 25'50'50'100'N O R T HLANDSCAPECONTEXT PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 201 GENERAL LAND USE DATAEXISTING ZONINGE (EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT)LOT 18.475 ACLOT 2 18.798 ACEXISTING LAND USEDORMITORY - ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMSPROPOSED LAND USEDORMITORY - ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMSPROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE DATAPROPERTY LIMIT IMPROVEMENTSSITE AREA (AC)SITE AREA (SF)BUILDING 0.64528,110PARKING AND DRIVEWAY 1.9685,400LANDSCAPE AREA (turf, shrub beds, seeding)1.0445,525CONCRETE WALKS/PLAZAS0.41718,150CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT0.1697,360BUILDING DATA: PROPOSEDTYPICAL PARAPET HEIGHT: 30'MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 33’-9” TO TOP OF WALL38’-6” TO TOP OF EQUIPMENT SCREEN1ST FLOOR = 28,110 SF2ND FLOOR = 22,400 SFTOTAL AREA = 50,510 SF174 BEDSVEHICLE PARKINGEXISTING VEHICLE PARKING TO BE REMOVED:STANDARD PARKING72 BUS PARKING7TOTAL SPACES = 79 SPACESNEW VEHICLE PARKING TO BE PROVIDED:STANDARD PARKING117BUS PARKING7TOTAL SPACES 124 SPACES (+45 SPACES)BIKE PARKINGPROVIDED BIKE PARKING: 60 SPACESN O R T HCONTEXT MAPSHEET INDEXG001 COVER SHEETLS100 OVERALL SITE PLANLS101 SITE PLANLS102 SITE PLANLS401 SITE ENLARGEMENT PLANLS402 SITE ENLARGEMENT PLANLS403 SITE ENLARGEMENT PLANLS501 SITE DETAILSLS502 SITE DETAILSLS503 SITE DETAILSTR101 TREE PROTECTION AND MITIGATION PLANLP001 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND SCHEDULELP101 LANDSCAPE PLANLP102 LANDSCAPE PLANLP501 LANDSCAPE DETAILSE100 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANE101 SITE PHOTOMETRIC CUTSHEETSA201 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSA202 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSA901 CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSA902 CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSDESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET:ASD/COMCOR EXPANSIONZONING MAPG001COVER SHEETLEGAL DESCRIPTIONBEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 LARIMER COUNTY MIDPOINT CAMPUS, A PORTION OF THE NORTHWESTONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADORECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ASDASDITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 202 4908490949094910490949094908490849084909490849094910490949094907490849084909UPREF. REF.UPDWF.D.F.D.AEDUPE - DDE - DDW6W6W6W6W6W6 W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6W6 W6 W6W6 W6W6W6W6W6W6W6AAAW6W6SBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AASBAAAASBE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAE - AAAARL - AARL - AARL - AARL - AARL - AARL - AACCCCRL - AAAASBLARIMERCOUNTY JAILMIDPOINTDRIVESPECHT POINT DRIVE PROSPECT PARK WAY ASD/COMCOREXPANSIONEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGPARKING LOTRELOCATEDWALKINGTRACK WITHEXERCISESTATIONSLARIMERCOUNTYCOMMUNITYSERVICESNEW PARKINGLOT RE: CIVILEXISTINGGARDENEXISTINGBASKETBALLCOURTSITE PLAN NOTES:1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEFINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED ANDAPPROVED BY LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING PRIOR TO THEIMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS.2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS ANDCONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES,UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREETIMPROVEMENTS.3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACTLOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS,TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION.4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUSTBE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLICSTREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOTACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREENWALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALLBE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT,METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TOMATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES.5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BECOMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITHTHESE PLANS.6.ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THEFOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USECODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCEWITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILLLIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION.7. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNINGDOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMITPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGNCODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY.8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITYSTANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIREEXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED.10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS.ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVEINTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NOMORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN1:48 CROSS SLOPE.11. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OFWAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TOCOMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY APROPERTY OWNER OF THE COMMON AREA. THE PROPERTY OWNER ISRESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREETSIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS.12.FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWEDAND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OFANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRECODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICESTHAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BEPROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCHROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BYWHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED ORREPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY.13. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BEREVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIREAUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENTSIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY FINDING. ALL BUILDINGSSHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVEDBUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLYLEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THEPROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX INCH NUMERALS ONA CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF APRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THEPUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALLBE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE.LS100OVERALL SITE PLAN0 25'50'50'100'N O R T HRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 203 SITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISH4" CONCRETECOLOR: TBDLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONEPAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLINGRECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAPARKING LOT LIGHT, REFER TOPHOTOMETRICPA491049094909491049094909UPREF. REF.UPDWAEDUP1/8 MILEWALKING TRACKMAIN VISITORENTRANCEDROP OFF/PICK UPEXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING,RE: ARCHITECTUREPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPATURFEXISTING PARKING(3) ADA SPACES10913118 EXISTING PARKING7PAPAPAPALOT 1BIKE PARKING36 SPACESBIKE PARKING24 SPACES14PAYYLOADINGDOCKSCREENWALLEXISTINGGARDENBOXESEXISTING SIDEWALK AND BIKERACKS (RELOCATE 2 RACKS FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC)EXISTINGBASKETBALLCOURTEXISTING ISLANDR20'-6"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"19'-0"25'-4"6'-0"8'-6"5'-0"6'-0"6'-0"10'-7"8'-0"6'-0"R60'-0"R8'-0"R15'-0"R26'-10"R25'-0"24'-0" UTILITYAND EMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENT 24'-0"28'-6"28'-1"12'-0"19'-0"17'-0"6'-0"6'-0"5'-0"TYP.6'-0"MATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 1023) REFER TO COMCOR THERAPY GARDEN ENLARGEMENT1) REFER TO ASD OUTSIDE SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENT2) REFER TO COMCOR GENERAL & TREATMENT SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENTCOURTHORSESHOELS50XX5'-612"PAPAVEMENTLIMESTONECRUSHEDLS50XXFUTURE EXERCISEEQUIPMENT NODESR30'-0"R30'-6"R9'-0"R14'-0"R25'-6"R49'-6"R30'-6"R10'-0"R12'-0"R111'-6"R8'-6""R35'-6"R23'-6"R20'-6"R18'-6"R57'-6"R29'-6"9'-0"TYP.9'-0"TYP.30'-0"15'-0"15'-0"0 10'20'20'40'N O R T HLS101SITE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 204 W6W6W6RL - AASBRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITPAPAPABENCH, TYP.LS50XXTYP.CIGARETTE RECEPTACLELS50XXCONCRETE PAVEMENTLS50XX(LARGE)SHADE STRUCTURELS50XXARTIFICIAL TURFLS50XXCURBCINCRETE LANDSCAPELS50XXCONCRETE SEATWALLLS50XXGARDEN WALLLS50XXSITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONE PAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLING RECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREEPAW6W6W6RL - AASBRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITPAPAPAR15'-0"R10'-2 1 2 "R8'-0"R11'-7"33'-1012"24'-0"12'-0"16'-0"16'-0"05'10'10'20'N O R T HLS401SITE ENLARGEMENTPLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021CALLOUT PLAN1 ASD OUTSIDE SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENT PLANLAYOUT PLANITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 205 SITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONE PAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLING RECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREEPA49104910W6W6W6SBSBSBSBAAAASBAARESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITMECHANICALBENCH, TYP.LS50XXRECEPTACLERECYCLINGTRASH ANDLS50XXPAVEMENTCONCRETELS50XXSEATWALLCONCRETELS50XXARTIFICAL TURFLS50XXRECEPTACLE, TYP.CIGARETTELS50XX(TYPE 1)SHADE STRUCTURELS50XXBENCH, TYP.LS50XXGARDEN WALLLS50XXTYP.CIGARETTE RECEPTACLELS50XXCONCRETE PAVEMENTLS50XXCONCRETE SEATWALLLS50XXARTTIFICIAL TURFLS50XXCONCRETE EDGERLS50XX49104910W6W6W6SBSBSBSBAAAASBAARESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITRESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITMECHANICALR9'-0"R10'-0"R8'-0"R13'-0"R10'-6"7'-8"R9'-6"5'-0"79'-9"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"20'-8"LS402SITE ENLARGEMENTPLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021CALLOUT PLAN05'10'10'20'N O R T H2COMCOR GENERAL & TREATMENT SECURE AREA ENLARGEMENT PLANCALLOUT PLANITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 206 W6W6W6SBSBSBSBSBE - AAGARDEN WALLLS50XXLOADINGDOCKEMPLOYEEANDKITCHENENTRANCERESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITBOX, TYP.4' X 4' GARDENLS50XXPAVEMENTCRUSHED LIMESTONELS50XXBENCH, TYP.LS50XXRECEPTACLES, TYP.TRASH & RECYCLINGLS50XXPAPAPAARTIFICIAL TURFLS50XXCIGARETTE RECEPTACLELS50XXBENCH, TYP.LS50XXTABLE, TYP.LS50XX(TYPE 2)SHADE STRUCTURELS50XXSITE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERCONCRETE EDGERCONCRETE SEATWALL4" CONCRETESTANDARD GRAYLIGHT BROOM FINISHCRUSHED LIMESTONE PAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFTABLEBENCH / CHAIRTRASH / RECYCLING RECEPTACLECIGARETTE RECEPTACLE4' X4' GARDEN BOXPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREEPAW6W6W6SBSBSBSBSBE - AALOADINGDOCKEMPLOYEEANDKITCHENENTRANCERESIDENTENTRANCE/EXITPAPAPA4'-0"R6'-0"R6'-0"R10'-6"R8'-0"R6'-0"R6'-0"R11'-0"R16'-0"3'-0"3'-0"R11'-0"R20'-0"R27'-0"R11'-0"R13'-6"49'-1012"16'-0"32'-012"16'-0"39'-9"LS403SITE ENLARGEMENTPLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021CALLOUT PLAN05'10'10'20'N O R T H3COMCOR THERAPY GARDEN ENLARGEMENT PLANLAYOUT PLANITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 207 SCALE:NTSDT-FURN-BNCHCOMPANY:MODEL:MOUNT:MATERIAL:COLOR:INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSCALE:NTSDT-FURN-CIGA-RECPCOMPANY:MODEL:MOUNT:MATERIAL:COLOR:INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSCALE:NTSDT-FURN-TRSH-RECPCOMPANY:MODEL:MOUNT:MATERIAL:COLOR:INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSLS501SITE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 208 SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"DT-WALL-GARD8'-0"NOTES:1. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO APPROVE ALL COLUMN FOOTINGS AND WALL DESIGN CONNECTIONS.8'-0"316"X6"X6" THICKNESS CORTENSTEEL TUBE POST316" CORTEN FLAT SHEETWALL PANEL8'-3"WALL ELEVATION3'-6"6"38" GRAVEL BEDCONCRETE FOOTING, PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER1'-4"95% COMPACTED SUBGRADEF.G.316"X6"X6" THICKNESS CORTENSTEEL TUBE POST316" CORTEN FLAT SHEETWALL PANEL38" GRAVEL BEDCONCRETE FOOTING, PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER95% COMPACTED SUBGRADEF.G.18"x1 12" x 1 12" ANGLE CORTENSTEEL WELDED TO POST1'-0"TYP.12" STEEL BOLT18"x1 12" x 1 12" ANGLE CORTENSTEEL WELDED TO POST12" STEEL BOLTWALL SECTION8'-0"8'-3"3'-6"6"WALL CHARACTER: OPPORTUNITY FOR STEEL CUTOUT ACCENTS PORTIONSWALL CHARACTERLS502SITE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 209 SCALE:NTSDT-SHAD-LARGECOMPANY: TENSILEMODEL: SUNAMI IIMOUNT: FOOTING PER STRUCTURALMATERIAL: METALCOLOR: TBDINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSCALE:NTSDT-SHAD-SMALLCOMPANY: TENSILEMODEL: VISORMOUNT: FOOTING PER STRUCTURALMATERIAL: METALCOLOR: TBDINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSLS503SITE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 210 W8W8W8W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W6W6 W6 W6 WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WSWSWSWSWSWSWSSA8 SA8SA8SA8SA84908490949094910490949094908490849084909490849094910490949094907490849084909UPREF. REF.UPDWAEDUP1234567910118TREESUNDER 4" DIA.TREE UNDER4" DIA.TREE MITIGATION CHARTTREESPECIESDIAMETERCONDITIONACTIONMITI. TREES REQ'D1 HONEYLOCUST 7" FAIR + PROTECT 12 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 7" FAIR + PROTECT 1.53 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 10" FAIR + PROTECT 1.54 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 10" FAIR + PROTECT 1.55 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 10" FAIR + PROTECT 1.56 MULTI-STEM SUMAC (6 STEMS) 2-5" FAIR - REMOVE 17 SUMAC 10" FAIR REMOVE 18 SIBERIAN ELM 25" FAIR REMOVE 2.59 ARBORVITAE 6" FAIR REMOVE 110 ARBORVITAE 6" FAIR REMOVE 111 ARBORVITAE 6" FAIR REMOVE1TOTAL MITIGATION TREES REQUIRED: 7.5TOTAL MITIGATION TREES PROVIDED: 8TREE PROTECTION NOTES:1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONESSHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCHDEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREEPRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINSARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREESWITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METALT-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER ISGREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THEFENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OFEQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS,ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINEOF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LANDCLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THANERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BEACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON ORROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED.8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATIONDEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTEDEXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROMTHE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED INTHE CHART BELOW:TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES)AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET)0-2 13-4 25-9 510-14 1015-19 12Over 19 159. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRSTHAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANYACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTALPLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERALREPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTIONAPPLYPROTECT TREELANDSCAPE LEGEND:REMOVE TREETR101TREE PROTECTIONAND MITIGATIONPLAN0 15'30'30'60'N O R T HRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 211 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULEQUANTITYSYMBOLBOTANIC NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE HEIGHTSPREADDECIDUOUS TREES5 CATALPA SPECIOSA NORTHERN CATALPA 2" CAL./B&B 50-60' 30-40'5 CELTIS OCCINDENTALIS HACKBERRY 2" CAL./B&B 40-60' 40-60'5 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA ESPRESSO KENTUCKY 2" CAL./B&B 50-60' 30-35''ESPRESSO' COFFEETREE (MITIGATION TREE)5 QUERCUS MACROCARPABUR OAK2" CAL./B&B 50-60' 35-45'9ULMUS 'ACCOLADE'ACCOLADE ELM2" CAL./B&B65-75' 60-70'(MITIGATION TREE)ORNAMENTAL TREES8CRATAEGUS CRUSGALLITHORNLESS COCKSPUR1.5" CAL.15-20' 15-20'INERMISHAWTHORN5KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA GOLDEN RAINTREE1.5" CAL.25-30' 25-30'8MALUS X 'DAVID'DAVID CRABAPPLE1.5" CAL.15-20' 15-20'10QUERCUS GAMBELII GAMBEL OAK6' HT.15-30' 12-20'(MULTI-STEM)EVERGREEN TREES9 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM WOODWARD COLUMNAR6' HT.15-20' 4''WOODWARD'JUNIPER4PINUS EDULISPINYON PINE6' HT.12-20' 12-15'5PINUS NIGRAARNOLD'S SENTINEL 6' HT. 25'7''ARNOLD'S SENTINEL'COLUMNAR AUSTRIAN PINETOTAL TREES = 78 (MAX 15% OF EACH SPECIES = 11)SHRUBSCEROCARPUS INTRICATUS LITTLE LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 5 GAL.3-5'3-5' CERCOCARPUS LEDIFOLIUS CURL LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 5 GAL.10-20' 8-12' CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS DWARF RABBITBRUSH 5 GAL.2-6'2-6'CORNUS SERICEA 'ISANTI' ISANTI DOGWOOD 5 GAL.4-5'4-8'EUONYMUS KIAUTSCHOVILUS MANHATTAN EUONYMUS 5 GAL.4-6'4-6' 'MANHATTAN'PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA RUSSIAN SAGE 5 GAL.4-5'4-5'PHILADELPHUS MICROPHYLLUS JUNE BRIDE MOCK ORANGE5 GAL.4-6'4-6' 'JUNE BRIDE'PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS DWARF NINEBARK 5 GAL.4-6'4-6' 'NANA'PRUNUS BESSEYI WESTERN SANDCHERRY5 GAL. 5-6'5-6'RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' GRO-LOW SUMAC 5 GAL.2-3'6-8'EUONYMUS ALTA 'COMPACTUS' DWARF BURNING BUSH 5 GAL.5-6'5-6'VIBURNUM LENTAGO NANNYBERRY 5 GAL.12-18' 8-10'VIBURNUM TRILOBUMCOMPACT AMERICAN 5 GAL.4-5'4-5' 'COMPACTUM' CRANBERRY VIBURNUMORNAMENTAL GRASSESCALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL.4-5'1-2' 'KARL FOERSTER'MISCANTHUS SINENISMAIDEN GRASS 1 GAL. 5-6'5-6'PANICUM VIRGATUM SWITCHGRASS 1 GAL.3'3'SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM 1 GAL.2-3'2'SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROP SEED 1 GAL.2-3'18-24"ORGANIC WOOD MULCH SHRUB BEDNO WEED BARRIERDEPTH: 3"LANDSCAPE LEGEND:IRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)ROLL TOP STEEL EDGER (6" ht. / 7gauge min.)A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ONTHIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONESBETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVETHE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITYOF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING ORRELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE – FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITYAND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALLBE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT.2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATICIRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENTPRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALLSHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, ORWITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEETTHE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENTFOR MAINTENANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS MANAGER AND MEET PARKS IRRIGATION STANDARDS. DESIGN REVIEW SHALL OCCURDURING UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ANDINSPECTION BY PARKS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATERUSE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING.4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALLLANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHESAND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHESBY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND(1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BESUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED,CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132.5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNERDESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED ORTHE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THEVALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE.6. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANSSHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THEAPPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OFALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER,AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN ASTRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION.7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEREQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS.8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES:40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a).10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS.NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITHTHE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHTDISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN.11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORMDRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPEELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN.12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANTAVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OFCONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OFPLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES.14. ALL TREES ALONG EAE TO BE LIMBED AND MAINTAINED AT 14'-0" HEIGHT FOR PFA ACCESS.15. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONALECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEYSHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE ANDFEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLYNATIVE SEED MIX NOTES:1. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH LOOSENING AND ADDITION OF AMENDMENTS THATPROMOTE WATER ABSORPTION AND RELEASE, THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALLINDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS.2. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.3. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOTBE USED).4. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH DEPTH. FOR BROADCAST SEEDINGINSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES ANDAPPLICATION RATES.5. TREAT NATIVE SEED MIX AREA PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SEED WITH APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE TO PROACTIVELY MITIGATE HERBACEOUS WEEDSPECIES GROWTH DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD THEN AFTER APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD APPLY NATIVE SEED AS CALLED FOR ON APPROVEDPLANS.6. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS AND PROVIDED TEMPORARY IRRIGATIONUNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TOESTABLISH COVER.8. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING OCCURS INNATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH.9. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT TOTAL COVER IS REACHED WITH NO LARGER THAN ONE FOOTSQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES.SOIL AMENDMENT:1. SOD AREAS: 4 C.Y. PER 1,000 S.F. OF COMPOST TILLED INTO 4" OF EXISTING SOIL. APPLY DIAMONIUM PHOSPHATE (18-46-0) AT ONE HUNDRED (100)POUNDS NITROGEN PER ACRE.SHRUB AND PLANTING BEDS - 4" OF COMPOST TILLED INTO 6" OF EXISTING SOIL.2. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT: CLASS I COMPOST. COMPOSTED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AGED ORGANIC MATTER, FREE OF WEED OR OTHERNOXIOUS PLANT SEEDS, LUMPS, STONES, OR OTHER FOREIGN CONTAMINANTS HARMFUL TO PLANT LIFE, AND HAVING THE FOLLOWINGCHARACTERISTICS BASED ON A NUTRIENT TEST PERFORMED NO LONGER THAN 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION INTO THE PROJECT:A. ORGANIC MATTER: 25% MINIMUM.B. SALT CONTENT: 5.0 MMHOS/CM MAXIMUMC. PH: 7.5 MAXIMUM.D. CARBON TO NITROGEN RATIO OF 10:1 TO 20:1MESIC SEED MIX(Drill rate: 12.31 lbs/ac, Broadcast: 24.62 lbs/ac)COMMON NAMESCIENTIFIC NAMEPLS/ACSMOOTH ASTERASTER LAEVIS0.19WHITE PRAIRIE CLOVERDALEA CANDIDA0.65PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVERDALEA PURPUREA0.81INDIAN BLANKETFLOWERGAILLARDIA ARISTATA1.85BLACK-EYED SUSANRUDBECKIA HIRTA0.14BIG BLUESTEMANDROPOGON GERARDII1.3SALT AND PEPPER GRASS DESCHAMPIA CAESPITOSA 0.07INLAND SALTGRASSDISTICHLIS STRICTA0.35STREAMBANK WHEATGRASS ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS SSP.LANCEOLATUS1.36SWITCHGRASSPANICUM VIRGATUM0.71WESTERN WHEATGRASSPASCOPYRUM SMITHII1.61FOWL BLUEGRASSPOA PALUSTRIS0.18LITTLE BLUESTEMSCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 0.7YELLOW INDIANGRASSSORGHASTRUM NUTANS1.38PRAIRIE CORDGRASSSPARTINA PECTINATA1COBBLE MULCH SHRUB BEDNO WEED BARRIERDEPTH: 3"EXISTING TREELP001LANDSCAPE NOTESAND SCHEDULERECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 212 LANDSCAPE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERMESIC SEED MIXORGANIC WOOD MULCH SHRUBBED3"-6" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBEDIRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)EXISTING TREE491049094909491049094909UPREF. REF.UPDWAEDUPDROP OFF/PICK UPEXISTING BUILDINGEXIPROPOSED BUILDING,RE: ARCHITECTUREEXISTING PARKINGLOT 1TYCYTLOADINGDOCKSCREENWALLEXISTINGGARDENBOXESEXISTING SIDEWALK AND BIKERACKS (RELOCATE 2 RACKS FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC)EXISTINGBASKETBALLCOURTEXISTING ISLANDMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 1020 10'20'20'40'N O R T HLP101LANDSCAPE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 213 4908490949094908490849084909490849094907490849084909EXISTING PARKINGLOT TO REMAINLOT 223'-0" UTILITYANDEMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENTMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102LANDSCAPE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERMESIC SEED MIX2" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBED3"-6" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBEDIRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)EXISTING TREE0 10'20'20'40'N O R T HLP102LANDSCAPE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 214 4908490949094908490849084909490849094907490849084909EXISTING PARKINGLOT TO REMAINLOT 223'-0" UTILITYANDEMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENTMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102LANDSCAPE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERMESIC SEED MIXORGANIC WOOD MULCH SHRUBBED3"-6" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBEDIRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)EXISTING TREE0 10'20'20'40'N O R T HLP102LANDSCAPE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 215 LP501LANDSCAPE DETAILSRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 216 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.70.50.30.20.20.10.20.20.30.40.60.70.50.30.20.10.10.10.40.50.60.60.60.60.60.50.30.30.30.40.60.60.60.60.60.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.40.50.61.01.31.41.20.80.50.50.40.50.50.61.11.31.41.20.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.40.50.71.01.72.62.02.31.30.80.70.60.70.81.01.92.62.02.21.20.80.70.40.30.20.20.10.10.40.60.91.41.72.44.15.03.51.91.31.20.91.01.31.72.74.34.83.21.91.41.10.70.50.40.30.20.20.50.70.91.32.02.84.66.25.05.73.82.01.71.31.42.03.04.96.15.55.43.52.11.71.10.80.70.50.50.30.20.61.11.51.51.82.63.13.53.73.83.63.42.82.11.71.92.63.23.53.83.83.53.42.72.21.71.61.20.80.50.60.41.42.02.12.31.91.92.22.52.62.52.72.42.11.91.91.92.22.62.72.62.52.52.21.91.92.52.21.71.31.00.70.60.62.33.24.12.92.41.41.21.31.41.41.51.71.82.02.22.42.52.52.52.31.91.61.41.21.11.52.83.13.62.32.11.30.70.80.10.12.03.86.13.93.61.81.00.91.11.21.11.21.42.02.73.64.04.34.23.83.12.31.41.00.70.71.12.53.45.55.73.41.90.90.70.10.10.10.10.91.96.24.53.82.31.20.80.91.41.51.51.21.31.82.33.85.14.85.44.42.81.91.10.70.50.50.91.84.14.15.13.82.31.10.70.50.10.10.10.10.10.40.92.14.23.12.81.40.80.71.01.92.21.71.31.11.61.72.34.95.85.92.71.81.51.10.60.40.40.61.32.73.66.03.21.81.00.80.60.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.51.21.82.73.11.50.80.60.61.22.73.13.01.61.31.21.31.62.52.52.91.91.11.03.57.11.40.40.50.92.03.83.92.81.51.01.00.70.40.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.20.30.51.01.62.11.50.90.60.50.71.43.33.65.12.62.01.31.01.21.62.03.34.82.00.81.212.10.40.40.71.42.72.82.11.61.31.31.00.60.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.40.30.30.30.50.71.11.10.80.50.40.40.71.53.43.95.74.12.41.31.00.61.15.218.45.22.91.39.12.40.30.30.50.91.72.52.11.81.72.01.81.00.50.10.20.30.40.70.80.90.60.40.40.40.60.70.80.80.60.40.40.40.71.63.64.26.23.92.41.20.65.714.23.23.41.80.40.20.40.71.42.12.22.22.32.53.21.91.00.20.40.50.81.41.61.60.90.60.60.91.01.01.01.20.80.50.30.40.71.73.94.25.32.72.01.00.72.514.85.20.60.10.30.61.32.42.62.42.64.03.63.41.70.80.30.50.61.01.72.42.51.30.91.32.12.12.02.41.90.90.50.30.40.71.63.84.44.02.21.30.90.60.20.51.22.73.34.33.76.15.44.62.41.20.40.51.11.63.13.63.51.81.52.13.33.23.83.11.71.00.60.40.40.71.63.74.33.22.01.21.00.60.20.41.12.54.06.28.38.46.84.33.11.70.80.50.71.82.76.44.34.02.32.32.33.24.04.12.51.71.30.70.50.50.81.83.94.44.52.31.60.90.70.20.41.02.14.45.26.68.28.65.14.22.00.90.50.81.92.85.24.34.22.52.72.92.94.03.42.61.61.40.80.50.60.91.84.04.36.63.22.31.10.70.10.30.81.83.04.57.77.15.45.23.82.41.10.50.50.81.82.76.44.44.12.32.32.33.23.94.22.51.71.30.80.60.60.91.93.74.25.24.42.31.20.60.10.30.61.22.44.55.04.73.03.02.92.41.30.60.40.61.11.73.13.83.61.91.62.23.43.33.73.21.81.00.70.50.60.91.83.94.57.03.42.41.10.70.10.20.40.91.73.13.63.02.42.42.42.21.60.90.40.30.60.71.11.82.62.71.51.11.42.22.22.12.42.01.20.70.50.50.81.83.94.24.62.41.71.15.10.10.20.61.12.03.02.72.31.92.02.12.21.30.70.30.50.71.11.72.12.11.30.91.11.51.61.51.41.71.20.70.50.50.71.63.74.33.52.21.51.610.210.40.10.20.40.81.42.12.22.12.12.32.53.22.31.20.60.20.40.60.91.41.81.91.31.01.42.12.22.02.32.01.20.70.50.50.71.63.74.33.52.410.02.19.42.00.10.40.81.21.82.42.72.52.33.23.73.81.91.00.30.50.61.11.72.22.21.61.52.13.43.33.63.21.81.00.70.50.50.81.73.94.24.62.53.21.26.80.50.91.51.82.63.43.63.44.66.04.52.71.50.70.40.60.71.22.02.83.02.02.22.33.13.94.22.41.71.30.80.60.60.81.73.84.36.93.32.41.20.92.71.42.12.42.74.35.27.16.38.14.63.72.00.90.50.61.21.83.43.93.82.32.72.92.84.03.42.61.61.50.80.60.60.81.73.54.05.04.32.21.32.413.21.72.63.53.14.34.87.87.77.56.24.42.41.20.50.81.83.06.64.54.12.42.32.43.24.14.02.41.71.40.80.50.50.81.53.53.86.22.92.11.57.413.12.24.03.93.63.55.16.49.15.86.13.72.91.30.50.81.92.95.34.24.12.11.72.23.33.23.83.11.71.00.60.40.40.71.33.03.33.61.81.31.514.05.01.31.92.66.14.24.23.54.54.55.73.33.43.02.81.60.50.71.72.55.94.23.91.71.11.42.22.22.12.51.91.00.50.40.40.61.12.22.51.91.20.81.67.510.27.14.23.65.54.64.73.23.34.03.52.42.22.32.21.50.40.51.01.52.83.53.31.50.80.81.01.11.01.01.30.90.50.40.40.50.91.61.91.71.20.90.84.417.35.52.44.66.13.53.22.42.92.52.11.71.61.61.70.30.50.50.91.52.22.31.10.60.50.60.70.80.80.80.70.50.40.40.50.81.11.11.01.01.21.21.20.90.40.33.52.62.12.23.73.33.01.81.71.71.31.21.31.62.00.20.30.50.71.31.51.50.80.50.50.60.71.01.10.90.60.50.40.40.60.80.90.80.70.92.03.53.61.61.50.96.43.01.11.21.72.12.31.41.11.11.01.01.31.93.10.10.20.30.40.60.80.90.70.60.60.71.21.61.91.20.70.50.50.50.70.91.00.80.70.71.98.110.66.62.52.218.57.32.61.11.21.41.31.10.90.80.80.91.42.23.00.10.10.20.20.30.50.60.60.70.60.91.52.32.71.80.90.60.60.81.11.21.21.00.80.71.56.613.913.94.91.74.816.17.31.10.80.80.80.70.70.60.60.80.91.31.90.10.10.10.20.30.50.60.71.01.52.14.23.32.31.20.81.01.51.81.81.51.61.31.11.33.712.612.73.31.70.42.11.50.60.50.50.50.50.50.50.60.70.10.10.10.30.50.70.71.32.54.16.03.82.61.51.01.21.82.52.62.12.52.01.41.21.86.16.62.91.07.813.02.314.96.92.81.80.10.10.20.40.80.71.42.15.34.94.02.71.51.51.83.33.63.62.93.53.22.01.31.22.33.21.60.82.416.36.11.93.77.311.016.313.09.50.10.20.40.60.61.32.53.96.04.12.91.82.32.86.04.24.53.44.25.03.22.21.51.31.61.511.81.63.52.43.817.74.12.110.91.52.14.33.92.71.92.54.35.44.44.63.74.75.95.83.11.81.21.31.36.91.03.70.51.67.42.61.01.91.01.62.63.42.41.82.53.66.94.84.83.84.85.66.02.62.01.31.31.00.81.05.60.20.23.41.00.93.20.91.62.32.82.11.51.92.54.54.64.93.94.65.74.22.82.11.61.51.15.20.70.30.10.10.20.31.813.00.91.52.02.42.01.51.52.03.34.24.53.84.64.52.92.32.32.42.11.49.00.60.10.10.77.50.40.93.71.01.62.42.92.11.61.32.13.24.24.33.74.43.82.92.42.63.23.01.50.90.50.10.11.75.10.10.40.41.32.23.53.62.31.61.62.13.74.34.63.94.63.83.43.13.74.73.91.70.70.30.20.10.10.10.11.33.72.23.85.04.22.61.82.32.95.54.65.04.35.14.94.24.47.45.54.42.00.90.50.30.20.10.10.23.217.03.25.85.34.72.61.92.74.36.04.64.94.45.26.45.95.37.15.34.82.31.10.60.50.40.30.20.33.412.53.15.85.54.72.61.92.64.16.24.64.84.25.46.37.85.37.95.75.02.71.61.11.00.90.70.50.53.714.72.13.64.94.12.51.72.22.64.94.34.64.05.26.76.55.25.15.55.33.62.82.42.22.11.81.31.04.117.21.32.13.43.62.31.51.41.73.03.63.93.64.65.84.13.94.24.65.34.53.93.93.73.33.02.21.44.011.81.01.62.42.92.11.51.11.42.12.83.13.13.94.03.23.24.14.44.24.35.45.95.65.03.11.70.12.915.30.91.52.12.52.21.51.11.31.82.32.72.73.22.82.83.03.74.63.52.93.45.05.00.71.32.02.72.71.71.21.31.92.42.82.62.62.22.32.94.64.43.62.52.63.00.91.52.63.63.62.11.31.52.13.03.63.12.72.12.23.06.34.74.52.51.91.71.62.34.74.64.32.21.71.83.24.04.83.92.92.22.63.76.45.24.43.01.61.00.1 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.118.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Luminaire LocationsNo. Label X Y ZLocationMH Orientation Tilt X YAimZ1 AA1 -539.05 -261.64 22.50 22.50 37.19 0.00 -538.38 -260.76 0.0038 AA -268.18 -120.38 12.50 12.50 154.58 0.00 -267.75 -121.30 0.0040 AA -312.30 43.61 22.50 22.50 339.14 0.00 -312.66 44.55 0.0073 AA -347.97 -161.64 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -347.97 -162.65 0.001 AA - E -299.66 185.09 22.50 22.50 90.00 0.00 -298.65 185.09 0.002 AA - E -531.44 36.21 22.50 22.50 156.04 0.00 -531.03 35.29 0.003 AA - E -439.44 68.21 22.50 22.50 156.04 0.00 -439.03 67.29 0.004 AA - E -439.43 68.21 22.50 22.50 336.04 0.00 -439.84 69.14 0.005 AA - E -93.91 -85.75 22.50 22.50 270.00 0.00 -94.92 -85.75 0.006 AA - E -133.14 -156.84 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -133.14 -157.85 0.007 AA - E -211.20 -156.84 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -211.20 -157.85 0.008 AA - E -214.81 -229.48 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -214.81 -228.47 0.009 AA - E -142.42 -229.62 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -142.42 -228.61 0.0010 AA - E -147.98 -147.02 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -147.98 -146.01 0.0011 AA - E -60.80 -144.08 22.50 22.50 333.97 0.00 -61.24 -143.18 0.0012 AA - E -33.14 -170.84 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -33.14 -171.85 0.0013 AA - E -52.42 -287.62 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -52.42 -286.61 0.0014 AA - E -42.42 -229.62 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -42.42 -228.61 0.0015 AA - E -237.57 -293.88 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -237.57 -292.87 0.0016 AA - E -142.30 -295.72 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -142.30 -294.71 0.0020 AA - E -347.44 111.21 22.50 22.50 156.04 0.00 -347.03 110.29 0.0021 AA - E -347.44 111.20 22.50 22.50 336.04 0.00 -347.85 112.12 0.001 AA - RL -482.45 -161.64 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -482.45 -162.65 0.002 AA - RL -415.97 -161.64 22.50 22.50 180.00 0.00 -415.97 -162.65 0.003 AA - RL -589.66 -54.91 22.50 22.50 90.00 0.00 -588.65 -54.91 0.004 AA - RL -589.66 -163.13 22.50 22.50 90.00 0.00 -588.65 -163.13 0.005 AA - RL -512.29 -98.87 22.50 22.50 270.00 0.00 -513.30 -98.87 0.006 AA - RL -328.34 -368.05 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -328.34 -367.04 0.007 AA - RL -427.07 -368.05 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -427.07 -367.04 0.001 CC -427.28 -297.46 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -427.28 -296.54 0.002 CC -346.34 -297.60 22.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -346.34 -296.68 0.002 HA -350.24 27.99 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -350.24 27.99 0.003 HA -342.24 27.99 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -342.24 27.99 0.004 HA -334.24 27.99 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -334.24 27.99 0.002 SB -181.14 -52.63 3.50 3.50 242.15 0.00 -181.14 -52.63 0.004 SB -212.64 -49.26 3.50 3.50 1.39 0.00 -212.64 -49.26 0.007 SB -210.40 -82.15 3.50 3.50 180.34 0.00 -210.40 -82.15 0.0011 SB -190.01 -101.55 3.50 3.50 354.19 0.00 -190.01 -101.55 0.0012 SB -223.30 -103.38 3.50 3.50 16.19 0.00 -223.30 -103.38 0.0014 SB -328.14 -128.64 3.50 3.50 83.20 0.00 -328.14 -128.64 0.0017 SB -393.21 -130.05 3.50 3.50 36.97 0.00 -393.21 -130.05 0.0019 SB -371.96 -128.13 3.50 3.50 201.24 0.00 -371.96 -128.13 0.0022 SB -310.75 -128.13 3.50 3.50 275.64 0.00 -310.75 -128.13 0.0027 SB -377.30 -151.32 3.50 3.50 39.90 0.00 -377.30 -151.32 0.0028 SB -497.98 -36.98 3.50 3.50 155.15 0.00 -497.98 -36.98 0.001 W6 - E -157.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -157.00 -17.51 0.002 W6 - E -231.64 84.40 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -231.64 84.40 0.003 W6 - E -231.64 70.88 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -231.64 70.88 0.004 W6 - E -243.48 58.96 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -243.48 58.96 0.005 W6 - E -264.11 31.76 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -264.11 31.76 0.006 W6 - E -141.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -141.00 -17.51 0.007 W6 - E -125.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -125.00 -17.51 0.008 W6 - E -109.00 -17.51 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -109.00 -17.51 0.0016 W6 -295.50 17.48 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 -295.50 17.48 0.0020 W6 -463.19 -39.35 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -463.19 -39.35 0.0021 W6 -473.04 -63.13 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -473.04 -63.13 0.0022 W6 -484.99 -81.80 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -484.99 -81.80 0.0030 W6 -229.49 -51.00 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -229.49 -51.00 0.0031 W6 -239.29 -78.93 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -239.29 -78.93 0.0032 W6 -250.38 -34.52 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -250.38 -34.52 0.0033 W6 -309.30 -119.66 10.00 10.00 270.00 0.00 -309.30 -119.66 0.0034 W6 -393.62 -119.36 10.00 10.00 90.00 0.00 -393.62 -119.36 0.0035 W6 -335.78 -122.00 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -335.78 -122.00 0.0038 W6 -196.65 -15.92 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -196.65 -15.92 0.0039 W6 -230.31 -15.92 10.00 10.00 180.00 0.00 -230.31 -15.92 0.00ScheduleSymbolLabelQTY Manufacturer Catalog NumberDescriptionLampNumberLampsFilenameLumensperLampLLF WattageAA3 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KTwelve Cree MDA LEDs 1 OSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx_PL08879-001A.IES16045 1 126.59AA - E18 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KTwelve Cree MDA LEDs 1 OSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx_PL08879-001A.IES16045 1 126.59AA - RL7 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KTwelve Cree MDA LEDs 1 OSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx_PL08879-001A.IES16045 1 126.59AA11 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-3ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx w/OSQ-BLSMFCONFIGURED FROMOSQ-A-xx-3ME-U-57K-ULxxxxx w/OSQ-BLSLFCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type III Medium w/Backlight Shield, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KCONFIGURED FROM Cree OSQSeries Area Luminaire, Type IIIMedium w/ Backlight Shield, UInput Power Designator, 5700KCONFIGURED FROMMDA1 OSQ-A-XX-3ME--K-30K-ULXXXXXW_OSQ-BLSMF_CONFIGURED.ies12649 1 130CC2 Cree IncOSQ-A-xx-4ME-K-30K-ULxxxxx CONFIGUREDFROM OSQ-A-xx-4ME-B--30K-ULxxxxxCree OSQ Series AreaLuminaire, Type IV MediumDistribution, K Input PowerDesignator, 3000KCONFIGURED FROM Cree OSQSeries Area Luminaire, Type IVMedium Distribution, B InputPower Designator, 3000KCONFIGURED FROMEight Cree MDA LEDs1 OSQ-A-XX-4ME--K-30K-ULXXXXX_CONFIGURED.ies16023 1 130HA3 LithoniaLightingLDN6CYL 40/10 LO6ARLSS6IN LDN CYLINDER, 4000K,1000LM, CLEAR, SEMI-SPECULAR REFLECTOR, CRI801 LDN6CYL_40_10_LO6AR_LSS.ies952 1 10.44SB11 Cree IncPWY-EDG-3M-xx-02-E-UL-350-40K /BXBPx318E-UH7Cree Edge Pathway Luminaire,Type III Medium, 18 LEDs, 120-277V, 350mA, 4000KEighteen type XP-G2LEDs1 PWY-EDG-3M-xx-02-E-UL-350--40K_PL05698-001.IES1470 1 21.2W612VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV1VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV.ies4023 1 41.68W6 - E8VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV1VINCI-LED-30-40-UNV.ies4023 1 41.68StatisticsDescriptionSymbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min20' Past PropertyLine0.0 fc 0.1 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/ASite Plan2.2 fc 18.4 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/AEXISTING BUILDINGBUILDING ADDITIONELP1BEEEEEEEEEEEEHAHAHACCCCAA - RLAA - RLEXISTINGEXISTINGRELOCATEDAA - RLRELOCATED 10' POLEAAW6W6W6W6W6W6W6EEEEEEEEEW6W6W6W6SBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBAA - RLAA - RLAA - RLAA - RLAA - RLAAAA1PROPERTY LINE20' PAST PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SITE LIGHTING TO REMAIN, TYP.EXISTING WALLPACK TO REMAIN, TYP.RELOCATED SITE LIGHTING, TYP.PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.A.420 LINDEN ST., SUITE 110, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524970-232-9558 www.pec1.comPEC PROJECT NUMBER: 210025-000RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESS6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525TLPACRE100SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 805240'30'45'15' SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANABIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/210025-000-ELEC-R21.rvt5/18/2021 4:10:23 PMSPAR SUBMITTAL2 05/19/2021PLANNORTH0°ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 217 AA, AA1, CCW6SBHAPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.A.420 LINDEN ST., SUITE 110, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524970-232-9558 www.pec1.comPEC PROJECT NUMBER: 210025-000RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESS6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525TLPACRE101SITE PHOTOMETRIC CUTSHEETSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/210025-000-ELEC-R21.rvt5/18/2021 4:10:24 PMSPAR SUBMITTAL2 05/19/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 218 EXISTING ASD BUILDINGPROPOSED NEW BUILDING12655176351019103472524465351092130' - 0" PARAPET HT.1' - 0"30' - 0" PARAPET HT.33' - 9" PARAPET HT.8821279351017541215517517667545176233510197788222121271. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).2. STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL; COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).3. BUILT-UP CORNICE, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).4. CANOPY, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).5. INTEGRALLY COLORED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CONCRETE SILL OR CAP TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY (ACID ETCHED, SEALED).6. ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).7. ALUMINUM FRAMED CURTAINWALL SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).8. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).9. LOUVERED MECHANICAL SCREEN (PREFINISHED STEEL OR ALUMINUM) WITH PAINTED STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT FRAME.10. WATER MANAGED CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM; BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).11. NOT USED.12. 24 GA. STEEL SNAP ON PARAPET COPING; PREFINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY, WITH FACTORY FABRICATED TRANSITIONS. WORKNOTES -CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSX13. MASONRY CONTROL JOINTS WHERE INDICATED, 30' MAXIMUM.14. ELASTOMERIC EXTERIOR BUILDING EXPANSION JOINT SYSTEM.15. INSULATED EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME (PAINTED).16. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT.17. EMERGENCY EGRESS/RESCUE WINDOW AT SLEEPING ROOM WITH SIGNAGE AND ALARM CONTACT.18. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, WALL MOUNTED. REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS.19. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION, CONFIRM REQUIREMENTS WITH FIRE PROTECTION SUBCONTRACTOR AND VERIFY LOCATION WITH AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.20. 4" DIAMETER STEEL PIPE BOLLARD SET IN CONCRETE WITH HDPE BOLLARD COVER.21. THROUGH WALL ROOF OVERFLOW SCUPPER.22. ROOF OVERFLOW WALL NOZZLE. REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR PIPE SIZE AND SPECIFICATIONS.23. ARCHITECTURAL SUN CONTROL DEVICE INTEGRAL TO ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMING; CLEAR ANODIZED.24. BRUSHED ALUMINUM BUILDING SIGNAGE.25. BACKLIT ENTRANCE NUMERAL.26. 60 MIL FULLY ADHERED EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE OVER 1/2" PRIMED COVER BOARD ON TWO LAYERS POLYISOCYANURATE THERMAL INSULATION. SLOPE TO DRAIN. 27. EXISTING ASD BUILDING, SHOWN HALFTONE.DECORATIVE CONCRETE 0ASONR< UNIT VENEER PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).DECORATIVE CONCRETE 0ASONR< UNIT VENEER PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).CE0ENT STUCCO S<STE0 BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).BUILT-UP CORNICE OR CANOP<;ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).ALU0INU0 )RA0ED STORE)RONT OR CURTAINWALL S<STE0 CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).E;TERIOR 0ATERIAL PALETTE -TO 0ATC+ E;ISTING BUILDINGRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:S+EET NU0BER ARC+ITECT CONSULTANT PRO-ECT OWNER ARC+ITECT PRO-ECT NO S+EET TITLE RELEASE )OR S+EET RELEASE AND REVISION SC+EDULE SEAL DRAWN B< C+ECKED B< BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:11:10 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525BDR-BRTAS-JEA201CONCEPTUAL BUILDINGELEVATIONSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 805243/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH3/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTHPDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021010'20'40'010'20'40'ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 219 EXISTING ASD BUILDINGPROPOSED NEW BUILDING15519103512630' - 0" PARAPET HT.33' - 9" PARAPET HT.11515228527EXISTING ASD BUILDINGPROPOSED NEW BUILDING125831091281515153101456612215271. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).2. STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL; COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).3. BUILT-UP CORNICE, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).4. CANOPY, ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).5. INTEGRALLY COLORED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CONCRETE SILL OR CAP TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY (ACID ETCHED, SEALED).6. ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).7. ALUMINUM FRAMED CURTAINWALL SYSTEM; CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).8. DECORATIVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT VENEER; PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).9. LOUVERED MECHANICAL SCREEN (PREFINISHED STEEL OR ALUMINUM) WITH PAINTED STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT FRAME.10. WATER MANAGED CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM; BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).11. NOT USED.12. 24 GA. STEEL SNAP ON PARAPET COPING; PREFINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT MASONRY, WITH FACTORY FABRICATED TRANSITIONS. WORKNOTES -CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSX13. MASONRY CONTROL JOINTS WHERE INDICATED, 30' MAXIMUM.14. ELASTOMERIC EXTERIOR BUILDING EXPANSION JOINT SYSTEM.15. INSULATED EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME (PAINTED).16. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT.17. EMERGENCY EGRESS/RESCUE WINDOW AT SLEEPING ROOM WITH SIGNAGE AND ALARM CONTACT.18. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, WALL MOUNTED. REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS.19. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION, CONFIRM REQUIREMENTS WITH FIRE PROTECTION SUBCONTRACTOR AND VERIFY LOCATION WITH AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.20. 4" DIAMETER STEEL PIPE BOLLARD SET IN CONCRETE WITH HDPE BOLLARD COVER.21. THROUGH WALL ROOF OVERFLOW SCUPPER.22. ROOF OVERFLOW WALL NOZZLE. REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR PIPE SIZE AND SPECIFICATIONS.23. ARCHITECTURAL SUN CONTROL DEVICE INTEGRAL TO ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMING; CLEAR ANODIZED.24. BRUSHED ALUMINUM BUILDING SIGNAGE.25. BACKLIT ENTRANCE NUMERAL.26. 60 MIL FULLY ADHERED EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE OVER 1/2" PRIMED COVER BOARD ON TWO LAYERS POLYISOCYANURATE THERMAL INSULATION. SLOPE TO DRAIN. 27. EXISTING ASD BUILDING, SHOWN HALFTONE.DECORATIVE CONCRETE 0ASONR< UNIT VENEER PATTERN A, ALTERNATING COURSES OF 8" HONED WARM GRAY (BASALITE 530X) AND 4" SPLIT FACE CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).DECORATIVE CONCRETE 0ASONR< UNIT VENEER PATTERN B. 8" STACKED BOND WITH CENTER SCORE HONED CHARCOAL (BASALITE 605).STACKED SANDSTONE VENEER ACCENT WALL COURSED ASHLAR PATTERN, ROSE (MATCH EXISTING).CE0ENT STUCCO S<STE0 BUFF WITH FINE PEBBLE TEXTURE, PROVIDE AESTHETIC REVEALS AS INDICATED (STO 31434).BUILT-UP CORNICE OR CANOP<;ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL; PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE (MATCH EXISTING).ALU0INU0 )RA0ED STORE)RONT OR CURTAINWALL S<STE0 CLEAR ANODIZED WITH TINTED, INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING).E;TERIOR 0ATERIAL PALETTE -TO 0ATC+ E;ISTING BUILDINGRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:S+EET NU0BER ARC+ITECT CONSULTANT PRO-ECT OWNER ARC+ITECT PRO-ECT NO S+EET TITLE RELEASE )OR S+EET RELEASE AND REVISION SC+EDULE SEAL DRAWN B< C+ECKED B< BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:11:33 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525BDR-BRTAS-JEA202CONCEPTUAL BUILDINGELEVATIONSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 805243/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST3/32" = 1'-0"CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELVEATION - EASTPDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021010'20'40'010'20'40'ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 220 RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:S+EET NU0BER ARC+ITECT CONSULTANT PRO-ECT OWNER ARC+ITECT PRO-ECT NO S+EET TITLE RELEASE )OR S+EET RELEASE AND REVISION SC+EDULE SEAL DRAWN B< C+ECKED B< BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:12:00 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525AuthorCheckerA901CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021AERIAL FROM NORTHWEST2524424262699121233355110515TYP.17TYP.6TYP.15115TYP.6TYP.10277261522AERIAL FROM SOUTHWEST4269912333511056TYP.17TYP.5TYP.151101747723TYP.2722ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 221 RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:S+EET NU0BER ARC+ITECT CONSULTANT PRO-ECT OWNER ARC+ITECT PRO-ECT NO S+EET TITLE RELEASE )OR S+EET RELEASE AND REVISION SC+EDULE SEAL DRAWN B< C+ECKED B< BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt5/17/2021 5:12:13 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525TAS-JETAS-JEA902CONCEPTUAL 3D VIEWSASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/202142699123351056TYP.17TYP.5TYP.151101723TYP.272612475122612121AERIAL FROM SOUTHEASTITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 222 ''68%0,77$/-XQH' Kd ,Z WKZdKDW> d z'ZKhE E'/E Z/E':KEhD Z͗ϮϬͲϬϬϰϳ ) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B7LWOHGZJ63$57LWOH6KHHW $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 223 RECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:6+((7180%(5 $5&+,7(&7 &2168/7$17 352-(&7 2:1(5 $5&+,7(&7352-(&712 6+((77,7/( 5(/($6()25 6+((75(/($6($1'5(9,6,216&+('8/( 6($/ '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 35(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1127)25&216758&7,212307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525AuthorCheckerSTANDARD NOTESASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524GENERAL NOTES:$67$1'$5'*5$',1*$1'(526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/&216758&7,213/$11. THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE.2. THERE SHALL BE NO EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE LIMITS DESIGNATED ON THE ACCEPTED PLANS.3. ALL REQUIRED PERIMETER SILT AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STOCKPILING, STRIPPING, GRADING, ETC). ALL OTHER REQUIREDEROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AS INDICATED IN THE APPROVED PROJECT SCHEDULE, CONSTRUCTION PLANS,AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT.4. AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING ON-SITE EROSION INCLUDING KEEPING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENTLYWATERED SO AS TO MINIMIZE WIND BLOWN SEDIMENT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHOWN HEREIN.5. PRE-DISTURBANCE VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. REMOVAL OR DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA(S) REQUIREDFOR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, AND FOR THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME.6. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STRIPPING, GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATIONS, STOCKPILING, FILLING, ETC.) SHALL BE KEPT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION BY RIPPING ORDISKING ALONG LAND CONTOURS UNTIL MULCH, VEGETATION, OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL BMPS ARE INSTALLED. NO SOILS IN AREAS OUTSIDE PROJECT STREET RIGHTSOF-WAYSHALL REMAIN EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY FOR MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS BEFORE REQUIRED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL (E.G. SEED/MULCH, LANDSCAPING,ETC.) IS INSTALLED, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.7. IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION POTENTIAL, ALL TEMPORARY (STRUCTURAL) EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL:A. BE INSPECTED AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE EVERY TWO (2) WEEKS AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENT AND REPAIRED OR RECONSTRUCTED AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THECONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION.B. REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL THE SURROUNDING DISTURBED AREAS ARE SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR.C. BE REMOVED AFTER THE SITE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR.8. WHEN TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REMOVED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN UP AND REMOVAL OF ALL SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM ALL DRAINAGEINFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES.9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN UP ANY INADVERTENT DEPOSITED MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY AND MAKE SURE STREETS ARE FREE OF ALL MATERIALS BY THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.10. ALL RETAINED SEDIMENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES, SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER AND LOCATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE THEIR RELEASE INTOANY WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.11. NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED TEN (10) FEET IN HEIGHT. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT TRANSPORT BY SURFACE ROUGHENING, WATERING, AND PERIMETER SILTFENCING. ANY SOIL STOCKPILE REMAINING AFTER THIRTY (30) DAYS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED.12. THE STORMWATER VOLUME CAPACITY OF DETENTION PONDS WILL BE RESTORED AND STORM SEWER LINES WILL BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE TURNING THEMAINTENANCE OVER TO THE LOCAL ENTITY OR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA).13. CITY ORDINANCE AND COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO DISCHARGE OR ALLOW THE DISCHARGE OF ANY POLLUTANT OR CONTAMINATEDWATER FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES. POLLUTANTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO DISCARDED BUILDING MATERIALS, CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT, CHEMICALS, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTS, LITTER,AND SANITARY WASTE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT ALL TIMES TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE PROPER CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL OF POLLUTANTS ON THE SITE INACCORDANCE WITH ANY AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.14. A DESIGNATED AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ON SITE FOR CONCRETE TRUCK CHUTE WASHOUT. THE AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO CONTAIN WASHOUT MATERIAL AND LOCATED AT LEASTFIFTY (50) FEET AWAY FROM ANY WATERWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THE CONCRETE WASHOUT MATERIAL WILL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLYDISPOSED OF PRIOR TO THE AREA BEING RESTORED.15. TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT DOES NOT MOVE OFF OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THELOTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED, AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR, (WITHIN LOVELAND GMA AND CITY LIMITS ONLY).16. CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD MAY WARRANT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT WHATEVER MEASURES AREDETERMINED NECESSARY, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY/COUNTY.17. A VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PERSONAL VEHICLES EXITING EXISTING ROADWAYS. NOEARTHEN MATERIALS, I.E. STONE, DIRT, ETC. SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CURB & GUTTER OR ROADWAY AS A RAMP TO ACCESS TEMPORARY STOCKPILES, STAGING AREAS, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS,CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS, AND/OR BUILDING SITES.18. ADD NOTES TO REFLECT THE STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL PLAN OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT.A. BELOW ALL GUTTER DOWNSPOUTS.B.OUT TO DRAINAGE SWALES.C. ALONG LOT PERIMETER.D. OTHER LOCATIONS, IF NEEDED.%675((7,03529(0(176127(61. ALL STREET CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL NOTES ON THE COVER SHEET OF THESE PLANS AS WELL AS THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS NOTES LISTED HERE.2. A PAVING SECTION DESIGN, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY A COLORADO LICENSED ENGINEER, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY STREETCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, (FULL DEPTH ASPHALT SECTIONS ARE NOT PERMITTED AT A DEPTH GREATER THAN 8 INCHES OF ASPHALT). THE JOB MIX SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOPLACEMENT OF ANY ASPHALT.3. WHERE PROPOSED PAVING ADJOINS EXISTING ASPHALT, THE EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE SAW CUT, A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES FROM THE EXISTING EDGE, TO CREATE A CLEANCONSTRUCTION JOINT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT TO A DISTANCE WHERE A CLEAN CONSTRUCTION JOINT CAN BE MADE. WHEEL CUTS SHALL NOT BEALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IN LOVELAND.4. STREET SUBGRADES SHALL BE SCARIFIED THE TOP 12 INCHES AND RE-COMPACTED PRIOR TO SUBBASE INSTALLATION. NO BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE LAID UNTIL THE SUBGRADE HAS BEENINSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY PASSED A "PROOF ROLL" AS DESCRIBED IN NOTE '8' BELOW.5. WHEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE CUT, THE STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE EXISTING STREET CONDITIONSHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY THE INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. CUTTING AND PATCHING SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 25, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. THEFINISHED PATCH SHALL BLEND SMOOTHLY INTO THE EXISTING SURFACE. THE DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR A COMPLETE OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. ALL OVERLAYWORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ADJACENT LANDOWNERS SUCH THAT FUTURE PROJECTS DO NOT CUT THE NEW ASPHALT OVERLAY WORK.6. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN M.U.T.C.D. (INCLUDING COLORADO SUPPLEMENT) AND AS PER THE RIGHT-OF-WAYWORK PERMIT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN.7. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM A GUTTER WATER FLOW TEST IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR AND PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ASPHALT. GUTTERS THAT HOLDMORE THAN 14 INCH DEEP OR 5 FEET LONGITUDINALLY, OF WATER, SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN PROPERLY.8. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF H.B.P. OR CONCRETE WITHIN THE STREET AND AFTER MOISTURE/DENSITY TESTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL (WHEN A FULL DEPTH SECTION ISPROPOSED) OR ON THE SUBGRADE AND BASE MATERIAL (WHEN A COMPOSITE SECTION IS PROPOSED), A MECHANICAL "PROOF ROLL" WILL BE REQUIRED. THE ENTIRE SUBGRADE AND/OR BASEMATERIAL SHALL BE ROLLED WITH A HEAVILY LOADED VEHICLE HAVING A TOTAL GVW OF NOT LESS THAN 50,000 LBS. AND A SINGLE AXLE WEIGHT OF AT LEAST 18,000 LBS. WITH PNEUMATIC TIRESINFLATED TO NOT LESS THAT 90 P.S.I.G. "PROOF ROLL" VEHICLES SHALL NOT TRAVEL AT SPEEDS GREATER THAN 3 M.P.H. ANY PORTION OF THE SUBGRADE OR BASE MATERIAL WHICH EXHIBITSEXCESSIVE PUMPING OR DEFORMATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, SHALL BE REWORKED, REPLACED OR OTHERWISE MODIFIED TO FORM A SMOOTH, NON-YIELDINGSURFACE THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE "PROOF ROLL." ALL "PROOF ROLLS" SHALL BE PREFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF AN INSPECTOR.&75$)),&6,*1,1*$1'3$9(0(170$5.,1*&216758&7,21127(61. ALL SIGNAGE AND MARKING IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL NOTES ON THE COVER SHEET OF THESE PLANS, AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND MARKING CONSTRUCTION NOTES LISTED HERE.2. ALL SYMBOLS, INCLUDING ARROWS, ONLYS, CROSSWALKS, STOP BARS, ETC. SHALL BE PRE-FORMED THERMO-PLASTIC.3. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE PER LOCAL ENTITY STANDARDS AND THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN MUTCD.4. ALL LANE LINES FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHALL RECEIVE TWO COATS OF LATEX PAINT WITH GLASS BEADS.5. ALL LANE LINES FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHOULD BE EPOXY PAINT.6. PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND SYMBOLS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PLACE TEMPORARY TABS OR TAPE DEPICTING ALIGNMENT AND PLACEMENT OF THE SAME. THEIRPLACEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF STRIPING AND SYMBOLS.7. PRE-FORMED THERMO-PLASTIC APPLICATIONS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN THESE PLANS AND/OR THESE STANDARDS.8. EPOXY APPLICATIONS SHALL BE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED IN CDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION.9. ALL SURFACES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRIPING OR MARKINGS.10. ALL SIGN POSTS SHALL UTILIZE BREAK-AWAY ASSEMBLIES AND FASTENERS PER THE STANDARDS.11. A FIELD INSPECTION OF LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL SIGNS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. ALL DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FIELD INSPECTION MUSTBE CORRECTED BEFORE THE 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD WILL BEGIN.12. THE DEVELOPER INSTALLING SIGNS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.13. SPECIAL CARE SHALL BE TAKEN IN SIGN LOCATION TO ENSURE AN UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF EACH SIGN.14. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF REVIEW. PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE AND/OR STRIPING IF THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT AN UNFORESEEN CONDITION WARRANTS SUCH SIGNAGE ACCORDING TO THEMUTCD OR THE CDOT M AND S STANDARDS. ALL SIGNAGE AND STRIPING SHALL FALL UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (EXCEPT FAIR WEARON TRAFFIC MARKINGS).15. SLEEVES FOR SIGN POSTS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR USE IN ISLANDS/MEDIANS. REFER TO CHAPTER 14, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL.'67250'5$,1$*(127(61. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. MAINTENANCE OF ONSITE DRAINAGE FACILITIESSHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER(S).2. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY (NAME OF THE STUDY AND DATE) BY AVI ENGINEERING PC SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED.3. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF LOVELAND, CERTIFICATION OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER, MUST BY SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BYTHE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF A CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, CERTIFICATION SHALL BY SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THERELEASE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.(:$7(5/,1(127(MINIMUM COVER OVER WATER LINES IS 4.5 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM COVER IS 5.5 FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITY.)38%/,&:$7(5:$67(:$7(567$1'$5'127(61. IN ADDITION TO MEETING APPLICABLE LCUASS, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, STATE OR FEDERAL STANDARDS, ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATERSYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.2. IN CASES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE SIGNED PICP'S AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE MOST RESTRICITVE STANDARD SHALL APPLY.3. IN CASES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LCUASS, RELATING TO WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS, THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE.4. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FROM ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES. THE DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER (970-962-3000) AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY PUBLIC WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.5. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.6. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE, ONSITE AT ALL TIMES, TO (2) SIGNED COPIES OF THE APPROVED PICP'S (ONE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ONE FOR RECORD DRAWINGS.) ONE (1) COPY OF THE CITY OF LOVELAND WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND COPIES OF ANY APPLICABLE PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS.7. PRIOR TO INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER SHALL APPROVE RECORD DRAWINGS FOR ALL PUBLIC WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.$33529('9$5,$1&(6$5(/,67('$6)2//2:6 1. ALL STATIONING IS BASED ON CENTERLINE OF ROADWAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS EXISTING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED,DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED IN LIKE KIND AT THE DEVELOPERS EXPENSE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THESEPLANS, PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.3. WHEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE CUT, THE STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE EXISTING STREET CONDITIONSHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. PATCHING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY STREET REPAIRSTANDARDS. THE FINISHED PATCH SHALL BLEND IN SMOOTHLY INTO THE EXISTING SURFACE. ALL LARGE PATCHES SHALL BE PAVED WITH AN ASPHALT LAY-DOWN MACHINE. IN STREETS WHEREMORE THAN ONE CUT IS MADE, AN OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND/OR THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR AT THE TIME THE CUTS ARE MADE.4. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED AND RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, OR TO THEGRADES AND CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY THESE PLANS.5. STANDARD HANDICAP RAMPS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB RETURNS AND AT ALL "T" INTERSECTIONS.6. AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEPICTED IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO B FREE FROM MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP DEFECTS FOR A MINIMUMPERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.7. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPES, FOR THEFOLLOWING PRIVATE STREETS: (PERIDOT AVENEUE).F:\0427 ASD Expansion\DESIGN\0427_General Notes.dwg6/16/2021 7:21:34 AM1. ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREASTREET STANDARDS, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, AND APPLICABLE STATE ANDFEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS, OR ANY APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE STANDARD SHALL APPLY. ALLWORK SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.2. THE DEVELOPER IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITYCOMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE ENGINEER SHALL CONTACT THEUTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO (UNCC) AT 1-800-922-1987, AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING, TO HAVE ALL REGISTERED UTILITY LOCATIONSMARKED. OTHER UNREGISTERED UTILITY ENTITIES (I.E. DITCH / IRRIGATION COMPANY) ARE TO BE LOCATED BY CONTACTING THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE. UTILITY SERVICE LATERALS AREALSO TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT CONFLICT WITH THEPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.3. NO WORK MAY COMMENCE WITHIN ANY IMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL A RIGHT-OFWAY PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS OBTAINED, IF APPLICABLE. THE DEVELOPERSHALL SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD, TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY, (LOCAL ENTITY, COUNTY OR STATE), FOR APPROVAL,PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN, OR AFFECTING, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AS MAYBE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES. THE DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AT LEAST 2WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY, OR CONSTRUCTION ON ANY AND ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. IF THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IS NOT AVAILABLE AFTERPROPER NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED, THE DEVELOPER MAY COMMENCE WORK IN THE ENGINEER ABSENCE. HOWEVER, THE LOCAL ENTITY RESERVES THE RIGHT NOTTO ACCEPT THE IMPROVEMENT IF SUBSEQUENT TESTING REVEALS AN IMPROPER INSTALLATION.5. THE ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS, BY EXECUTION AND/OR SEAL HEREOF, DOES HEREBY AFFIRM RESPONSIBILITY TO LARIMER COUNTY, AS BENEFICIARY OF SAID ENGINEER'S WORK,FOR ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS, AND APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS OFALL SUCH RESPONSIBILITY. FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE ENGINEER HEREBY AGREES TO HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY THE CITY, AND ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES,FROM AND AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, CLAIMS, AND DEMANDS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS.6. ALL UTILITY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN OR ACROSS THE ROADBED OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ROADS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE FINAL STAGES OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. FOR THE PURPOSES OFTHESE STANDARDS, ANY WORK EXCEPT C/G ABOVE THE SUBGRADE IS CONSIDERED FINAL STAGE WORK. ALL SERVICE LINES MUST BE STUBBED TO THE PROPERTY LINES AND MARKED SO AS TOREDUCE THE EXCAVATION NECESSARY FOR BUILDING CONNECTIONS.7. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE AND COOPERATE WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY, AND ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INVOLVED, WITH REGARD TO RELOCATIONS, ADJUSTMENTS, EXTENSIONS ANDREARRANGEMENTS OF EXISTING UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND TO ASSURE THAT THE WORK IS ACCOMPLISHED IN A TIMELY FASHION AND WITH A MINIMUM DISRUPTION OF SERVICE. THEDEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING, IN ADVANCE, ALL PARTIES AFFECTED BY ANY DISRUPTION OF ANY UTILITY SERVICE AS WELL AS THE UTILITY COMPANIES.8. NO WORK MAY COMMENCE WITHIN ANY PUBLIC STORM WATER, SANITARY SEWER OR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM UNTIL THE DEVELOPER NOTIFIES THE UTILITY PROVIDER. NOTIFICATION SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE WATER UTILITY PROVIDER, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TOCOMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND FOR COORDINATING WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY FOR ANY UTILITY CROSSINGSREQUIRED.10. THE TYPE, SIZE, LOCATION AND NUMBER OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TOVERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE WORK BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.11. WHEN APPLICABLE, THE DEVELOPER SHALL HAVE ONSITE AT ALL TIMES, EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: THE NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI), A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) MAINTENANCE FOLDER, ANUP TO DATE STORMWATER MANGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) THAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS, ONE (1) SIGNED COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS,ONE (1) COPY OF THEAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND EXTENSION AGREEMENTS NEEDED FOR THE JOB.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING, SHORING, TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND SECURITY. REFER TO OSHAPUBLICATION 2226, EXCAVATING AND TRENCHING.13.IF, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED WHICH COULD INDICATE A SITUATION THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE DEVELOPERSHALL CONTACT THE DESIGNER AND THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY.14.ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO THE LATEST REVISION OF SAID STANDARD, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD, TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY. (LOCAL ENTITY, COUNTY OR STATE),FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN, OR AFFECTING, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS, SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS, ORDESIGNATED TO BE PROVIDED, INSTALLED, OR CONSTRUCTED, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE.17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSURING THAT NO MUD OR DEBRIS SHALL BE TRACKED ONTO THE EXISTING PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. MUD AND DEBRIS MUST BE REMOVED BY THEEND OF EACH WORKING DAY BY AN APPROPRIATE MECHANICAL METHOD (I.E. MACHINE BROOM SWEEP, LIGHT DUTY FRONT-END LOADER, ETC.) OR AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY STREETINSPECTOR.18. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS-BUILT INFORMATION ON A SET OF RECORD DRAWING KEPT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND AVAILABLE TO THE LOCAL ENTITY'SINSPECTOR AT ALL TIMES.19. DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM ANY DRAWING. IF PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, CONTACT THE DESIGNER FOR CLARIFICATION, ANDANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON THE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS.20. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COLORADO PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THE EROSIONCONTROL PLAN.21. ALL STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED, AT THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND AT AREAS WITH DISTURBED SOIL, ON- OR OFF-SITE, PRIOR TO ANY OTHERGROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR BY THE DEVELOPER, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ENTIRE DISTURBED AREAS IS STABILIZEDWITH HARD SURFACE OR LANDSCAPING. TO MITIGATE EROSION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL USE STANDARD EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED IN THE URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIAMANUAL, VOLUME 3- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AS PUBLISHED BY THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (UDFCD0.22. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. IN GENERAL, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER SHOULD BECONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE WATER LINES AND DRY UTILITIES.23. THERE SHALL BE NO SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SATURDAYS, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, AND NO SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SUNDAYS ORHOLIDAYS, UNLESS THERE IS PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.24. THE DESIGNER SHALL PROVIDE, IN THIS LOCATION ON THE PLAN, THE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE NEAREST SURVEY BENCHMARK FOR THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS.THE INFORMATION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:25. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED AND RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO, OR BETTER THAN, THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, OR TO THEGRADES AND CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY THESE PLANS.26. EXISTING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THISPROJECT SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED IN LIKE KIND AT THE DEVELOPER EXPENSE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THESE PLANS.27. OVERLOT GRADING CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE STATE OF COLORADO PERMITTING PROCESS FOR "STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY." CONTACTTHE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, PHONE (303) 692-3500.28. A STATE CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO INSTALL UTILITIES OR BEFORE WATER IS DISCHARGED INTO ASTORM SEWER, CHANNEL, IRRIGATION DITCH OR ANY WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.29. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD LOCATING AND VERIFYING ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, CURBS, GUTTERS AND OTHER UTILITIES AT THE POINTS OFCONNECTION SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND AT ANY UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO INSTALLING ANY OF THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. IF A CONFLICT EXISTS AND/OR A DESIGN MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ENGINEER TO MODIFY THE DESIGN. DESIGN MODIFICATION(S) MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.30. AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEPICTED IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE FREE FROM MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP DEFECTS FOR A PERIOD OFTWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.31. THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. USE OF THESE PLANS AFTERTHE EXPIRATION DATE WILL REQUIRE A NEW REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS BY THE LOCAL ENTITY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK SHOWN IN THESE PLANS.32.PAVING SHALL NOT START UNTIL A SOILS REPORT AND PAVEMENT DESIGN IS ACCEPTED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND SUBGRADE COMPACTION TESTS ARE TAKEN AND ACCEPTED BY THELOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER.33.THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING SOILS TESTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOF-WAY AFTER RIGHT OF WAY GRADING AND ALL UTILITY TRENCH WORK IS COMPLETE. IF THE FINALSOILS/PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE RESULTS OF THE ORIGINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A RE-DESIGN OF THESUBJECT PAVEMENT SECTION OR, THE DEVELOPER MAY USE THE LOCAL ENTITY'S DEFAULT PAVEMENT THICKNESS SECTION(S). REGARDLESS OF THE OPTION USED, ALL FINAL SOILD/PAVEMENTDESIGN REPORTS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. THE FINAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TOPLACEMENT OF BASE AND ASPHALT. PLACEMENT OF BASE AND ASPHALT SHALL NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE ENGINEERING DIVISION APPROVES THE FINAL REPORT.34. ALL ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS WILD FIRE HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED IN THE WILD FIRE HAZARDAREA MITIGATION REGULATIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.35. PORTIONS OF LARIMER COUNTY ARE WITHIN OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THE LARIMER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN RESOLUTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO FOR ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR ROADS WITHIN THESEDISTRICTS.36. STANDARD HANDICAP RAMPS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB RETURNS AND AT ALL "T" INTERSECTIONS.37. ALL STATIONING IS BASED ON CENTERLINE OF ROADWAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.38. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPES, FOR THEFOLLOWING PRIVATE STREETS: (PERIDOT AVENUE).) ?$6'([SDQVLRQ?'(6,*1?B*HQHUDO1RWHVGZJ*HQHUDO1RWHV $0ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 224 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 225 EXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEALLIEDBUILDINGPRODUCTSSINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENCES ATBUCKING HORSELIMITS OF JAILEXPANSION SPARSUBMITTALLANDSCAPINGINCLUDED WITH JAILEXPANSION SPARSUBMITTALRAILROAD PROPERTYEXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEEXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEEXISTING 6' CEDARPRIVACY FENCEPINYON PINES49084909 490949104909490949084908490849094908490949104909 49094907490849084909UPREF. REF.UPDWF.D.F.D.AEDUPMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102025'50'50'100'N O R T HLANDSCAPECONTEXT PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 226 4908490949094908490849084909490849094907490849084909EXISTING PARKINGLOT TO REMAINLOT 223'-0" UTILITYANDEMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENTMATCHLINE 101MATCHLINE 102LANDSCAPE LEGEND:LIMIT OF WORKEASEMENTROLL TOP STEEL EDGERMESIC SEED MIX2" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBED3"-6" COBBLE MULCH SHRUBBEDIRRIGATED SOD(COOL SEASON, LOW WATER)EXISTING TREE010'20'20'40'N O R T HLP102LANDSCAPE PLANRECORD DRAWINGSFOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR BIDFOR PERMITDESIGN IN PROGRESSDATE:FILE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:CONSULTANT:PROJECT:OWNER:ARCHITECT PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:RELEASE FOR:SHEET RELEASE AND REVISION SCHEDULE:SEAL:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:BIM 360://20-452 LRMR ASDCC Expansion/20452_LRMR ASD-CC_ARCH_R2021.rvt3/12/2021 2:28:46 PM2307 MIDPOINT DRIVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525MTPMASD/COMCOREXPANSIONLARIMER COUNTY200 WEST OAK STREET, SUITE 4000FORT COLLINS, CO 8052220-452© Copyright The Architects' Studio, Inc.405 MASON COURT, SUITE 115AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524506 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT AFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PDR APPLICATION03/18/2021SPAR SUBMITTAL05/19/2021DD SUBMITTAL06/15/2021ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 11Packet pg. 227 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 7 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing July 15, 2021 Timberline – International Project Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP200014 Summary of Request This is a proposed Project Development Plan with an Addition of Permitted Use located at the northwest corner of the intersection of N Timberline Rd and International Blvd. The proposed development is for a Convenience Shopping Center with retail and a drive-thru restaurant use. This request requires an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) for the drive-thru restaurant because that use is not listed as a permitted use in the Industrial zone district, or as a permitted use in a Convenience Shopping Center. Because the property is not within a residential zone district, the Planning & Zoning Commission is the decision-maker for this APU. Zoning Map Next Steps If the APU and PDP are approved, the applicant can then submit a Final Development Plan to finalize engineering and other details and record all plan documents; the applicant could then apply for construction and building permits. Site Location The project is located at the northwest corner of N Timberline Rd and International Blvd (parcel # 8708310001). Zoning Industrial (I). Property Owner FR Holdings Ltd. 125 Howes St, Fl 2 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Steve Steinbicker Architecture West, LLC 5833 Big Canyon Dr Fort Collins, CO 80528 Staff Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Comprehensive Plan Background ............. 3 3. Public Outreach ......................................... 4 4. Land Use Code Article 1 ............................ 5 5. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 7 6. Land Use Code Article 3 .......................... 10 7. Land Use Code Article 4 .......................... 20 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 21 9. Recommendation ..................................... 22 10. Attachments ............................................. 22 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Project Development Plan with modifications and the Addition of Permitted Uses for the drive- thru restaurant. Packet pg. 228 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 2 of 22 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The plan comprises: A Convenience Shopping Center comprised of a 2,900 square foot retail building fronting on Timberline Rd and a 624 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Ziggi’s Coffee). An Addition of Permitted Use is requested to allow the drive-thru restaurant as part of the Convenience Shopping Center. The site is approximately 1.39 acres. The site is irregularly shaped and has limited development potential due to the presence of the ditch along the west side of the property and the affiliated natural habitat buffer zone. The plan includes one 18-foot-tall, one-story building placed along the Timberline frontage with a connecting pedestrian walkway and adjacent parking areas that draw visitors to the planned retail space. A second 15-foot-8-inch-tall, one-story drive-thru restaurant (Ziggi’s Coffee) with a wrap around drive- thru lane is located to the west (behind) the retail building. The site is located directly west of N Timberline Rd and directly north of International Blvd. Future access will be from N Timberline Rd. The parking lot consists of 16 vehicle parking spaces. A Modification of Standard is required for Land Use Code Section 3.5.3 (C)(1) – Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. The Plan proposes an elevated pedestrian pathway that crosses the drive-thru exit lane for a direct pedestrian connection from the drive-thru restaurant out to N Timberline Rd. The project is within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan area. The project is within the Industrial (I) Zone District and is subject to a Type 2 review and public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The APU request is also subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review. B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Subject Property The 1.39-acre site was originally platted as Lot 1 of the Industrial Business Park PUD in Larimer County. The site was annexed into the City in May 2020 and was zoned Industrial (I). 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Larimer County – Industrial Light (IL) Larimer County – Industrial Light (IL) Larimer County – Industrial Light (IL) Larimer County – Industrial Light (IL) Land Use Light Industrial distribution warehouse Vacant parcel Light industrial office and storage yard Light industrial business park C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The primary consideration of the plan has been the applicant’s request for an Addition of Permitted Use for the drive-thru restaurant and the affiliated site design. The initial submittal of the plan did not meet all of the Industrial zone district design requirements or meet the definition of a Convenience Shopping Center. Additionally, the initial submittal had several design issues which would have required multiple modification Packet pg. 229 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 3 of 22 Back to Top requests to the Industrial zone district standards. This led to a reconfiguration of the site layout between Round 1 and Round 2 of review. With the change in site layout the applicant has addressed the following: Aesthetics. A significant consideration in staff’s review was the appearance and layout of the site. With the Addition of Permitted Use it was important to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed drive-thru. The architecture and overall site design was selected to mitigate prototype design of the proposed drive-thru and create pedestrian scale and visual interest. The design of the proposed facility was revised in the review process due to a change from an Industrial building type to a Convenience Shopping Center. Vehicular Impacts. Traffic generated by the drive-thru use is a significant consideration for the site. Staff considered potential impacts of the drive-thru on the adjacent roadways and requested a revised Traffic impact Assessment after the site was redesigned. Concerns about queuing are addressed in the Traffic Impact Assessment, attached. 2. Comprehensive Plan Background A. CITY PLAN (2019) The Structure Plan Map in City Plan provides a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. It focuses on the physical form and development pattern of the community, illustrating areas where new greenfield development, infill, and redevelopment are likely to occur, as well as the types of land uses and intensities to encourage. The Structure Plan: Guides future growth and reinvestment and serves as the official Land Use Plan for the City; Informs planning for infrastructure and services; Fosters coordinated land use and transportation decisions within the city and region; and Helps implement principles and policies. The site’s zoning of Industrial (I) is consistent with the 2019 update of the Structure Plan Map, which identifies the site as an Industrial place type. The Industrial place type is characterized by the following, found on p. 104 of the Plan: Principal Land Use Industrial land uses such as manufacturing, assembly plants, primary metal and related industries; vehicle- related commercial uses; warehouses, outdoor storage yards and distribution facilities; and flex space for small, local startups as well as large national or regional enterprises Supporting Land Use Restaurants, convenience retail and other supporting services Density Varies Key Characteristics/Considerations Areas dedicated for a variety of more-intensive work processes and other uses of similar character; typically located away from or buffered from residential neighborhoods. Transportation facilities in Industrial Districts should promote the efficient movement of commercial truck traffic and/or access to rail. Supported by direct pedestrian and bicycle linkages from surrounding areas, as well as transit in some locations. Packet pg. 230 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 4 of 22 Back to Top Typical Types of Transit Limited due to low population and low employment densities; however, fixed-route service at frequencies of between 30 and 60 minutes may exist in some locations. Further, on p. 40 the plan states the following: Policy LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES. Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings, including, but not limited to: Adaptive reuse of existing buildings (especially those that have historic significance); » Infill of existing surface parking lots—particularly in areas that are currently, or will be, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in the future; Public/private partnerships; Infrastructure improvements/upgrades; Streetscape enhancements; and Voluntary consolidation and assemblage of properties to coordinate the redevelopment of blocks or segments of corridors where individual property configurations would otherwise limit redevelopment potential. Policy LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area. B. EAST MULBERRY CORRIDOR PLAN (2003) The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) was adopted in 2002 and formed the basis of the subject site’s Industrial zone district designation. The Plan was updated in 2003 and 2005. The EMCP is an element of City Plan and is consistent with the policies for designating future land use and ultimate zoning. The zoning of the site remains consistent across both plans. Highlights of the EMCP, as it relates to the Timberline - International PDP, are summarized as follows: Support a balance between residential and non-residential uses. Identify locations for new industrial land uses and supporting local adjacent land uses. Support a mix of non-residential land to serve both nearby neighborhoods and community-wide users. This plan helps implement relevant principles and policies as follows: Principle EMC.LU – 1 Future residential neighborhoods will be integrated with existing residential subdivisions, and be within close proximity to shopping, recreation, and employment destinations. Policy EMC.LU – 2 The East Mulberry Corridor area will support commercial uses to serve community-wide, neighborhood, and travelers’ needs. Policy EMU.LU – 3.3 Secondary uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, and housing, will complement or support the primary employment workplace uses. The Timberline – International APU PDP fulfills the vision of the EMCP by providing low scale commercial services within proximity to existing industrial employment areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. 3. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was conducted virtually on August 13, 2020. A single person attended, other than Staff and the presenting Consultant & Owner. Following a Q&A, the community member was supportive of the project. Another nearby Timbervine resident contacted Staff with questions after the meeting, which were referred to the Owner/developer. Their questions related to any Timberline improvements. It was clarified that Packet pg. 231 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 5 of 22 Back to Top there will be two lanes of improvements, as well as public sidewalk along the west side of Timberline on the east side site frontage. 4. Land Use Code Article 1 A. DIVISION 1.3 – ZONING MAP AND ZONE DISTRICTS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Uses (APU) process is to allow for approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that otherwise would not permit such a use. The proposed restaurant drive-thru is not listed as a permitted use within a Convenience Shopping Center in the Industrial Zone District, and thus requires findings under this Section. An applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is intended to allow for consideration of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City Staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission may add the proposed use to the site if the Commission specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed below; (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1 (Building and Project Compatibility); and (4) is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. Staff finds that the request for an APU to allow the drive-thru restaurant meets the eight specific criteria in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. Staff finds that the drive-thru restaurant use is appropriate for this site within the Industrial zone. A wide range of vehicular oriented commercial uses are permitted in the Industrial zone district such as: Convenience retail store with fuel sales Major and minor vehicle repair, servicing and maintenance Parking lots and parking garages (as principal uses) Vehicle sales Standard and fast-food restaurants Additionally, staff finds that this APU request is appropriate because rather than a standalone drive-thru restaurant it is being proposed as part of a Convenience Shopping Center. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Section 4.16(A) of the Land Use Code states that the purpose of the Industrial zone is “provide a location for a variety of work processes and workplaces such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary and supporting uses such as convenience Complies Packet pg. 232 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 6 of 22 Back to Top shopping, childcare centers and housing.” By consolidating the drive-thru use with the proposed retail building to create a Convenience Shopping Center, the drive-thru use would result in a redevelopment opportunity that creates a vibrant concentration of uses along the Timberline Corridor. Additionally, the design elements of the site dramatically enhance the human scale and pedestrian character of Timberline Rd. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The addition of the drive-thru restaurant will have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The design of the drive-thru has been modified from Ziggi’s corporate standard to fit in to the Industrial context, and the use of high-quality materials and dense landscaping will result in improved compatibility for the entire site. Additionally, the drive-thru is located in the center of the site to allow adequate vehicular queuing for the drive-thru and to minimize the visual impact of the use from the public sidewalks by placing it west of the retail building. Staff finds that the location, size, and design of the drive-thru restaurant use is compatible and results in minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. A wide range of uses are permitted in the Industrial zone district, many of which are of significantly higher intensity than a drive-thru restaurant. The applicant’s justification states that the estimated number of trips generated by the drive-thru use is 67 visits per hour at peak times. A child care center, bar/tavern, convenience retail stores with fuel sales, or animal boarding – all of which are uses permitted in the Industrial zone district – could each generate comparable or increased levels of traffic and noise than one could expect from the drive-thru restaurant. Staff acknowledges the timing of traffic generation may vary as compared to other uses, (i.e. a higher amount of traffic during the AM vs PM hours, but that the overall impacts of the drive-thru restaurant would not be any more significant than those normally resulting from other permitted uses in the Industrial zone. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. The area surrounding the site is currently outside of City Limits within Larimer County, and is characterized by other Industrial uses to the north, south, east, and west of the site. This character changes as one continues north on Timberline Rd, where the land use is characterized by Low Density Mixed Use residential to the east (the Mosaic Neighborhood) and the Collins Aire Mobile Home Park to the west. The Mosaic Neighborhood includes a recently approved Neighborhood Center with commercial uses at the corner of Timberline Rd and Sykes Dr. The addition of the drive-thru restaurant to the Convenience Shopping Center will not change the predominant character of the area, and the landscaping and pedestrian upgrades included in the proposal will result in site improvements that will bring the Timberline Rd frontage adjacent to the site closer to the desired character of the Timberline Corridor. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. As discussed in criterion (d), a wide range of uses is permitted in the Industrial zone district. A drive-thru restaurant use is less impactful than some of the other uses that are permitted in this zone district (i.e. a convenience store with fuel sales). The design of the site and the location of the drive-thru behind the retail building, as discussed in criterion (c), further enhance the compatibility of this use. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that Packet pg. 233 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 7 of 22 Back to Top the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. This proposal is not located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, so a determination was made that criterion (g) does not apply. One neighborhood meeting was held for this proposal. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. The proposed use is a drive-thru restaurant, which satisfies this criterion. Overall, for the reasons stated above, staff finds that the request for an APU conforms to the applicable criteria and is not detrimental to the public good. Staff further finds that the request for an APU is in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility. Section 3.5.1 is analyzed further in Section 5(D) of this report. 5. Land Use Code Article 2 A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR190060 A conceptual review meeting was held on July 9, 2020. 2. First Submittal –MJA 200002 The application was submitted on October 2, 2020. 3. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held August 13, 2020. Notes are attached. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Sign #512, posted July 30, 2020. Written Hearing Notice: July 1, 2021, 450 addresses mailed. Published Notice: July 4, 2021, Coloradoan Confirmation no. #0004809030 B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant requests one modification of a standard as noted previously in this report. The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances would not meet a specific standard of the Land Use Code as stated. The modification process and criteria in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of these instances on a case-by-case basis, as follows: Packet pg. 234 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 8 of 22 Back to Top Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).” 1. Modification to Section 3.5.3(C)(1) 1.2 Description of Standard & Proposed Modification The Land Use Code Building Standards for Commercial and Mixed-Use buildings require designs that foster an effective relationship between buildings, streets, walkways and parking areas. Specifically, commercial and mixed-use buildings must provide at least one main entrance that faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage, which does not cross any drive-aisles or parking areas. The plan proposes a modification to the standard for the drive-thru restaurant building with an alternative design that provides an elevated pedestrian pathway that crosses the drive-thru exit lane. Packet pg. 235 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 9 of 22 Back to Top 1.3 Applicant Justification The applicant’s justification for the Modification to 3.5.3(C)(1) specifically addresses Criteria 1, 3, and 4. The applicant’s justification is attached. Relevant points are: Criteria 1 “…The very nature of a drive-up coffee shop use requires full vehicular movement around the building. Other design options with single-side access were investigated but determined that they would not meet other Land Use Code Design Criteria. The west building does have direct access parking spaces that do not cross traffic so there are options available to patrons to access without any vehicular crossing concerns. All traffic is stopped prior to exiting the drive-up lane. The enhanced pedestrian crossing design includes consistent sidewalk level raised above the car lane pavement elevation, “speed-bump/calming” design/elevation change, bollards for assistance in visual awareness to both pedestrian and driver, pavement texture and color change…” Criteria 3 “…The property is unique in regard to its physical boundaries, adjacent existing development, representing physical limitations to the practical access to both buildings… …Interconnection to the other areas of the site are limited due to the ditch on the west side and the surrounding existing and vacant land…” Criteria 4 “…The enhanced pedestrian crossing is only a single component of the overall site plan and the impacts to the crossing are being mitigated, limited through multiple practical urban design measures…” Additionally, as part of their modification justification the applicant provides examples of other sites in Fort Collins where an elevated pedestrian crossing that crossed drive aisles or lanes have been provided. These existing examples from Foothills Mall and Front Range Village illustrate the precedent that exists for these types of walkways in commercial developments, as well as their effectiveness for protecting pedestrians and calming traffic. Packet pg. 236 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 10 of 22 Back to Top 1.4 Staff’s Analysis of Modification Request Staff finds that the requested Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1) for the drive-thru restaurant building, in conjunction with the proposed alternative design with an elevated pedestrian pathway that crosses the drive-thru exit lane, would not be detrimental to the public good and is justified by criteria 1 and 4 in Land Use Code Section 2.8.2. The purpose of this standard is to provide a pattern of continuous walkways that relate to the public right-of-way, which is difficult to achieve when considering the following: the need for the drive-thru lane to circle the building, the placement of the building on-site behind the main retail building, and the single-point of access from Timberline Rd. Staff finds that the plan addresses Criterion 1, “as good or better”, by providing an elevated walkway connection across the drive-thru lane. The plan also proposes an alternative pavement treatment for the elevated crossing that will increase pedestrian visibility, as well as protective bollards on each side of the crossing and a stop sign for vehicles prior to exiting the drive-thru lane. Staff finds that the Modification request satisfies Criterion 4 “nominal, inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan” since the proposed modification is minor enough in nature that it in no way detracts from the overall plan or the intent of the Land Use Code Standards. In conclusion, the requested modification of a standard to subsection 3.5.3(C)(1) would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4). This is because the proposed combination of the elevated crossing, pavement material, vehicle stop sign, and protective bollards mitigates the potential impacts of pedestrian and vehicle conflict and creates a walkway alternative that is comparable to a plan with a direct connecting walkway meeting the purposes of the standards. Additionally, when taking the proposed design into consideration, the modification is nominal and inconsequential to the plan and does not detract from the intent of the original standard. 6. Land Use Code Article 3 A. DIVISION 3.2 - SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection This Code Section requires a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the circulation system and parking, the building, abutting properties, and users of the site in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. The plan provides the following main components: 79 trees consisting of deciduous and coniferous species. 393 consisting of deciduous and evergreen species 173 perennial plantings Complies 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping This Code Section requires that six percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred spaces shall be landscape areas. This is achieved via landscape islands, landscape peninsulas, or intervening trees. The proposed Plan’s parking lot area is 16,135 square feet total, meaning 968 square feet must be used for landscape area. The plan allocates 1,123 square feet of landscaping for the parking lot area. Complies 3.2.1(F) – Tree Mitigation Existing trees to be removed are 22 Lanceleaf Cottonwood Saplings, which are all less than 6” caliper. Replacement trees include 13 Service Berry, 8 American Plum, and 10 Sucker Punch Chokecherry trees. Complies Packet pg. 237 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 11 of 22 Back to Top 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking This Code Section requires secure, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. The plan provides on-site walkways, curbcuts, sidewalk ramps, and a clearly delineated parking lot layout in compliance with standards. Complies 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements Bike parking for the retail building is calculated at a ratio of 1 space per 4,000 sq ft of building space with a minimum of 4 spaces. 20% of all spaces must be enclosed, while the remaining 80% can be satisfied by using fixed racks. The drive-thru restaurant requires 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft with a minimum of 4 spaces. 100% the restaurant bicycle parking must be fixed. The overall requirement for the site is 8 spaces with 2 enclosed and 6 fixed. The plan provides 2 enclosed bicycle parking spaces in the retail building as well as 8 fixed bicycle parking spaces (4 for the retail building, and 4 for the drive-thru). Complies 3.2.2(K)(2) – Vehicle Parking Space Requirements Nonresidential uses must provide a minimum number of parking spaces and are limited to a maximum depending on the land use. The required minimum for the proposed retail use is 2/1,000 sq ft while the maximum is 4/1,000 sq ft. The required minimum for the drive-thru restaurant is 7/1,000 sq ft and maximum of 15/1,000 sq ft. The project proposes 16 vehicle parking spaces (14 standard, 2 handicap) meeting the minimum requirement for the proposed retail and drive-thru restaurant use. While not factored into the parking total, the applicant does note on the plan that the drive-thru has capacity for 15 vehicles to queue before impacting the parking areas. Complies 3.2.4 – Site Lighting Project lighting is primarily located attached to the building and within the parking lot. The photometric plan demonstrates compliance with minimum lighting levels, meeting or exceeding code requirements for commercial buildings. Additionally, all proposed lighting is fully shielded and down-directional, meeting color temperature requirements of 3,000K or less. Complies 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures All commercial structures must provide adequately sized, conveniently located and easily accessible area for the waste disposal needs of the development. The Plan provides a trash and recycling enclosure that complies with the requirements for commercial structures. Specifically, the following elements are: o A separate pedestrian walk-in access point o Adequately sized trash and recycling containers o Stone veneer/stucco walls and painted steel doors o Protective bollards and curb-stops Complies Packet pg. 238 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 12 of 22 Back to Top B. DIVISION 3.3 – ENGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.3.1(C) – Public Sites, Reservations and Dedications An applicant is required to dedicate rights-of-way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being developed. In cases where any part of an existing road is abutting or within the tract being developed, the applicant must dedicate such additional rights-of-way as may be necessary to increase such roadway to the minimum width required by Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The project will dedicate both onsite and offsite easements prior to final recordation and as required by the City’s Engineering Services department. To accommodate more on-site vehicle parking, an administrative variance from the Larimer County Urban Street Standard requirement that parking bays be setback a minimum of 75 feet from the adjacent arterial right-of-way has been granted by the City Engineer. Complies C. 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when property is developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site will protect the natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Packet pg. 239 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 13 of 22 Back to Top 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats The General Standard in this section requires, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan be designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and animals that inhabit them and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community by: (1) directing development away from sensitive resources; (2) minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones; (3) enhancing existing conditions; or (4) restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community when a development will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features. Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i) Buffer Zone Performance Standards allows the decision maker to approve buffer zones that may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance for each natural habitat or feature is established in the quantitative buffer zone table, but the Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance in order to ensure qualitative performance standards are achieved. Background: The Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) was completed by Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. in June 2018, prior to the Project Development Plan submittal. The report highlighted Lake Canal as the only natural resource on the property that warrants protection or mitigation. The mature trees over 6-inches DBH that constitute the riparian forest canopy are rooted offsite on the west bank of Lake Canal; all trees on the east side of Lake Canal and growing on the remainder of the site are small pockets of sapling Siberian elm (non-native) and lanceleaf cottonwood (native), all of which are less than 6- inches DBH. The remainder of the site is dominated by non-native grasses (smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass) and invasive weeds (Canada thistle, cheatgrass, kochia, leafy spurge, and others). Lake Canal: Lake Canal is a below-grade irrigation ditch that forms the western border of the site and was determined to serve as a wildlife corridor for urban adapted mammal, songbird, and waterfowl species that are not sensitive to human presence. Narrow wetland bands, dominated by reed canary grass and Emory sedge, were noted within Lake Canal’s banks and will not be disturbed by the proposed development. The standard buffer distance for ditches that serve as wildlife corridors is 50 feet, as measured from the top of bank or edge of wetlands, whichever is greater. Development Proposal: Lake Canal: Lake Canal will be protected in place and buffered, with habitat restoration and weed management to improve habitat quality, as well as substantial landscape buffering to mitigate light spillage from queueing cars. Performance Standards: The applicant proposes meeting LUC 3.4.1 (E) natural habitat buffer zone performance standards, which are as follows: (a) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development. The existing site contains a total of 18,230 square feet of buffer zone and the development proposes 22,576 square feet of buffer zone, with an average buffer distance of 64 feet. A weed management plan has been provided to reduce weed pressure both during and after construction, and the existing low-quality habitat will be restored with an upland native grass and forb mix. Stormwater detention ponds will also be enhanced with a native seed mix suitable to the expected moisture conditions to provide structural and species diversity for habitat quality. Finally, dense landscape screening is planned to mitigate light spillage from vehicle headlights in the drive-thru queue. All screening species are native and consists of several offset rows with varying heights. The resultant buffer zone will be of higher quality than what exists today through weed mitigation, increased species richness, and improved structural diversity. (b) The project, including, by way of example and not by way of limitation, its fencing, pedestrian/bicycle paths and roadways, shall be designed to preserve or enhance Complies Packet pg. 240 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 14 of 22 Back to Top the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats and features, both within and adjacent to the site. The site has been designed to eliminate any potential impediments to the Lake Canal wildlife movement corridor. (c) The project shall be designed to preserve existing trees and vegetation that contribute to the site's ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, habitat and cooling value. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 3.2.1(F), all trees and vegetation within the Limits of Development must be preserved or, if necessary, mitigated based on the values established by the Ecological Characterization Study or the City Environmental Planner. Such mitigation, if necessary, shall include trees, shrubs, grasses, or any combination thereof, and must be planted within the buffer zone. Vegetation within the buffer and across the remainder of the site will be improved through weed management, the use of two native seed mixes (upland and detention basin), and dense screening plantings with native trees and shrubs to increase structural heterogeneity and species diversity. The landscaping emphasizes native plants, a diverse vegetation structure to enhance opportunities for species’ nesting, breeding, and dense screening to buffer the wildlife corridor from light and noise. The existing 21 sapling (<6 inch DBH) lanceleaf cottonwoods located within the buffer will be mitigated through a total of 120 native shrubs and 46 native multi-stem trees. These woody plantings will be planted in offset rows with intermixed growth heights in order to maximize their screening capabilities. These plantings are separate from the tree protection and mitigation requirements in LUC Section 3.2.1. (d) The project shall be designed to protect from adverse impact to species utilizing special habitat features such as key raptor habitat features, including nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division ("CPW") or the Fort Collins Natural Areas Department ("NAD"); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; heron rookeries; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the CPW or NAD; prairie dog colonies one (1) acre or greater in size; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified by the NAD; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified by the NAD; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothill ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and wetlands of any size. No raptor or songbird nests or any other special habitat feature have been identified on the property according to the ECS; however, the ECS does recommend tree removal occur outside of the songbird nesting season. Additionally, language was provided on the plans to require a songbird nesting survey if tree removal does occur during the nesting season. (e) The project shall be designed so that the character of the proposed development in terms of use, density, traffic generation, quality of runoff water, noise, lighting and similar potential development impacts shall minimize the degradation of the ecological character or wildlife use of the affected natural habitats or features. Stormwater is treated prior to entering the Lake Canal, and the proposed landscaping will provide screening to buffer the natural habitat buffer zone from light spillage and noise from the queueing vehicles. (f) The project shall be designed to integrate with and otherwise preserve existing site topography, including, but not limited to, such characteristics as steepness of slopes, existing drainage features, rock outcroppings, river and stream terraces, valley walls, ridgelines and scenic topographic features. Apart from topographical changes needed for stormwater management, the project maintains the existing flat topography. Packet pg. 241 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 15 of 22 Back to Top (g) The project shall be designed to enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site. If existing landscaping within the buffer zone is determined by the decision maker to be incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone, then the applicant shall undertake restoration and mitigation measures such as regrading and/or the replanting of native vegetation. The buffer will be restored to native vegetation. Additionally, weed management and enhanced landscaping will be incorporated to improve the natural ecological characteristics of the site. (h) The project may be designed to provide appropriate human access to natural habitats and features and their associated buffer zones in order to serve recreation purposes, provided that such access is compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature. No public access is planned to the buffer as it largely cut off by International Boulevard to the south, Lake Canal itself to the west, private property to the north, and the proposed development on the eastern portion of the site. Access is provided for the ditch company to allow for periodic maintenance. The improved native landscaping will provide an aesthetically pleasing screen for motorists waiting in the vehicle queue. (i) Fencing associated with the project shall be designed to be compatible with the ecological character and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature. No fencing is proposed within the buffer on site. Summary: The mitigation results in 22,576 square feet of Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) which is 4,526 above the required amount. Habitat diversification of the NHBZ is achieved through the addition of stormwater detention basins and densely planting a variety of native shrubs and trees, while habitat improvement is achieved through weed management, two native seed mixes, and additional native plantings throughout other areas of the site. The dense screening plantings along the west side of the drive through queue will provide adequate mitigation for light and noise mitigation to satisfy LUC 1.3.4(d). Packet pg. 242 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 16 of 22 Back to Top D. 3.5 – BUILDING STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1(B)(C)(E)(F) – Building Project and Compatibility This standard is designed to ensure compatibility of new buildings with the surrounding context. In this case, there are a variety of buildings in the. immediate vicinity, including a vehicle emission center, motorcycle dealership, manufacturing distribution facility, and commercial supply building. Absent any established character, the standard requires that new buildings set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. The building will set an enhanced standard of quality in providing a combination of high -quality building materials that includes stone veneer, dark bronze metal storefront, galvanized metal siding, dark and mid-tone hard coat stucco, and a building entry features that utilize a dark metal canopy. For more details see 3.5.3 and 3.5.5 below for compliance with building design standards. Complies 3.5.3 – Mixed – Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings Nonresidential buildings must provide significant architectural interest and shall not have a single, large, dominant building mass. The street level shall be designed to comport with a pedestrian scale in order to establish attractive street fronts and walkways. Walkways shall be designed principally for the purpose of accommodating pedestrians while secondarily accommodating vehicular movement. Buildings shall be designed with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. The plan provides a design with an entryway feature, walkways, landscaping and amenity features specifically tailored to the site and the context of the area. The building breaks up massing by the use of several wall planes, an entryway feature, and use of materials that highlight the aforementioned elements. Complies 3.5.3(C)(1) – Orientation to a Connecting Walkway The retail building is placed so that the primary building entrance opens directly onto a concrete plaza with a connecting walkway, which connects out to the Timberline Rd sidewalk without intervening vehicle use areas between the entrance and sidewalk, as required. As detailed above, a modification has been requested for an elevated pedestrian walkway that grants access to the drive-thru restaurant, which crosses the drive-thru exit lane. Modification Requested Packet pg. 243 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 17 of 22 Back to Top 3.5.3(C)(2) – Orientation to Build to Lines for Streetfront Buildings The retail building entry feature that faces towards the SW Frontage Road is placed 15 feet from the right-of-way, an adjoining arterial street. The drive-thru restaurant is placed more than the 15 feet from the adjacent right-of-way. However, exceptions to the build-to-line standards are permitted and staff has determined that the drive-thru restaurant building qualifies for the following exceptions: In order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden between a building and the sidewalk. o The plan provides a patio/plaza area in front of the retail building and between the drive-thru and the street. This proposed patio includes 5 trees in grates, a proposed seating area, and seat walls in order to create an attractive and usable pedestrian space for the retail and the drive-thru uses. Complies 3.5.3(D) – Variation in Massing Variation in building mass is required to avoid the appearance of a single, large, dominant building mass. The proposed building achieves a variation in footprint and massing by utilizing an offset of the structure on the western 1/3rd of the structure. The building segments include a clear delineation between tenant space entryways by using canopies, and breaks in building material composition. The drive-thru structure has as a single walk-up/entry that is clearly identified with windows and a canopy. Complies 3.5.3(E)(1-6) – Character and Image This is currently the only Industrial zoned parcel in the City of Fort Collins’ city limits on this portion of Timberline Rd. The site is surrounded by Light Industrial zoning and industrial uses located within Larimer County. In recognition of the industrial character, this project utilizes similar architectural elements including building materials and colors/shades found in the industrial areas nearby:. Galvanized metal siding Stone veneer applied to the building base/first floor. Warm building colors such as dark bronze and beige. Complies 3.5.3(E) – Façade Treatment The building façades feature distinct building bays distinguished by windows and projecting and recessed elements that add architectural interest, variety, and are of human-scale proportions. In addition, all four building sides of both structures are consistent in their use of materials and architectural interest. Complies 3.5.3(E)(4) – Entrances Building entrances are clearly defined by sheltering elements, including a metal canopies, window bays, and masonry treatments. Complies 3.5.3(E)(6) – Base and Top Treatments The building features a stone veneer with a pier cap and galvanized metal siding base treatment, while the building top includes a beige and dark brown hard coat stucco that meets the pitched dark bronze metal roof, satisfying requirements of this code section. Complies Packet pg. 244 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 18 of 22 Back to Top 3.5.5 – Convenience Shopping Center Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood utilizing high quality materials and finishes and shall be internally compatible and harmonious with respect to quality design, aesthetics and materials, tailored specifically to the site and its context. As mentioned previously the proposal uses a combination of high- quality building materials, landscaping, and site design to create a convenience shopping center appropriate for the site and surrounding context. Complies 3.5.5(C)(1) – Size of Development Convenience Shopping Centers must be situated on 7 ofr fewer acres with 4 or more business establishments planned on the site. The proposal is located on a 1.39 acres site, and 4 businesses are planned (3 retail spaces, 1 drive-thru restaurant). Complies 3.5.5(C)(2) – Permitted Uses Permitted uses within a Convenience Shopping Center include retail stores, personal and business services, convenience retail stores (with accessory gas pumps), restaurants without drive-up windows, equipment rental (not including outdoor storage), professional offices, limited banking services such as automated teller machines, multi-family dwellings, medical offices and clinics, small animal veterinary clinics, and day care services. The retail uses are permitted in a Convenience Shopping Center An Addition of Permitted Use has been requested for the drive- thru restaurant use Complies via Addition of Permitted Use (APU) 3.5.5(D)(1-2) - Buildings Standardized architecture, recognized as a prototype of a larger chain of establishments, shall be customized as necessary to express a level of quality that enhances the distinctive character of the immediate neighborhood and the City as a whole. All buildings must utilize a consistent architectural style, with different buildings, businesses or activities in the center distinguished by variations within the architectural style. The two buildings utilize a unified material and color palette, as previously described in sections 3.5.3. While the building materials used are consistent across the site, each building is distinct from the other, aided in great part by the difference in size as well as the roof lines. The drive-thru restaurant planned for use by Ziggi’s Coffee, while using a similar color palette to some other locations, varies the building design significantly from other existing franchise locations. Furthermore, the site layout has been designed in such a way to de-emphasize the drive-thru use by placing it behind (to the west) of the primary retail building. Complies 3.5.5(E)(2) – Landscaping/Streetscapes Convenience Shopping Centers require that if ground signage is provided it be incorporated into the landscape design. The proposal incorporates a ground sign in the landscape area on the north side of the entry drive. The sign itself would be reviewed and permitted through a separate City process. Complies 3.5.5(E)(3) -Site Setbacks Setbacks of parking and drives must meet the following minimums: 25 feet from arterial rights-of-way, 20 feet from the property line of any residential use, and 5 feet from the property line of nonresidential uses. The parking area and drive-thru lane are setback 30+ feet. The site does not abut any residential land uses, and the parking area and drive thru lane are more than 5 feet from all nonresidential uses. Complies Packet pg. 245 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 19 of 22 Back to Top E. DIVISION 3.6 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This Division is intended to ensure that the transportation system is in conformance with adopted transportation plans and policies established by the City. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This Section requires that the transportation needs of the proposed development will be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development in order to meet adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards. A detailed traffic impact analysis was conducted and is attached. The purpose of the study was to determine the potential impacts to traffic operations in the area related to the proposed development. Based on the Traffic Impact Study provided, all the intersections/access points evaluated will continue to operate within an acceptable level of service for both AM and PM peak hours. The additional site traffic generated by this site is not anticipated to significantly increase delay, nor decrease the level of service to a point where they would no longer meet the requirements outlined in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Queuing internal to the site was also a concern with this project, as the potential impacts from excessive queuing can have unintended consequences that can affect access points and the overall transportation system. Ultimately, the function of the internal driveway is a private issue under the responsibility of the shopping center association, but given the potential for impacts, staff required the Traffic Impact Study to include a queuing analysis of the potential vehicle stacking anticipated with the drive-thru use. Based on this analysis it was determined that this site would be able to adequately accommodate the queuing of 15 vehicles in the drive-thru lane with an additional 5-6 queuing spaces within the parking area before impacting the N Timberline Rd right-of-way. Overall the general conclusions of the Traffic Impact Study have been accepted by the City and no site improvements or mitigation will be required with this project. Complies 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This Section requires adequate access for emergency vehicles and persons rendering fire protection and emergency services. The plan demonstrates that existing access and circulation will continue to meet emergency access requirements. Complies Packet pg. 246 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 20 of 22 Back to Top 7. Land Use Code Article 4 A. DIVISION 4.28 – INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I) Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.28(A) - Purpose The Industrial District is intended to provide a location for a variety of work processes and work places such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, child care centers and housing. While these Districts will be linked to the City's transportation system for multiple modes of travel, some may emphasize efficient commercial trucking and rail traffic as needed. Industrial and manufacturing processes used in this District may, by necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. Complies 4.28(B) – Permitted Uses Subsection 4.26(B)(9) lists “Convenience Shopping Center” as a permitted use subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Permitted uses include retail stores, personal and business services, convenience retail stores (with accessory gas pumps), restaurants without drive-up windows, equipment rental (not including outdoor storage), professional offices, limited banking services such as automated teller machines, multi-family dwellings, medical offices and clinics, small animal veterinary clinics, and day care services. The building containing the retail uses is a permitted use within the Convenience Shopping Center. An Addition of Permitted Use has been requested for the drive-thru restaurant. Complies via Addition of Permitted Use (APU) 4.28(D)(1) – Dimensional Standards This subsection requires that all development in the I zone district must comply with the following: (a)Maximum height for all nonresidential buildings, including those containing mixed-use dwelling units, shall be four (4) stories.(b)All new structures greater than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross leasable area shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review.(c)Any building addition that exceeds fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross leasable area and exceeds twenty-five (25) percent of the gross leasable area of the existing building shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Neither of the proposed buildings in the plan are over 4 stories in height, and neither are over 50,000 sq ft. Complies 4.28(E)(2)(a) – Building Design – Applicability of Section 3.5 Within the Industrial Zone District, the following uses must comply with the Standards contained in Section 3.5.3: Standard and Fast Food Restaurants, Bars and Taverns, Bed and Breakfast Establishments, Child Care Centers, and Convenience Shopping Centers. The Convenience Shopping Center and its associated buildings are subject to the building design requirements found in sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.5 and detailed on pages 11-13 of this staff report. Complies Packet pg. 247 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 21 of 22 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.28(E)(3)(a) – Screening Industrial and commercial activities are not permitted to abut residential areas unless the activities are contained within a building or completely screened from view. To achieve effective screening of the site a minimum 30-foot deep landscape buffer yard is required along all arterial streets and any district boundary line not adjoining a residential land use. If a district boundary line adjoins a residential land use or district (within or beyond City Limits) then the buffer yard must be 80 feet deep. However, this requirement does not apply to development plans that comply with the standards contained in Section 3.5.3. The proposed plan contains uses that are required to comply with the standards of Section 3.5.3 and are therefore exempt from the 30-foot deep landscape buffer yard requirement. NA 4.28(E)(3)(b) – Storage and Operational Areas This standard requires that storage, loading and work operations be screened along district boundary lines and along public streets. Additionally, to the extent reasonably feasible, side and rear yards must be used for vehicle operations and storage areas while front yards are intended for less intensive automobile parking. Service entries for both the retail building and drive-thru are screened by a combination of topography and proposed landscaping which limits the visibility of the south side (rear) of each building from the district boundary line and the Timberline Rd and International Blvd right-of-way. The vehicle operations affiliated with the drive-thru are planned to be primarily internal to the site and screened from the district boundary and public right-of- way by the proposed landscaping and the retail building. Complies 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Timberline – International Addition of Permitted Use, PDP200014, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The Project Development Plan complies with criteria for the Addition of Permitted Uses in Article 1, Section 1.3.4 as required for approval of the drive-thru restaurant use. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 3. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1) proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4), and the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. 4. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, provided that Addition of Permitted Use and the Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1) are approved. 5. The Project Development Plan complies with the relevant standards located in Division 4.28, Industrial (I) of Article 4, provided that Addition of Permitted Use is approved. Packet pg. 248 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 7 PDP 200014 | Timberline – International APU Thursday, July 15, 2021 | Page 22 of 22 Back to Top 9. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Project Development Plan for the Timberline International APU – PDP200014 with the Addition of Permitted Use for the drive-thru restaurant and the Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1), based on the aforementioned Findings of Fact. 10. Attachments 1. Applicant’s APU Narrative 2. Applicant’s Modification Request 3. Site Plan & Architecture Set 4. Landscape Plan 5. Lighting Plan 6. Traffic Impact Study 7. Traffic Impact Study Update – April 2021 8. Engineering Variance Request 9. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 10. Staff Presentation 11. Memo from Planner Lindsey regarding questions from work session 12. Updated site plan from applicant 13. Detailed plan view of pedestrian crossing Document Links: Subdivision Plat o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=15154499&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Utility Plan o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=15154516&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Stormwater Management Plan o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=13052228&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Drainage Report o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=13052210&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Conceptual Review Response o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7325445&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Response to Round 1 Comments o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=13052224&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Response to Round 2 Comments o https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=15154509&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Packet pg. 249 TIMBERLINE – INTERNATIONAL (APU) ADDITONAL PERMITTED USE March, 2021 (Revised) The APU process allows an applicant to propose a use that is not allowed in a zone district but is allowed in other zone districts within the City. APUs do not allow the use on other parcels within that zone district. P&Z hears APU applications when not in a residential zone district. Neighborhood Meeting; A neighborhood meeting was conducted ’virtually’ on August 13, 2020. A single person attended, other than Staff and the presenting Consultant & Owner. Following a Q&A, the citizen was supportive of the project. Another nearby Timbervine resident contacted Staff with questions after the meeting, which was referred to the Owner/developer. Their questions related to any Timberline improvements. It was clarified that there will be two lanes of improvements, as well as public sidewalk along the west side of Timberline, east side site frontage. The interested party supported the project following discussions. The neighborhood meeting took place prior to the submittal of an application. The proposed property is located in I – Industrial zoning and not located in a residential zone district. APU CRITERIA Section 1.3.4(C)(1) a)Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. THE DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OTHER USES IN THE I – INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT. ADJACENT USES ARE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, FABRICATION, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED USES. b)Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. THE ADJACENT ZONE DISTRICTS ARE LARIMER COUNTY, I – INDUSTRIAL. AS SUCH THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS IN THE AREA. THERE ARE SEVERAL PEMB METAL STORAGE BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH & WEST (ACROSS THE LAKE CANAL DITCH) SIDES OF THE SITE, AS WELL AS AN UNDEVELOPED OPEN STORAGE YARD TO THE EAST. c)The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. THE DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP (& EAST MIXED-USE) WILL SERVE NEARBY RESIDENTS AND PASSER-BY TRAFFIC WITH NEEDED PERSONAL SERVICES & OTHER APPROPRIATE USES. THESE USES WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES. TIMBERLINE DRIVE WILL BE IMPROVED FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH NEEDS, ADDING 2 LANES OF ROADWAY, PUBLIC SIDEWALK, NEEDED STORM DRAINAGE & LANDSCAPE STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. d)Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 250 THE DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP (APU) USE WILL NOT CREATE ANY OBJECTIONABLE OR OTHER ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES. THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WILL BE SIMILAR TO COUNTS EXPECTED FOR OTHER ALLOWED USES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LIMITED BUILDING AREAS AND ALLOWED MULTI-STORY USES. THE PROJECT WOULD PROVIDE FOR ADDITONAL SALES-TAX REVENUE, NOT TYPICALLY AVAILABLE IN MOST CONVENTIONAL LIGHT-INDUSTRIAL USES. THIS PROJECT WOULD BE A POSITIVE ASSET TO THE CITY, FINANCIALLY AS WELL AS POTENTIAL VDT TRIP REDUCTIONS, PROMOTING BIKE & PEDESTRIAN USE AND ACCESS TO NEEDED PUBLIC FACILITIES. e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED CHARACTER IN THE AREA IMMEDIATE AREA. THAT SAID, THIS PROJECT WILL SET A NEW DESIGN STANDARD FOR THE AREA AND TIMBERLINE ROAD AS A KEY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR CONNECTOR TO NEW NORTH DEVELOPMENTS. f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. THE DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OTHER USES IN THE I – INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT. ADJACENT USES ARE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, FABRICATION, STORAGE AND OPEN STORAGE YARDS. g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. NOT APPLICABLE, THE PROPOSED APU USE IS NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. NOT APPLICABLE, THE PROPOSED APU USE IS NOT A M.M. BUSINESS. The Land Use Code cannot foresee all he future, potential uses that may locate within the City. This process allows applicants to pursue a use that the Land Use Code does not prescribe within the zone so long as they mitigate impacts. THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLANNED IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHERE A DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP MIGHT LOCATE. THE PROPOSED SERVICE-USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL ZONING. GIVEN THE CURRENT PANDEMIC SITUATION & REALIZING THESE REMOTE, (LIMITED CONTACT) TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS, PICK-UP ARE DESIRED FOR HEALTH SAFETY REASONS AS WELL AS GENERAL CONVENIENCE, THIS PROJECT WILL FILL AN IMMEDIATE & LONG-TERM NEED. THIS LOCATION WILL PROVIDE DESIRED SERVICES FOR NEARBY RESIDENTS & PASSER-BY TRAFFIC THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT EXIST. TRAFFIC IMPACTS WILL BE MINIMAL GIVEN THE EXISTING USES, FUTURE GROWTH AREAS NORTH, FORTHCOMMING MULBERRY ANNEXATION & THE PROPOSED TIMBERLINE ROAD WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 251 LAND USE CODE – SECTION 3.5.3.(C)(1) Direct pedestrian connection from the drive-thru to the public sidewalk (C) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking. (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway . At least one (1) main entrance of any commercial or mixed -use building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. Any building which has only vehicle bays and/or service doors for intermittent/infrequent nonpublic ac cess to equipment, storage or similar rooms (e.g., self -serve car washes and self -serve mini-storage warehouses) shall be exempt from this standard. Modification Request: Request to provide a pedestrian path to the west building, crossing the exit side drive-up lane. THE CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER USE IS MADE UP OF 2 BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE TENANTS, THE SEPARATED WESTERN-MOST BEING A PROPOSED COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-UP, WINDOW SALES. THE EASTERN- MOST BUILDING PROPOSES 3 TENANTS THAT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE PUBLIC, TIMBERLINE SIDEWALK. THE SITE LAYOUT WAS PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED THAT THE CAR STACKING LANE WOULD BE TO THE REAR/WEST SIDE OF THE SITE, SHIELDING IT FROM TIMBERLINE VIEW. THE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DESIGN WILL INCLUDE A CONSISTENT SIDEWALK ELEVATION RAISED ABOVE THE CAR LANE PAVEMENT SURFACE, INCLUDING A ‘SPEED-BUMP/TRAFFIC CALMING’ DESIGN, BOLLARDS WILL ASSIST IN VISUAL AWARNESS OF THE CROSSING TO BOTH PEDESTRIANS, DRIVERS, AS WELL ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND PAVEMENT TEXTURE, COLOR WILL BE INCLUDED. ACCESS TO THE WEST DRIVE-UP USE (COFFEE SHOP) WILL PROVIDE CLEAR AND SAFE ACCESS TO THE USERS. Applicable Modification Standards: The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL INCREASE OVER TIME AS NORTH TIMBERLINE DEVELOPES FURTHER. THE CROSSING CONNECTION WILL BE IMPORTANT TO NEARBY USERS, RESIDENTS AS MORE BIKE ACCESS AND INTERCONNECTING SIDEWALKS ARE INCREASED. THE SITE HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO 3 OF THE 4 PROPOSED USES. GIVEN THE 2-BUILDING DESIGN LAYOUT, IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO HAVE THE WEST BUILDING ACCESS WITHOUT A CROSSING TO THE WEST BUILDING. NOTING, THE VERY NATURE OF A DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP USE REQUIRES FULL VEHICULAR MOVEMENT AROUND THE BUILDING. OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS WITH SINGLE-SIDE ACCESS WERE INVESTIGATED BUT DETERMINED WOULD NOT MEET OTHER LUC. DESIGN CRITERIA. THE WEST BUILDING DOES HAVE DIRECT PARKING ACCESS SPACES THAT DO NOT CROSS THE TRAFFIC SO THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PATRONS TO ACCESS WITHOUT ANY VEHICULAR CROSSING CONCERNS. ALL TRAFFIC IS STOPPED PRIOR TO EXITING THE DRIVE-UP LANE. THE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DESIGN INCLUDES CONSISTENT SIDEWALK LEVEL RAISED ABOVE THE CAR LANE PAVEMENT ELEVATION, ‘SPEED-BUMP/CALMING’ DESIGN/ELEVATION CHANGE, BOLLARDS FOR ASSIST IN VISUAL AWARNESS TO BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER, PAVEMENT TEXTURE AND CO LOR CHANGE. ACCESS TO THE DRIVE-UP USE (COFFEE SHOP) WILL PROVIDE CLEAR AND SAFE ACCESS TO THE USERS. PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE. The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 252 specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN REGARD TO ITS’ PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES, ADJACENT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS TO THE PRACTICAL ACCESS TO BOTH BUILDINGS. THE SITE IS AN IN-FILL SITE AND NOT A PART OF ANY DEVLOPMENT CENTER. INTERCONNECTION TO OTHER AREAS OF THE SITE ARE LIMITED TO DUE THE DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE AND SURROUNDING EXISTING & VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE SINGLE ACCESS FROM TIMBERLINE ONLY, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR INTERCONNECTIVITY, LIMITING ACCESS FROM OTHER LOCATIONS. PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE. The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS NOMINAL AND INCONSEQUENTIAL WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN DESIGN. THE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IS ONLY A SINGLE COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN AND THE IMPACTS TO THE CROSSING ARE BEING MITIGATED, LIMITED THROUGH MULTIPLE PRACTICAL URBAN DESIGN MEASURES. THE CROSSING CONNECTS TO PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AREAS, INTEGRATING THE DEVELOPMENT INTO A CREATIVE URBAN LEVEL FUNCTIONAL AND SAFE DESIGN SOLUTION. PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES. Architecture West LLC 4.28.21 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 253 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 254 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 255 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 256 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 257 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 258 /$.(&$1$/5$,1*$5'(1 :$/. /$1'6&$3(%8))(5,17(51$7,21$/%28/(9$5'7,0%(5/,1(52$'6'.' (0(5*(1&<$&&(66($6(0(17'5$,1$*(($6(0(17 6(:(5($6(0(17 87,/,7<($6(0(17 52: 87,/,7<($6(0(17 :$7(5($6(0(17 6(:(5($6(0(177(/(&$%7232)',7&+%$1. '5,9(7+58%/'*6)6,1*/(6725< /$1'6&$3(%8))(59$1+&+&5(7$,/%8,/',1* 6)6,1*/(6725< (1&/26('%,.(5$&.6 75$6+5(&<&/(1 n ( 1n : 1n : 6n ( 1 n : 3$7,2&21&5(7(3$7,2:$/. 87,/,7<($6(0(17)+75$16 52:02180(176,*16)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)0$;6(7%$&. 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= %8))(5$5($5(48,5('3529,'(' 6)6)0,1%8))(5',67$1&( 0$;%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( %,.(5$&. 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21 ( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= %,.(5$&. 6($7:$//6($7:$//67(;785(' &2/25('3('&5266,1*%2//$5'6$63+$/73$9(0(177<3(;,67,1*$&&(6 6'5 ,9 (/$1 (72 5 (0 $,11+%=1 +%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21(ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 259 */673)0+&66696,*1$*(6,*1$*(6,*1$*(+&6669+&66,*1$*(%/'*+7 %/'*+7 +&63)0*/673)0+&63)06,*1$*(6696,*1$*(35 ; +0'22563$,17('67((/32676&21&6/$%67/&2/801&251(56%2//$5'6'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'15&5&;67((/$1*/($7,17(5,253(5,0(7(5 231 * 231 * 3)0(7$/&$3)/$6+,1*+&678&&23$,17('67((/6721(9(1((5210(7$/678'6%2//$5'67<3 6,*1$*(6,*1$*(+&678&&2$%29(:,7+6721(9(1((5%(/2: )257&2//,16&2/25$'2)257&2//,16&2/25$'2)257&2//,16&2/25$'2)257&2//,16&2/25$'2%,*&$1<21'5,9(%,*&$1<21'5,9(%,*&$1<21'5,9(%,*&$1<21'5,9( )257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&27,0%(5/,1(,17(51$7,21$/$383/3/3/3/%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216)5+2/',1*6/7')5+2/',1*6/7')5+2/',1*6/7')5+2/',1*6/7'6+2:(667)/6+2:(667)/6+2:(667)/6+2:(667)/)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&20$7(5,$/60$7(5,$/60$7(5,$/60$7(5,$/6 3/1257+(/(9$7,2161257+(/(9$7,2161257+(/(9$7,2161257+(/(9$7,216 3/($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21 3/6287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21 3/:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21+&6 +$5'&2$7678&&272%(6:0($'2:/$5. ),(/'&2/25 6: '$5.&/29( 6:6,03/<%(,*( $&&(176 669 6<17+(7,&6721(9(1((572%((/'25$'202817$,1/('*(,1%8&.6.,1*/67 ,168/$7('*/$=,1*,1'$5.%521=($/80,1806725()52173)0 *$/9$1,=('0(7$/6,',1* 3/75$6+(1&/2685(75$6+(1&/2685(75$6+(1&/2685(75$6+(1&/2685( :(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21 3/'5,9('5,9('5,9('5,9(83($67(/(9$7,2183($67(/(9$7,2183($67(/(9$7,2183($67(/(9$7,21 3/'5,9('5,9('5,9('5,9(83:(67(/(9$7,2183:(67(/(9$7,2183:(67(/(9$7,2183:(67(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21 1257+(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,21ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 260 TELEPlant tree in the center of the parkway per the ultimate curb and sidewalk alignment. IRRIGATION SERVICE CURB STOP VALVE AND 1" COPPER STUB. PRESSURE AND FLOW REQUIREMENT = 75 PSI @10 GPM NORTH L-1 Landscape PlanPROECT NUMBER:ᴀSEET:ᴀNO.PREPARED FOR:All drawings and writtenmaterial appearingherein constitute theoriginal unpublishedwork of the LandscapeArchitect IrrigationDesigner and may not beduplicated, used ordisclosed without thewritten consent of theLandscape Architect.C40TIMBERLINE INDUSTRIAL APUPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP)FORT COLLINS, COLORADO22221601 S. th St.Berthoud, Colorado 051 70.217.4 55centennialdesign@hotmail.comDATE:DATE:REVISIONS:142721ROUND 2 COMMENTS262221ROUND COMMENTS0 SCALE: feet204060 1" = 20' A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27 - 31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Pro-Steel edging to be placed between rock areas and turf or native seed. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 3" depth of 1-1/2" gray granite, over weed barrier fabric. Provide a 3" deep ring of Shredded Redwood Mulch over the root ball of all trees, shrubs and perennials in planting beds and native seed areas. Tree rings to have a minimum diameter of 30". REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 261 L-2 Landscape NotesPROECT NUMBER:ᴀSEET:ᴀNO.PREPARED FOR:All drawings and writtenmaterial appearingherein constitute theoriginal unpublishedwork of the LandscapeArchitect IrrigationDesigner and may not beduplicated, used ordisclosed without thewritten consent of theLandscape Architect.C40TIMBERLINE INDUSTRIAL APUPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP)FORT COLLINS, COLORADO22221601 S. th St.Berthoud, Colorado 051 70.217.4 55centennialdesign@hotmail.comDATE:DATE:REVISIONS:142721ROUND 2 COMMENTS262221ROUND COMMENTSGENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH LOOSENING AND ADDITION OF AMENDMENTS THAT PROMOTE WATER ABSORPTION AND RELEASE, THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALL INDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS 2. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 3. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED). 4. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN ½ INCH DEPTH. FOR BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES. 5. TREAT NATIVE SEED MIX AREA PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SEED WITH APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE TO PROACTIVELY MITIGATE HERBACEOUS WEED SPECIES GROWTH DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD THEN AFTER APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD APPLY NATIVE SEED AS CALLED FOR ON APPROVED PLANS. 6. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS AND PROVIDED TEMPORARY IRRIGATION UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER. 8. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING OCCURS IN NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH. 9. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT TOTAL COVER IS REACHED WITH LESS THAN TEN PERCENT CONSISTING OF NOXIOUS WEEDS AND NO LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES. 10. PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING OF SEEDED AREAS AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN PROPER MOISTURE GERMINATION. MONITOR IRRIGATION APPLICATION AND FREQUENCY TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION. SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION TO BE APPLIED BY PORTABLE SPRINKLER OR TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM. DETENTION BASIN MIX COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME LBS/PLS/ ACRE WILDFLOWERS PLAINS COREOPSIS COREOPSIS TINCTORIA 0.17 WHITE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA CANDIDA 0.65 PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA PURPUREA 0.81 INDIAN BLANKETFLOWER GAILLARDIA ARISTATA 1.85 MEXICAN HAT RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA 0.2 GRASSES INDIAN RICEGRASS ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES 1.13 SIDEOATS GRAMA BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA 1.15 BUFFALOGRASS BOUTELOUA DACTYLOIDES 3.27 BLUE GRAMA BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 0.25 INLAND SALTGRASS DISTICHLIS STRICTA 0.35 BOTTLEBRUSH SQUIRRELTAIL ELYMUS ELYMOIDES 0.95 STREAMBANK WHEATGRASS ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS SSP. LANCEOLATUS 1.36 PRAIRIE JUNEGRASS KOELERIA MACRANTHA 0.08 WESTERN WHEATGRASS PASCOPYRUM SMITHII 1.61 LITTLE BLUESTEM SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 0.7 TOTAL FOR DETENTION BASIN MIX 14.54 LBS/PLS/ACRE SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR WILDFLOWERS BLUE FLAX (LINUM LEWISII) 0.83 LBS/PLS/ACRE BLACK-EYED SUSAN (RUDBECKIA HIRTA) 0.14 LBS/PLS/ACRE PRAIRIE ASTER (MACHAERANTHERA TANACETIFOLIA) 0.49 LBS/PLS/ACRE ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR GRASSES SALT AND PEPPER GRASS (DESCHAMPSIA CAESPITOSA) 0.07 LBS/PLS/ACRE SIX WEEKS FESCUE (VULPIA OCTOFLORA) 0.19 LBS/PLS/ACRE SLENDER WHEATGRASS (ELYMUS TRACHYCAULUS) 1.36 LBS/PLS/ACRE REQUIREMENTS *CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PURCHASING ALL SPECIES LISTED IN MIX. IF A SPECIES CAN’T BE LOCATED, CONTRACTOR MUST REPLACE EACH MISSING SPECIES WITH THE ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS (LISTED ABOVE). CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SEED TAGS TO APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF, IF REQUIRED FOR PROJECT. THIS MIX IS BASED ON 70 SEEDS/ SQUARE FOOT AND IS ONLY CALCULATED FOR ONE ACRE. THIS MIX IS BASED ON THE CONTRACTOR USING A DRILL SEED APPLICATION. MIX SHOULD BE DOUBLED IF HAND BROADCAST. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALCULATING THE APPROPRIATE SEED AMOUNTS TO PURCHASE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE POUNDS PER ACRE ARE IN PLS (PURE LIVE SEED) AND MUST BE ORDERED THAT WAY. ALL MATERIALS FURNISHED SHALL BE FREE OF COLORADO STATE NOXIOUS WEEDS AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 21-40 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE (NHBZ) NOTES: 1. STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION - THE DIRECTOR SHALL ESTABLISH A "LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT" ("LOD") LINE(S) TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 2. SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. 3. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ORGANIZED AND TIMED TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE OF SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCUPYING OR USING ON-SITE AND ADJACENT NATURAL HABITATS OR FEATURES. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION. NATIVE SEEDING NOTES: A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27 - 31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. 5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -- STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS. STREET TREE NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL TPOSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: Tree Diameter at Breast Height (inches) Auger Distance From Face of Tree (feet) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 Over 19 15 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR MAINTENANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS MANAGER AND MEET PARKS IRRIGATION STANDARDS. DESIGN REVIEW SHALL OCCUR DURING UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION BY PARKS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. 3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132. 5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 3. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: 10' BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY, AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES 6' BETWEEN TREES AND WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINES 4' BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 10' BETWEEN TREES AND ELECTRIC VAULTS 40' BETWEEN CANOPY SHADE TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 15' BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 4. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a). 5. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 6. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 7. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 8. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. TREE MITIGATION NOTES: 1. MITIGATION TREES INCLUDE; (22) LANCELEAF COTTONWOOD SAPLINGS (ALL LESS THAN 6' DBH). 2. REPLACEMENT TREES INCLUDE; (13) SERVICE BERRY @#5 CNT., (8) AMERICAN PLUM @ #5 CNT., AND (10) SUCKER PUNCH CHOKECHERRY @#5 CNT. (SEE "NATIVE TREES" ON THE "PLANT SCHEDULE"). 3. ADDITIONAL NATIVE PLANTINGS ALONG LAKE CANAL INCLUDE: (93) NATIVE SHRUBS @#5 CNT. (SEE "NATIVE SHRUBS" ON THE "PLANT SCHEDULE"). 4. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY. UPLAND MIX COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME LBS/PLS/ACRE WILDFLOWERS PLAINS COREOPSIS COREOPSIS TINCTORIA 0.17 PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA PURPUREA 0.81 INDIAN BLANKETFLOWER GAILLARDIA ARISTATA 1.85 ROCKY. MTN. PENSTEMON PENSTEMON STRICTUS 0.35 MEXICAN HAT RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA 0.2 GRASSES INDIAN RICEGRASS ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES 1.13 SIDEOATS GRAMA BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA 1.15 BUFFALOGRASS BOUTELOUA DACTYLOIDES 3.27 BLUE GRAMA BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 0.25 BOTTLEBRUSH SQUIRRELTAIL ELYMUS ELYMOIDES 0.95 PRAIRIE JUNEGRASS KOELERIA MACRANTHA 0.08 GREEN NEEDLEGRASS NASSELLA VIRIDULA 1.01 SWITCHGRASS PANICUM VIRGATUM 0.71 WESTERN WHEAT PASCOPYRUM SMITHII 1.61 SAND DROPSEED SPOROBOLUS CRYPTANDRUS 0.04 TOTAL FOR UPLAND MIX 13.58 LBS/PLS/ACRE SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR WILDFLOWERS FRINGED SAGE (ARTEMISIA FRIGIDA) 0.03 LBS/PLS/ACRE BLUE FLAX (LINUM LEWISII) 0.41 LBS/PLS/ACRE PRAIRIE ASTER (MACHAERANTHERA TANACETIFOLIA) 0.25 LBS/PLS/ACRE ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR GRASSES CANADA WILDRYE (ELYMUS CANADENSIS) 1.59 LBS/PLS/ACRE INLAND SALTGRASS (DISTICHLIS STRICTA) 0.35 LBS/PLS/ACRE MOUNTAIN MUHLY (MUHLENBERGIA MONTANA) 0.11 LBS/PLS/ACRE REQUIREMENTS *CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PURCHASING ALL SPECIES LISTED IN MIX. IF A SPECIES CAN’T BE LOCATED, CONTRACTOR MUST REPLACE EACH MISSING SPECIES WITH THE ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS (LISTED ABOVE). CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SEED TAGS TO APPROPRIATE CITY STAA, IF REQUIRED FOR PROJECT. THIS MIX IS BASED ON 70 SEEDS/ SQUARE FOOT AND IS ONLY CALCULATED FOR ONE ACRE. THIS MIX IS BASED ON THE CONTRACTOR USING A DRILL SEED APPLICATION. MIX SHOULD BE DOUBLED IF HAND BROADCASTED. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALCULATING THE APPROPRIATE SEED AMOUNTS TO PURCHASE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE POUNDS PER ACRE ARE IN PLS (PURE LIVE SEED) AND MUST BE ORDERED THAT WAY. ALL MATERIALS FURNISHED SHALL BE FREE OF COLORADO STATE NOXIOUS WEEDS AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 21-40 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN Weed Mitigation BMPs Pre-Construction Phase: ·Treat existing noxious weed populations that could be spread by construction activities, especially individual plants and small infestations. Aggressive treatment of existing weed populations greatly reduces the ability of the weeds to rebound in post-construction conditions. ·Requiring equipment (especially dirt-moving equipment like bulldozers and excavators) to be washed and weed-free before entering the Site. ·Use only certified weed-free straw and mulch for erosion control projects, including weed-free fiber roll barriers and/or sediment logs. Seeding, Planting, and Post-Construction Phases: ·Obtain soil components, amendments, seed mixes, and mulches from weed-free sources. ·Establish and maintain vigorous, desirable vegetation to discourage weeds. ·Mulch any non-vegetated surfaces to minimize the amount of noxious weed seeds that will reach the soil surface and germinate. ·The NHBZ will be monitored for any weed infestations post-construction and treated appropriately if identified. This will occur twice a year for three years following planting. ·The species, location, population size, and treatment method of noxious weeds in the NHBZ will be documented to inform adaptive management practices. Weed Treatments for Noxious Weeds Identified on Site Canada Thistle Weed Control During the project, Canada thistle will be treated with herbicide in the spring and summer to eliminate top growth, followed by a fall application of a translocating herbicide. A Licensed Pesticide Commercial Applicator will apply herbicide per recommendations provided by the Colorado Department of Agriculture in the ‘Canada thistle identification and management factsheet (2008). Spot-treatment by mechanical methods may also be implemented, as necessary. Leafy Spurge Weed Control During the project, leafy spurge will be treated with herbicide in the spring and summer to eliminate top growth. A Licensed Pesticide Commercial Applicator will apply herbicide per recommendations provided by the Colorado Department of Agriculture in the ‘Leafy spurge identification and management factsheet’ (2015). Spot-treatment by mechanical methods may also be implemented, as necessary. DECIDUOUS TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE PERCENTAGE 2 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Skycole` TM / Skyline Thornless Honey Locust 2" B&B 3% 5 Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso` / Kentucky Coffeetree 2" B&B 8% 3 Quercus shumardii / Shumard Red Oak 2" B&B 4% 4 Ulmus davidiana `Choice City` / Choice City David Elm 2" B&B 5% EVERGREEN TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE PERCENTAGE 3 Picea pungens `Glauca` / Colorado Blue Spruce 6` B&B 4% 4 Pinus nigra / Austrian Black Pine 6` B&B 5% ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE PERCENTAGE 4 Acer tataricum `Hot Wings` / Hot Wings Tatarian Maple 1-1/2" B&B 7% 4 Malus x `Red Barron` / Red Barron Crab Apple 1-1/2" B&B 5% 3 Pyrus calleryana `Cleveland Select` / Chanticleer Pear 1-3/4" B&B 4% 5 Syringa reticulata `Ivory Silk` / Ivory Silk Japanese Tree Lilac 1-3/4" B&B 7% NATIVE TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE PERCENTAGE 9 Amelanchier alnifolia / Serviceberry #5 CNT. 12% 16 Juniperus scopulorum / Rocky Mountain Juniper #15 CNT. 15% 8 Prunus americana / American Plum #5 CNT. 11% 8 Prunus x virginiana `P002` TM / Sucker Punch Red Chokecherry #5 CNT. 11% BROADLEAF EVERGREEN SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT 70 Arctostaphylos x `Panchito` / Panchito Manzanita #5 CNT DECIDUOUS SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT 32 Caryopteris x clandonensis `Dark Knight` / Blue Mist Shrub #5 CNT 42 Cotoneaster acutifolius lucidus / Hedge Cotoneaster #5 CNT 15 Physocarpus opulifolius `Diabolo` / Diablo Ninebark #5 CNT. 29 Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low` / Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac #5 CNT. 23 Spiraea thunbergii `Mellow Yellow` TM / Mellow Yellow Spirea #5 CNT 16 Symphoricarpos x doorenbosii `Magic Berry` / Snowberry #5 CNT. EVERGREEN SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT 35 Juniperus chinensis `Armstrongii` / Armstrong Juniper #5 CNT 27 Juniperus virginiana `Skyrocket` / Skyrocket Juniper #10 CNT. NATIVE SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT 20 Atriplex canescens / Fourwing Saltbush #5 CNT. 11 Prunus besseyi / Sand Cherry #5 CNT. 37 Rhus trilobata / Three-Leaf Sumac #5 CNT 17 Ribes aureum / Golden Currant #5 CNT 19 Rosa woodsii / Mountain Rose #5 CNT PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT 20 Diascia integerrima `P009S` TM / Coral Canyon Twinspur #1 CNT 120 Hemerocallis x `Hyperion` / Hyperion Daylily #1 CNT 10 Nepeta x `Psfike` TM / Little Trudy Catmint #1 CNT 23 Sedum rupestre `Angelina` / Angelina Sedum #1 CNT PLANT SCHEDULE SEED/SOD QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING 4,384 sf Moderate Water Turf / Bluegrass - Fescue Turf Sod 4,436 sf Native Detention Basin Seed Mix Seed 15,716 sf Native Upland Seed Mix Seed PLANT SCHEDULE ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 262 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.40.40.40.60.80.60.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.50.71.01.31.52.02.32.01.30.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.60.70.91.11.42.02.42.11.61.41.10.80.50.20.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.81.21.61.42.22.52.52.01.51.11.00.80.60.40.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.62.54.56.62.47.05.23.51.71.21.00.90.70.50.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.11.07.77.61.40.90.80.70.60.30.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.83.23.35.01.75.03.53.61.00.70.80.70.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.52.83.01.95.14.11.62.31.81.10.80.91.00.90.80.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.43.13.21.34.42.11.20.80.70.71.01.31.31.31.10.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.10.80.61.01.51.61.91.80.40.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.20.80.71.01.51.82.52.50.60.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.41.10.80.71.01.51.72.12.10.50.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.71.20.90.71.01.41.41.41.30.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.81.20.80.60.81.01.11.00.90.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.91.30.80.60.50.50.60.70.60.50.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.11.91.51.00.50.40.30.40.40.50.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.71.8ZONE #1ZONE #2ZONE #3CCCCAA4CCCCCCCCCCBBCCCCBBAA2SCALE:NA15SITE PHOTOMETRIC1" = 20'-0"Scale:Designed By:Reviewed By:SheetCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OFCOLORADOKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRProject:Date:Sheets11582 Colony RowBroomfield, Colorado 80021Phone: (720)259-0965Fax: (720)259-1519No.Revisions:By:Date:WOHNRADE CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.1608/31/20TIM: 1805.00G2G2AS NOTED15ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 263 SCALE:A16PARKING LOT POLE LUMINAIRE DETAILNOT TO SCALE16Scale:Designed By:Reviewed By:SheetCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OFCOLORADOKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRProject:Date:Sheets11582 Colony RowBroomfield, Colorado 80021Phone: (720)259-0965Fax: (720)259-1519No.Revisions:By:Date:WOHNRADE CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.1608/31/20TIM: 1805.00G2G2AS NOTED AA2, AA4 AA2, AA4ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 264 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 265 DELICH Ziggi’s at Timberline, September 2020 ASSOCIATES Page 2 Existing Traffic/Operation The peak hour traffic at the Timberline/International intersection is shown in Figure 4. Traffic counts at the Timberline/International intersection were obtained in August 2020. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Using the volumes shown in Figure 4, the current peak hour operation at the Timberline/International intersection is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The Timberline/International intersection was analyzed using the unsignalized intersection techniques from the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (2016 HCM). A description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the 2016 HCM is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) is also provided in Appendix C. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service D overall and level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/collector, arterial/local, collector/local, and local/local intersection. As can be seen in Table 1, the Timberline/International intersection is currently meeting the Fort Collins operational criteria with existing control and geometry. Trip Generation/Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment In a memorandum dated August 12, 2020, trip generation for the Ziggi’s coffee shop was analyzed. It was determined that Ziggi’s Coffee franchise data should be used for trip generation purposes. This cited memorandum is provided in Appendix D. Trip Generation, 10th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation for the Retail portion of the Ziggi’s at Timberline development. From these sources, the daily and peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 2. The trip generation resulted in 568 daily trip ends, 67 morning peak hour trip ends, and 33 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Passby trips were applied using the techniques in the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The trip distribution for the Ziggi’s at Timberline development is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic at the Timberline/International and Timberline/Site Access intersections. Background/Total Traffic Projections Background traffic projections for the short range (2025) future horizon were obtained by factoring the recent traffic volumes on Timberline Road and International Boulevard by two percent per year. Figure 7 shows the short range (2025) background peak hour traffic at the Timberline/International intersection. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed Ziggi’s at Timberline development were added to the background traffic volumes to produce the total traffic volume forecasts. Figure 8 shows the short range (2025) total peak hour traffic at the Timberline/International and Timberline/Site Access intersections. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 266 DELICH Ziggi’s at Timberline, September 2020 ASSOCIATES Page 3 Operation Analysis Table 3 shows the short range (2025) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Timberline/International intersection. The Timberline/International intersection will meet the Fort Collins operational criteria with existing control and geometry. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. Table 4 shows the short range (2025) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Timberline/International and Timberline/Site Access intersections. The Timberline/International and Timberline/Site Access intersections will meet the Fort Collins operational criteria with existing/recommended control and geometry. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. Geometry Figure 9 shows the recommended geometry at the Timberline /International and Timberline/Site Access intersections. A southbound right-turn lane, approaching the Site Access, is not required based upon LCUASS, Figure 8-4. As an arterial street, Timberline Road needs to be widened from International Boulevard north to Crusader Street, to include a center median lane. Widening this area of Timberline Road could have significant impacts to properties to the north on both sides of Timberline Road. Widening would require right-of-way and cooperation from a number of property owners. As such, no center median lane is expected to be built in this segment in the near future. Not having a left-turn lane on Timberline Road approaching the Site Access means that northbound left turns must be executed from the through lane. This can cause possible conflicts (rear-end accidents) with the northbound through traffic on Timberline Road. According to the analyses in Appendix F, the northbound left-turn queue at the Timberline/Site Access intersection is calculated at less than one vehicle during both peak hours. This means that only the one left-turning vehicle will conflict with the northbound through traffic on Timberline Road. The average delay for a left-turning vehicle is 9.8 seconds in the morning peak hour and 8.4 seconds in the afternoon peak hour. If this delay increases, the chance for a conflict with the northbound through traffic increases. Queuing Analysis for Ziggi’s Drive-thru Coffee Shop Figure 10 shows the queuing diagram for the drive-thru coffee shop. The highest trip generation occurs in the morning peak hour. According to the site plan, there will be one drive-thru window and two order boards. The single lane drive-thru aisle is approximately 160 feet long and can accommodate seven vehicles at a spacing of 23.5 feet per vehicle (front bumper to front bumper). The double drive-thru aisle with the two order boards is approximately 120-125 feet long (inside lane) and 145-150 feet long (outside lane), and can accommodate 11 vehicles total. A total of 18 vehicles can be in the queue without impacting the main parking lot. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 267 DELICH Ziggi’s at Timberline, September 2020 ASSOCIATES Page 4 Service time data in the morning peak hour was obtained from a Ziggi’s Coffee Shop in the northwest quadrant of the College/Trilby intersection. This Ziggi’s Coffee Shop had one drive-thru window and one order board. Ziggi’s Coffee has a goal of three minutes between ordering and finishing the transaction (exiting). At this location, the time between ordering and exiting was approximately 3.15 minutes. During the time spent between the order board and arriving at the window, the order will be prepared and be available at the window when the vehicle arrives. The service time with respect to the queuing analysis is the time spent at the service window. The data indicates that the average service time at the window is 79.6 seconds (1.33 minutes). In order to determine if the available 18 vehicle length queue is adequate, a queuing analysis, as described in Chapter 8 of Transportation and Land Development, ITE, 1988, was conducted. The results of the queuing analysis indicated that the 95th percentile longest queue, during the morning peak hour, would need to accommodate eight vehicles (7.58592 vehicles) at one time. The probability that there would be one or more vehicles in the queue is approximately 26.8 percent. Since the available length can accommodate 18 vehicles with no impact to the site, it is concluded that the drive- thru lane will accommodate the 95th percentile queue. Therefore, the queue will not extend out to the main parking lot, nor will it impact Timberline Road. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service There are sidewalks along the east side of Timberline Road, south of International Boulevard. There are sidewalks on the north side of International Boulevard. There are no other sidewalks in the immediate area. However, the Ziggi’s at Timberline development is unlikely to produce much pedestrian traffic. There are bicycle lanes along Timberline Road. There are no designated bicycle lanes along International Boulevard. However, there is enough width in International Boulevard for approximately 700 feet from Timberline Road that bicycles can operate safely. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 14 along Timberline Road. There is a bus stop south of International Boulevard near Donella Court and to the north near Annabel Avenue. Conclusions It is concluded that the Timberline/International and Timberline/Site Access intersections will meet the Fort Collins operational criteria with existing/recommended control and geometry. As an arterial street, Timberline Road should have a center ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 268 DELICH Ziggi’s at Timberline, September 2020 ASSOCIATES Page 5 median lane to accommodate left-turning vehicles. However, this improvement will not likely occur in the near future. As such, no center median lane is expected to be built in the near future. Since the northbound vehicles entering the site will be in the northbound through lane, there will be some delay to the through traffic. The results of the queuing analysis for the drive-thru lane indicated that the longest queue (95th percentile), during the morning peak hour would need to accommodate eight vehicles at one time. Since the combined minimum available length can accommodate 18 vehicles, it is concluded that the back of the queue will not conflict with the on-site circulation of the site or Timberline Road. It is respectfully requested that no further transportation analyses related to the proposed development of Ziggi’s at Timberline be required at this time. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 269 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Mulberry TimberlineVine International Lincoln 14 SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 6 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 270 SCALE: 1"=40' SITE PLAN Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 7 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 271 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 8TimberlineInternationalSTOP- Denotes Lane ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 272 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 9TimberlineInternational154/156278/57061/25622/41133/14 225/135 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 273 DELICH Ziggi’s at Timberline, September 2020 ASSOCIATES Page 10 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Timberline/International (stop sign) EB LT F (50.3 secs) D EB RT D B EB APPROACH D B NB LT B A OVERALL A A TABLE 2 Trip Generation Using Ziggi’s Franchise Data Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 820 Shopping Center 2.545 KSF 37.75 94 0.58 1 0.36 1 1.83 5 1.98 5 N/A Ziggi’s Coffee 0.624 KSF N/A 474 N/A 33 N/A 32 N/A 12 N/A 11 Total 568 34 33 17 16 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 274 TimberlineInternational 14 10%55%35%SCALE: 1"=600' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 11 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 275 AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 12 International 2/30/11/20/1 Timberline11/9-9/-523/8-20/-312/10 21/6 Site Access ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 276 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2025) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 13TimberlineInternational170/172307/62967/28688/45436/15 248/149 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 277 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2025) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 14 International 170/172309/63267/29689/45636/16 248/149 Timberline11/9334/63923/8735/47912/10 21/6 Site Access ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 278 DELICH Ziggi’s at Timberline, September 2020 ASSOCIATES Page 15 TABLE 3 Short Range (2025) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Timberline/International (stop sign) EB LT F (76.4 secs) E (41.5 secs) EB RT E (39.7 secs) B EB APPROACH E (44.4 secs) C NB LT B A OVERALL A A TABLE 4 Short Range (2025) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Timberline/International (stop sign) EB LT F (77.8 secs) E (42.3 secs) EB RT E (40.0 secs) B EB APPROACH E (44.8 secs) C NB LT B A OVERALL A A Timberline/Site Access (stop sign) EB LT/RT C C NB LT/T A A OVERALL A A ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 279 AM/PM RECOMMENDED GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 16 International TimberlineSite Access STOPSTOPITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 280 SCALE: 1"=30' QUEUING DIAGRAM Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Ziggi's at Timberline TIS, September 2020 Page 17 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 281 APPENDIX A ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 282 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 283 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 284 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 285 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 286 APPENDIX B ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 287 DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 8/20/2020 Observer: Vickie Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R = right turn Intersection: Timberline/International S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: Timberline Southbound: Timberline Total Eastbound: International Westbound: Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:15 19 70 89 153 6 159 248 4 45 49 0 49 297 7:30 50 60 110 168 24 192 302 2 55 57 0 57 359 7:45 65 79 144 162 21 183 327 15 85 100 0 100 427 8:00 20 69 89 139 10 149 238 12 40 52 0 52 290 # 8:15 18 71 89 109 2 111 200 2 24 26 0 26 226 # 8:30 25 54 79 148 4 152 231 8 27 35 0 35 266 # 7:15-8:15 154 278 0 432 0 622 61 683 1115 33 0 225 258 0 0 0 0 258 1373 PHF 0.59 0.88 n/a 0.75 n/a 0.93 0.64 0.89 0.55 n/a 0.66 0.65 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.8 4:15 33 133 166 118 8 126 292 2 29 31 0 31 323 4:30 20 123 143 130 6 136 279 6 25 31 0 31 310 4:45 48 134 182 92 4 96 278 2 39 41 0 41 319 5:00 44 137 181 112 8 120 301 2 38 40 0 40 341 # 5:15 33 152 185 101 5 106 291 4 34 38 0 38 329 # 5:30 31 147 178 106 8 114 292 6 24 30 0 30 322 # 4:45-5:45 156 570 0 726 0 411 25 436 1162 14 0 135 149 0 0 0 0 149 1311 PHF 0.81 0.94 n/a 0.98 n/a 0.92 0.78 0.91 0.58 n/a 0.87 0.91 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.96 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 288 APPENDIX C ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 289 HCM 6th TWSC Recent AM 3: Timberline & International Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 225 154 278 622 61 Future Vol, veh/h 33 225 154 278 622 61 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 0 250 - - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 39 265 181 327 732 72 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1421 732 804 0 - 0 Stage 1 732 ----- Stage 2 689 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 150 421 820 - - - Stage 1 476 ----- Stage 2 498 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 117 421 820 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 117 ----- Stage 1 371 ----- Stage 2 498 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 30 3.8 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)820 - 117 421 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.221 - 0.332 0.629 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 - 50.3 27 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F D - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 1.3 4.2 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 290 HCM 6th TWSC Recent PM 3: Timberline & International Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 135 156 570 411 25 Future Vol, veh/h 14 135 156 570 411 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 0 250 - - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 15 141 163 594 428 26 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1348 428 454 0 - 0 Stage 1 428 ----- Stage 2 920 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 166 627 1107 - - - Stage 1 657 ----- Stage 2 388 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 142 627 1107 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 142 ----- Stage 1 560 ----- Stage 2 388 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.4 1.9 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1107 - 142 627 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.147 - 0.103 0.224 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 33.2 12.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - D B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 0.3 0.9 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 291 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 292 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Overall Any Approach Leg Any Movement Signalized D1 E E2 Unsignalized E3 F4 Arterial/Arterial Collector/Collector Unsignalized D3 F4 Arterial/Collector Arterial/Local Collector/Local Local/Local Roundabout E3,5 E5,4 E5 1 In mixed use district including downtown as defined by structure plan, overall LOS E is acceptable 2 Applicable with at least 5% of total entering volume 3 Use weighed average to identify overall delay 4 Mitigation may be required 5 Apply unsignalized delay value thresholds to determine LOS ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 293 APPENDIX D ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 294 DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM TO: Devin Ferrey, FR Corporation Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West Steve Gilchrist, Fort Collins Traffic Operations FROM: Matt Delich DATE: August 12, 2020 SUBJECT: Timberline Industrial Traffic Analyses (File: 2057ME01) This memorandum provides trip generation for the proposed commercial uses on the parcel in the northwest quadrant of the Timberline/International intersection in Fort Collins. This parcel was previously analyzed with a 4,808 square foot retail building and four small apartment units. A “No TIS Required” memorandum was prepared for the previous proposal. For the new proposal, the City requested a trip generation analysis to determine if a Traffic Impact Study will be needed. This memorandum was prepared to provide trip generation information for the project neighborhood meeting on August 13, 2020. The attached site plan shows a retail building (2,500 square feet) and a drive-thru coffee shop (one window; no indoor seating). The intended coffee shop is a Ziggi’s at 625 square feet. There will be patio space for potential outdoor searing. There will be one access driveway on Timberline Road, located approximately 350 feet north of International Boulevard. The daily and peak hour trip generation was calculated using Trip Generation, 10th Edition, ITE, using Shopping Center (Code 820) and Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-thru and No Indoor Seating (Code 938). Table 1 shows the calculated trip generation. From the cited reference, the average size of the coffee shop building was 90 square feet. Since the proposed coffee shop building is more than six times the average size, the calculated trip generation seemed high enough to question its validity. Since Ziggi’s utilizes this same footprint at other locations, transaction sales information was obtained from Ziggi’s at three locations in Northern Colorado. That sales data covered three weekdays (February 24-26, 2020) from 5:00am to 7:00pm (these 104 hours are the standard operating times). Each transaction is considered to be one vehicle. Each vehicle is considered to have two trip ends (one inbound and one outbound). The average for all of the sites was: 444 daily trip ends, 65 morning peak hour trip ends, and 23 afternoon peak hour trip ends. This reflects trips related to customers. Daily trips related to employees and deliveries was estimated at 30 trip ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 295 DELICH ASSOCIATES ends per day. The employee/delivery trips did not occur during the peak hours. The total trip generation for the similar Ziggi’s Coffee Shops was: 474 daily trip ends, 65 morning peak hour trip ends, and 23 afternoon peak hour trip ends. This trip generation seemed more reasonable for a single window coffee shop. Table 2 shows the trip generation using the aforementioned franchise sales information: 568 daily trip ends, 67 morning peak hour trip ends, and 33 afternoon peak hour trip ends. It is suggested that the calculated trip generation in Table 2 be used for the proposed uses at this site. It is expected a subsequent memorandum addressing additional traffic related information (particularly the drive-thru queuing analysis) will be required as this development proceeds through the Fort Collins process. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 296 DELICH ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 820 Shopping Center 2.545 KSF 37.75 94 0.58 1 0.36 1 1.83 5 1.98 5 938 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-thru & No Indoor Seating 0.624 KSF 2000.0 1248 168.52 105 168.52 105 41.66 26 41.66 26 Total 1342 106 106 31 31 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Using Ziggi’s Franchise Data Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 820 Shopping Center 2.545 KSF 37.75 94 0.58 1 0.36 1 1.83 5 1.98 5 N/A Ziggi’s Coffee 0.624 KSF N/A 474 N/A 33 N/A 32 N/A 12 N/A 11 Total 568 34 33 17 16 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 297 APPENDIX E ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 298 HCM 6th TWSC Short Bkgrd AM 3: Timberline & International Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report sb am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 248 170 307 688 67 Future Vol, veh/h 36 248 170 307 688 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 0 250 - - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 42 292 200 361 809 79 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1570 809 888 0 - 0 Stage 1 809 ----- Stage 2 761 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 122 380 763 - - - Stage 1 438 ----- Stage 2 461 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 90 380 763 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 90 ----- Stage 1 323 ----- Stage 2 461 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 44.4 4.1 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)763 - 90 380 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.262 - 0.471 0.768 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - 76.4 39.7 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 2 6.3 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 299 HCM 6th TWSC Short Bkgrd PM 3: Timberline & International Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report sb pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 149 172 629 454 28 Future Vol, veh/h 15 149 172 629 454 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 0 250 - - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 16 155 179 655 473 29 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1486 473 502 0 - 0 Stage 1 473 ----- Stage 2 1013 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 137 591 1062 - - - Stage 1 627 ----- Stage 2 351 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 114 591 1062 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 114 ----- Stage 1 521 ----- Stage 2 351 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.8 1.9 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1062 - 114 591 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.169 - 0.137 0.263 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - 41.5 13.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - E B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 0.5 1 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 300 APPENDIX F ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 301 HCM 6th TWSC Short Total AM 3: Timberline & International Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 248 170 309 689 67 Future Vol, veh/h 36 248 170 309 689 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 0 250 - - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 42 292 200 364 811 79 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1575 811 890 0 - 0 Stage 1 811 ----- Stage 2 764 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 121 379 761 - - - Stage 1 437 ----- Stage 2 460 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 89 379 761 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 89 ----- Stage 1 322 ----- Stage 2 460 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 44.8 4 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)761 - 89 379 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.263 - 0.476 0.77 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - 77.8 40 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 2 6.3 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 302 HCM 6th TWSC Short Total PM 3: Timberline & International Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 149 172 632 456 29 Future Vol, veh/h 16 149 172 632 456 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 150 0 250 - - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 17 155 179 658 475 30 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1491 475 505 0 - 0 Stage 1 475 ----- Stage 2 1016 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 136 590 1060 - - - Stage 1 626 ----- Stage 2 350 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 113 590 1060 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 113 ----- Stage 1 520 ----- Stage 2 350 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.1 1.9 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1060 - 113 590 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.169 - 0.147 0.263 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - 42.3 13.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - E B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 0.5 1.1 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 303 HCM 6th TWSC Short Total AM 5: Timberline & Site Access Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 21 11 334 735 23 Future Vol, veh/h 12 21 11 334 735 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 14 25 13 393 865 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1298 879 892 0 - 0 Stage 1 879 ----- Stage 2 419 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 178 347 760 - - - Stage 1 406 ----- Stage 2 664 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 174 347 760 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 174 ----- Stage 1 397 ----- Stage 2 664 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 21.6 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)760 - 255 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.152 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 0 21.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 304 HCM 6th TWSC Short Total PM 5: Timberline & Site Access Scenario 1 09/02/2020 Synchro 11 Light Report st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 6 9 639 479 8 Future Vol, veh/h 10 6 9 639 479 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 10 6 9 666 499 8 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1187 503 507 0 - 0 Stage 1 503 ----- Stage 2 684 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 208 569 1058 - - - Stage 1 607 ----- Stage 2 501 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 205 569 1058 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 205 ----- Stage 1 599 ----- Stage 2 501 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19.2 0.1 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1058 - 270 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.062 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 19.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - - ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 305 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 306 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 307 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 308 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 309 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 310 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 311 Timberline International APU Neighborhood Meeting – 08/13/2020 Questions •Max Schulze (lives northeast in Mosaic neighborhood) o Entrance from Timberline? Any entrance off of International Blvd? Only entrance is off of Timberline. No entrance is proposed from International. o Is the City proposing putting in a light at that intersection? This project wouldn’t trigger that requirement at this time. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 312 1 July 15, 2021 Will Lindsey Associate City Planner Planning and Zoning Commission Timberline – International PDP & APU – PDP200014 Site Overview 2 • NW Corner of N Timberline Rd & International Blvd • 1.39 Acres • Current use: Vacant / Former Vehicle Storage Lot • Zoned Industrial (I) 1 2 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 313 2 Project Proposal • Convenience Shopping Center (3 Retail Spaces, 1 Drive-Thru Restaurant) • 624 sq ft drive-thru building; 2,900 sq ft retail building • 16 parking spaces – 14 standard; 2 ADA-accessible • Paving, tree planting, landscaping, and patios • Access from N Timberline Rd. • Applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use for the drive-thru restaurant use and one Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1), required orientation to a connecting walkway. 3 4 Applicant Presentation 3 4 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 314 3 5 Plant tree in the center of the parkwayper the ultimatecurb and sidewalk alignment.All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original unpublished work of the Landscape Architect / Irrigation Designer and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Landscape Architect.601S. 9th St.Berthoud, Colorado 80513970.217.4955centennialdesign@hotmail.com5 6 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 315 4 7 8 7 8 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 316 5 Aerial Vicinity 9 Existing Site Conditions 10 View from International Blvd, facing north 9 10 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 317 6 Existing Site Conditions 11 View from International Blvd, facing northeast Existing Site Conditions 12 View from N Timberline Rd, facing west 11 12 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 318 7 Development History 13 2019 2020 2020 2020 Annexation Application Submitted October Annexation Recommended for Approval by P&Z December Officially Annexed in May Mixed-Use Project Submitted & Withdrawn June 2019 Conceptual Review for APU proposal Submitted July 2020 Industrial Bldg & APU Project 1st Submittal October Convenience Shopping Center Proposal 2nd Submittal March 2021 Original Site Plan 14 • Did not meet build-to requirement • Parking area between building and street • Drive-Thru building and traffic highly visible from right-of- way • Prototype drive-thru building design 13 14 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 319 8 Original Building Design 15 City Plan • Plan guidance: • Consistent with Place Type designation of Industrial • Supporting Land Uses: Restaurants, convenience retail and other supporting services • Areas dedicated for a variety of more-intensive work processes and other uses of similar character; typically located away from or buffered from residential neighborhoods. • Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted of otherwise underutilized properties The current proposal is well aligned with this guidance, will add supporting land uses consistent with the Industrial Place Type, and supports the use of a currently underutilized parcel. 16 15 16 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 320 9 East Mulberry Corridor Plan • Plan guidance: • Support commercial uses to serve community-wide, neighborhood, and traveler’s needs. • Provide shopping, recreation, and employment destinations within close proximity to residential neighborhoods. • Secondary uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, and housing, will complement or support the primary employment workplace uses. The current proposal is well aligned with this guidance, will add convenient commercial uses for residents both nearby and city-wide, and will complement both existing industrial and future nearby employment uses. 17 Addition of Permitted Use (APU) • Process for uses not allowed in a zone district • Must be an allowed use in another zone • If approved, applies to the subject parcel only • Required Findings: • Request for APU meets the 8 criteria in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) • Request for APU would not be detrimental to the public good • Use requested is not specifically listed as a “prohibited” use in the zone district in which the site is located • Planning & Zoning Commission is decision maker 18 17 18 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 321 10 APU Criteria (Emphasis Added) a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. 19 APU Criteria (Emphasis Added) e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. 20 19 20 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 322 11 APU Criterion (a) Criterion (a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added • A wide range of vehicular oriented commercial uses are permitted in the Industrial zone district, including convenience stores with fuel sales, parking lots and parking parages (as principal uses), vehicles sales, minor and major vehicle repair • Staff finds that this APU request is appropriate because by incorporating the drive-thru use into a Convenience Shopping Center it de-emphasizes the presence of the use in the zone district. Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (a) 21 APU Criterion (b) Criterion (b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • Purpose of the I zone: “provide a location for a variety of work processes and workplaces such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, childcare centers and housing.” • Design of project enhances human scale and pedestrian character of the N Timberline Rd frontage. • Consolidates drive-thru use with a convenience shopping center which supports and conforms to the basic characteristics and intent of the zone. Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (b) 22 21 22 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 323 12 APU Criterion (c) Criterion (c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties • Location west of retail building and ample landscaping minimizes visual impact • Design of drive-thru has been modified from standard prototype to fit Industrial context • Drive-thru location allows for adequate vehicle queuing • Fewer impacts to adjacent right-of-way, abutting properties, and promotes infill of an underutilized site. Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (c) 23 APU Criterion (d) Criterion (d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi- public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added 24 23 24 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 324 13 APU Criterion (d) • Estimated number of trips generated by the drive-thru use is 33 visits per hour at peak AM times, 17 visits per hour at peak PM times. • Permitted uses such as a gas station, standard restaurants, or vehicle repair could each generate comparable amounts of traffic and noise that one could expect from a drive-thru restaurant use. • Staff finds that the drive-thru restaurant does not create impacts that are any more significant than the amount normally resulting from other permitted uses in the Industrial zone. Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (d). 25 APU Criterion (e) Criterion (e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area • Industrial District: wide range of industrial and supporting commercial uses; large set back from streets, and generous landscaping • The drive-thru use will not change the predominant character of the area; the landscaping included will bring the site closer to the desired future character of the area. Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (e). 26 25 26 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 325 14 APU Criterion (f) Criterion 6 - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • Compatibility is increased due to incorporation into a Convenience Shopping Center • Site design, location, and design of the drive-thru further enhance compatibility • Use is less impactful than other permitted uses (i.e. gas station) Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (f) 27 APU Criterion (g) Criterion (g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review 28 27 28 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 326 15 APU Criterion (g) • The site is not located in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood, so one neighborhood meeting is required. • Held one neighborhood meeting on August 13, 2020, prior to submittal of the PDP on October 2, 2020. Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (g). 29 APU Criterion (h) Criterion (h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code • Use is not marijuana related Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion (h) 30 29 30 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 327 16 APU Staff Findings Staff finds that the request for an APU conforms to the applicable criteria in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) and is not detrimental to the public good Staff further finds that the request for an APU is in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility The use is not listed as a specifically prohibited use in the zone district 31 Modification of Standard • When a project cannot meet a particular standard in the Land Use Code, the modification process and criteria in Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of Modifications of Standard on a case-by-case basis. • Required Findings: • Request for Modification would not be detrimental to the public good • Request for Modification meets one or more of the four criteria in Section 2.8.2(H) • Equally well or better than a plan that meets the standard; substantially alleviates a community need; exceptional or undue hardship not caused by the applicant; nominal and inconsequential deviation 32 31 32 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 328 17 Connecting Walkway Modification •Modification: Applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.5.3(C)(1), Orientation to a Connecting Walkway: At least one (1) main entrance of any commercial or mixed-use building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. •Proposed modification to provide an elevated pedestrian pathway which crosses the drive-thru exit lane. 33 Connecting Walkway Modification 34 33 34 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 329 18 Connecting Walkway Modification 35 Modification Staff Findings • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1) would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1): • The plan as submitted creates an elevated walkway connection to cross the drive-thru exit lane. This crossing is enhanced with an alternative pavement treatment, protective bollards, and a vehicular stop sign to increase pedestrian visibility and safety at the crossing. • The modification achieves the purpose of the standard (providing a dedicated walkway which prioritizes pedestrian movement) equally well or better than a plan that provides the standard connecting walkway. 36 35 36 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 330 19 Modification Staff Findings • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1) would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4): • The proposed elevated pedestrian crossing is minor enough in nature that it in no way detracts from the overall plan or the intent of the Land Use Code Standards. • The proposed modification is nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan 37 Site Plan: Complies 38 Vehicle spaces Pedestrian access and sidewalks • 16 spaces, 2 ADA- accessible • Access from N Timberline Rd • Drive-thru lane accommodates 15 vehicles • 6-foot sidewalks and connections • 2 patio areas 37 38 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 331 20 Landscape Plan: Complies 39 • 79 new trees total proposed • 5 street trees • 22 Cottonwood Saplings to be removed; 31 replacement trees provided • 393 shrubs • 173 perennials • Screening, landscaping, and tree planting concentrated in high-visibility areas Natural Habitat: Complies 40 • Average Buffer Distance = 64 ft • 18,230 sf buffer zone required • 22,576 sf provided (4,256 sf over minimum) • Landscape screening mitigates light and noise from drive-thru lane • Stormwater detention basins provide habitat diversification 89’- 6” 39 40 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 332 21 Building Standards: Complies 41 Building Standards: Complies 42 41 42 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 333 22 43 Fort Collins Longmont Johnstown Loveland PDP Staff Findings • The PDP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards subject to the approval of the Addition of Permitted Use and the Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1). • The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28, Industrial District (I). 44 43 44 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 334 23 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Project Development Plan for the Timberline International APU – PDP200014 with the Addition of Permitted Use for the drive-thru restaurant and the Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(1), based on the aforementioned Findings of Fact. 45 Decision Making Process 46 Addition of Permitted Use Do not proceed with Modification of Standard & PDP Decisions Does Commission agree with staff’s recommendation to make APU determination? Modification of Standard Decision No Do not proceed with PDP Decision PDP Decision Applicant does not proceed to FDP Deny Approve (with/without conditions) Applicant proceeds to FDP DenyDeny Approve (with/without conditions) Approve (with/without conditions) 45 46 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 335 24 47 48 47 48 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 336 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: July 14, 2021 To: Chair Haefele and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission From: Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner Re: Clarification of Convenience Shopping Center Definition and APU Applicability to Timberline – International APU, PDP200014 __________________________________________________________________ Clarifying Question Two clarifying questions were posed at the Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session on Friday July 9th regarding the Timberline-International Addition of Permitted Use project, PDP200014:. Does the proposed development plan meet the definition of a Convenience Shopping Center, specifically the portion of the definition which refers to four of more business establishments with separate exterior entrances? If the development plan meets the above definition, does it still require an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process, or is it subject only to a Type 2 review by the Planning & Zoning Commission? City Staff Response Question 1: Staff’s interpretation of the Convenience Shopping Center definition and whether it is appropriate in the context of this project is based on the fact that the proposed plan includes the minimum number of four business establishments, which each have separate exterior entrances (see definition and highlighted section below). Given the drive-thru and walk-up nature of the proposed restaurant use, the separate exterior entrance is intended only for employees, rather than customers. However, the Convenience Shopping Center makes no mention of a requirement that the separate exterior entrances for businesses must always be publicly accessible for customers, merely that a separate exterior entrance be provided. For example, professional offices are permitted within a Convenience Shopping Center, but may or may not serve the general public or require a publicly accessible entrance. Additionally, it is staff’s interpretation that the intent of the definition is to ensure that a minimum of four separate and distinct businesses are established in the center to create a varied and unique commercial site rather than a single dominant commercial structure with a one shared entrance for multiple businesses. Therefore, the proposed development plan does meet the definition and intent of the Convenience Shopping Center use. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 337 LUC Section 5.1.2 – Definitions: Convenience shopping center shall mean a shopping and service center situated on seven (7) or fewer acres with four (4) or more business establishments with separate exterior entrances, located in a complex which is planned, developed and managed as a single unit, and located within and intended to primarily serve the consumer demands of adjacent employment areas. The principal uses permitted include retail stores; business services; convenience retail stores with fuel sales (possibly including an accessory one-bay automatic carwash); personal business and service shops; standard or fast food restaurants (without drive- up windows); vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance uses; liquor sales (for on- or off- premise consumption); beauty or barber shops; dry-cleaning outlets; equipment rental (not including outdoor storage); limited indoor recreational uses; pet shops; and uses of similar character. Secondary uses may include professional offices; limited banking services such as branch banks (with limited drive-up facilities) and automated teller machines; multi-family dwellings; medical offices and clinics; small animal veterinary clinics; child care centers; and elderly day care facilities. Question 2: As was clarified at the Work Session, Drive-In Restaurants are a permitted use in the Industrial zone district when located in a Convenience Shopping Center, in which case the proposed project is subject to Planning & Zoning Commission review and approval. Consequently, the Addition of Permitted Use is not technically needed to support the site plan as currently proposed. However, it is staff’s recommendation that the Addition of Permitted Use still be reviewed for the Drive-Thru restaurant for the following reason: The Addition of the Permitted Use for the drive-thru restaurant would provide the greatest long- term flexibility for the site. This is significant particularly when considering the future possibility of consolidation or change of use for the proposed retail space. For example, based on market conditions, the property owner could request a plan amendment to change the use of the building to professional offices or a single standard restaurant, rather than three individual retail spaces. Such a scenario could mean that the site no longer meets the definition of a Convenience Shopping Center, at which point the drive-thru restaurant would become a non-conforming use. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 338 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 339 /$.(&$1$/5$,1*$5'(1 :$/. /$1'6&$3(%8))(5,17(51$7,21$/%28/(9$5'7,0%(5/,1(52$'6'.' (0(5*(1&<$&&(66($6(0(17'5$,1$*(($6(0(17 6(:(5($6(0(17 87,/,7<($6(0(17 52: 87,/,7<($6(0(17 :$7(5($6(0(17 6(:(5($6(0(177(/(&$%7232)',7&+%$1. '5,9(7+58%/'*6)6,1*/(6725< /$1'6&$3(%8))(59$1+&+&5(7$,/%8,/',1* 6)6,1*/(6725< (1&/26('%,.(5$&.6 75$6+5(&<&/(1 n ( 1n : 1n : 6n ( 1 n : 3$7,2&21&5(7(3$7,2:$/. 87,/,7<($6(0(17)+75$16 52:02180(176,*16)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)0$;6(7%$&. 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= %8))(5$5($5(48,5('3529,'(' 6)6)0,1%8))(5',67$1&( 0$;%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( $9*%8))(5',67$1&( %,.(5$&. 1$785 $/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21 ( 1+%= 1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21( 1+%= 6($7:$//6($7:$//6 /&2/25('&21&5(7(5$03 &21&5(7(:$/.$63+$/73$9(0(177<3(;,67,1*$&&(66'5 ,9 (/$1(72 5 (0 $,11+%=1 +%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1+%=1$785$/+$%,7$7%8))(5=21(1+%= 1+%= $9(5$*(%8))(5'(37+ 5$,6('3(':$/.: %2//$5'6$1'&2/25('&21&5(7(%,.(5$&. /&2/25('&21&5(7(5$03ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 340 */673)0+&66696,*1$*(6,*1$*(6,*1$*(+&6669+&66,*1$*(%/'*+7 %/'*+7 5$,6('3(':$/.: %2//$5'6&2/25('&21&5(7(+&63)0*/673)0+&63)06,*1$*(6696,*1$*(35 ; +0'22563$,17('67((/32676&21&6/$%67/&2/801&251(56%2//$5'6'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'15&5&;67((/$1*/($7,17(5,253(5,0(7(5 231 * 231 * 3)0(7$/&$3)/$6+,1*+&678&&23$,17('67((/6721(9(1((5210(7$/678'6%2//$5'67<3 6,*1$*(6,*1$*(+&678&&2$%29(:,7+6721(9(1((5%(/2: )257&2//,16&2/25$'2)257&2//,16&2/25$'2)257&2//,16&2/25$'2)257&2//,16&2/25$'2%,*&$1<21'5,9(%,*&$1<21'5,9(%,*&$1<21'5,9(%,*&$1<21'5,9( )257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&27,0%(5/,1(,17(51$7,21$/$383/3/3/3/%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216)5+2/',1*6/7')5+2/',1*6/7')5+2/',1*6/7')5+2/',1*6/7'6+2:(667)/6+2:(667)/6+2:(667)/6+2:(667)/)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&2)257&2//,16&20$7(5,$/60$7(5,$/60$7(5,$/60$7(5,$/6 3/1257+(/(9$7,2161257+(/(9$7,2161257+(/(9$7,2161257+(/(9$7,216 3/($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21 3/6287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21 3/:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21+&6 +$5'&2$7678&&272%(6:0($'2:/$5. ),(/'&2/25 6: '$5.&/29( 6:6,03/<%(,*( $&&(176 669 6<17+(7,&6721(9(1((572%((/'25$'202817$,1/('*(,1%8&.6.,1*/67 ,168/$7('*/$=,1*,1'$5.%521=($/80,1806725()52173)0 *$/9$1,=('0(7$/6,',1* 3/75$6+(1&/2685(75$6+(1&/2685(75$6+(1&/2685(75$6+(1&/2685( :(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21 3/'5,9('5,9('5,9('5,9(83($67(/(9$7,2183($67(/(9$7,2183($67(/(9$7,2183($67(/(9$7,21 3/'5,9('5,9('5,9('5,9(83:(67(/(9$7,2183:(67(/(9$7,2183:(67(/(9$7,2183:(67(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21 1257+(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,21ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 341 '5,9('5,9('5,9('5,9(7+58%/'*7+58%/'*7+58%/'*7+58%/'*6)6)6)6)6,1*/(6,1*/(6,1*/(6,1*/(6725<6725<6725<6725<+&+&+&+&5(7$,/%8,/',1*5(7$,/%8,/',1*5(7$,/%8,/',1*5(7$,/%8,/',1* 6)6,1*/( 6)6,1*/( 6)6,1*/( 6)6,1*/(6725<6725<6725<6725<3$7,23$7,23$7,23$7,2 /&2/25(' /&2/25(' /&2/25(' /&2/25('&21&5(7(5$03&21&5(7(5$03&21&5(7(5$03&21&5(7(5$03 &21&5(7(:$/. &21&5(7(:$/. &21&5(7(:$/. &21&5(7(:$/. 5$,6('3(':$/.5$,6('3(':$/.5$,6('3(':$/.5$,6('3(':$/.$1'&2/25('&21&5(7($1'&2/25('&21&5(7($1'&2/25('&21&5(7($1'&2/25('&21&5(7( /&2/25(' /&2/25(' /&2/25(' /&2/25('&21&5(7(5$03&21&5(7(5$03&21&5(7(5$03&21&5(7(5$03 /$1'6&$3(/$1'6&$3(/$1'6&$3(/$1'6&$3($5($$5($$5($$5($/$1'6&$3(/$1'6&$3(/$1'6&$3(/$1'6&$3($5($$5($$5($$5($ %2//$5'6727$/ %2//$5'6727$/ %2//$5'6727$/ %2//$5'6727$/ 21($&+6,'(2) 21($&+6,'(2) 21($&+6,'(2) 21($&+6,'(2)5$,6('3(':$/.5$,6('3(':$/.5$,6('3(':$/.5$,6('3(':$/.&/($5/,1(2)6,*+7)5209(+,&/(&/($5/,1(2)6,*+7)5209(+,&/(&/($5/,1(2)6,*+7)5209(+,&/(&/($5/,1(2)6,*+7)5209(+,&/(STONE BOLLARDS - SANDBLASTED ART WORKPAVEMENT CHANGE OF MATERIALS,TEXTURES, AND COLORSITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 342