HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 May 19, 2022
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities.
Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when
possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma
inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios,
programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado).
Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Regular Hearing
May 19, 2022
6:00 PM
David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue
Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado
Per Hogestad
Adam Sass Virtual (Zoom or Telephone)
Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion &
Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
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/94738825641. 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 May 19, 2022. 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.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg. 1
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 May 19, 2022
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.
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: 947 3882 5641.
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 May 19, 2022
1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z February Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the February 17, 2022, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z March Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the March 23, 2022, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
3. Northside Aztlan Community Center
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Minor Amendment to add a shipping container structure
to house equipment associated with a retrofit on an existing PV solar array
system. Work includes a fence at the north side of the structure.
APPLICANT: Drayton Browning
Sandbox Solar, LLC
430 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
STAFF ASSIGNED: Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
4. None
• OTHER BUSINESS
O June agenda discussion
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 19, 2022
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2022 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the February 17, 2022
Planning & Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft February 17, 2022 P&Z Minutes
Packet pg. 4
Michelle Haefele/David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Per Hogestad 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Adam Sass
Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion &
Julie Stackhouse 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
February 17, 2022
Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse
Absent: None
Staff Present: Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Axmacher, Mounce, Smith, Buckingham, Hahn, Betley, Kleer,
and Manno
Chair Haefele provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order
of business. She described the role of the commission, noted that members are volunteers appointed by city
council. The commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the
public and decide regarding whether each proposal meets the land use code. She noted that this is a legal hearing,
and that she will moderate for civility and fairness.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Sizemore explained that it is time for the commission to select a new chair and vice chair for the
next year.
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission appoint David
Katz as Chair and Ted Shepard as Vice Chair for the remainder of the 2022 year. Member Sass seconded.
Vote 7:0
CDNS 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. 5
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 2 of 8
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None noted.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from December 16, 2021, P&Z Hearing
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted
Chair Katz completed a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a
separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda.
Member Hogestad made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda
for the February 17, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member
Haefele seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0
Discussion Agenda:
2. Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan
Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for a mixed-use development on
approximately 31.3 acres in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. The ODP proposes modifications of
standards to Section 4.26(D)(2) concerning the proportion of primary and secondary uses and Section
4.26(D)(3)(a) concerning residential building heights, as well as a request for Alternative Compliance to Section
3.6.3 regarding street pattern and connectivity standards.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that 11 emails have been received and are posted in the supplemental documents for
this meeting.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mounce gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Jason Sherrill, Landmark Homes, also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Jeff Janelle, 2709 Sunstone Dr.- Would like to know if the park is going to have a curfew. He sees issues with
FedEx changes as this is not a true live/workspace. He is concerned with the density of the project, traffic that will
be created and the type of traffic (odd hours). He would like to see more over 55 population as this is an
underserved population. He does think this is a great project and a good fit, but it just needs some modification.
Eric Cluver, 2833 Stonehaven Dr. – He appreciates the effort put into this project. He supports access off Ziegler.
He is concerned with Area B and the height of the buildings to 4-stories and their offset. He would like to see them
pulled back a bit.
Craig Latzke, 3908 Mesa Verde St. – His primary concern is the ability for pedestrians to safely cross Zeigler. He
offered a couple of options for the commission to consider: 1. Reject or table the compliance proposal 2. Make
approval of the compliance plan contingent on the incorporation of a pedestrian crosswalk across Ziegler at
Paddington.
DRAFTPacket pg. 6
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 3 of 8
Stephen Clarke, 3405 Hidden Pond Dr. – What is unclear to him is the channelized T intersection, how the
neighborhood exits to go southbound on Ziegler and how cars going southbound will enter the neighborhood. It
appears the neighborhood will be blocked.
Jim Bowers, 2708 Sunstone Dr. – 400 to 700 units is a wide range; can this number be narrowed? He is concerned
with the traffic impact on Zeigler Rd. There are already issues with speeders and other offences. He is against the
connection to Paddington.
Kathy Bowers, 2708 Sunstone Dr. – Has issues with the proposed density of the project as well as the possible
traffic impacts.
Jennifer Simpson, 2638 Stone Haven Dr. – Is concerned with potential traffic impacts, density, and parking. She
feels there needs to be a signal at Paddington and Zeigler but disagrees that there needs to be a connection
through to Edmonds or Corbet. She feels that the number of proposed residents might overwhelm the elementary
school capacity.
Todd Arndorfer, 2802 Stonehaven Dr. – Agrees that there needs to be a crosswalk signalization near Horsetooth to
cross Zeigler.
Steve Kelley, 3833 Carrick Rd. – Questioned future cell tower coverage.
Rachele Maffett, 2627 Southfield Port – Is concerned with the density, neighborhood schools and the impact. She
is also concerned with taking away the commercial zoning. She does agree with a signal at Paddington.
Staff/Applicant Response
Mr. Sherrill responded to the support for no connection at Paddington, signalization, and school impacts (they do
not expect there to be an influx). He commented that this project is a reduction in what could be developed in this
area in terms of units. He feels this is infill and where this type of density should land. The channelized T does not
restrict full movement from Hidden Pond Dr.
Planner Mounce responded to park curfew, noise and traffic activity. These concerns are typically addressed when
the phases are submitted through screening, reduction of headlight visibility and noise buffering, etc. There is not a
lot of information at this OPD stage. The park may be centralized; however, at this phase, it also could be located
elsewhere. Regarding density, at this OPD phase, it is a high level and generalized view of the overall project plan.
The number of units will be identified as the project moves forward. Regarding live/work units, there is not a control
parameter on this ODP, but it is mentioned in the ODP that there could be a dozen live/work units.
Traffic Engineer Hahn responded to traffic concerns in relation to other developments in the area. It is required that
proposed developments provide a traffic study and that is all considered with other surrounding projects.
Planner Mounce commented that the channelized T will not restrict the flow of traffic.
Planner Mounce commented on parking; this will be reviewed and evaluated when the individual phases come in
and it must meet standards and land uses.
Planner Mounce commented on school capacity. At a general level, city staff works closely with Poudre School
District planning staff with larger projects that are being proposed. Expansion fees are collected for future facilities
when needed.
Planner Mounce spoke to the crossing of Ziegler and the need to be able to safely do it. This is something that staff
is trying to prioritize and encourage people to participate in the process.
Planner Mounce spoke to the Wireless Master Plan. Wireless coverage is provided by private companies; however,
looking at where it is currently provided is key., Future development of vacant properties has taken into account
opportunities for additional wireless coverage with the adoption of the Wireless Master Plan. Staff does look at this
as developments come in. DRAFTPacket pg. 7
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 4 of 8
Traffic Engineer Hahn responded that there was not a bike and pedestrian count at this location. This can be
completed during future PDP submittals to determine if there is a need for bike and pedestrian crossings. We do
know there is a desire, but the need must be determined.
Planner Mounce addressed the conversion of land to residential. The community likely has an excess of supply on
the land use type of industrial, and this site has become a bit disjointed as it is far from Harmony Rd. and lacks the
stronger visibility and accessibility of other sites.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Questions
Member Sass asked for clarification on the 75% requirement of non-primary uses. If the applicant was applying for
primary uses, they would be allowed a 6-story building on all of the parcels. Is this correct? Planner Mounce
responded that there are some nuances to this. The Harmony Corridor does allow for up to 6-stories for primary
uses. At the same time, there are also other standards that address compatibility and transitions to surrounding
development, as well. It is looking at all of these together.
Member Hogestad asked about the subterranean parking, asking for clarification. Mr. Sherrill responded that the
three (3) buildings with service elevators will have subterranean parking. The garden style apartments will have
carports and street parking, the for-sale residences will all have direct access garage parking. There will surface
parking provided throughout the community. Duplexes will all have two-car garages as well as the brownstones.
The flats will have a one-car attached or detached garage. The access for the brownstones and flats will be ally
way. The duplexes will be at the streetscape.
Member Stackhouse requested understanding of the channelized road to Ziegler Blvd and where it is placed
relative to the service road in Front Range Village. Mr. Sherrill pulled up a graphic and explained as well as
provided that it was several hundred feet.
Member Stackhouse requested clarification that the residential property next to the OPD will remain independent.
Mr. Sherrill responded that yes, it will remain independent.
Member Stackhouse asked if Mr. Sherrill could walk through the signalization scenarios again in relation to
Paddington Road. Traffic Engineer Hahn responded that two scenarios were run; one with a connection to the
English Ranch neighborhood and one without, and the need of signalization at Paddington and Zeigler with this
connection and without. Without the vehicular connection between this development and English Ranch, there will
likely be no need for a traffic signal at Paddington in the future. With the connection, the potential exists for
signalization in the future. There was not a pedestrian count completed at this time and will later be assessed to
determine the need for bike and pedestrian crossing. Member Stackhouse commented that without the connection,
there will not be signalization.
Vice Chair Shepard asked that if a local connection was made to Paddington, the warrant for a signal is only for the
Eastbound AM peak. If so, for the one leg, that one movement, would this by itself warrant a signal? Traffic
Engineer Hahn responded that they looked for the location to meet two (2) of the nine traffic signal warrants. It is
very hard to model the amount of traffic for a development like this that would be making a left-hand turn. When
and if it meets signalization, then a signal would be looked into.
Vice Chair Shepard commented on the reference to the traffic study in the Active Modes Plan. Did this used to be
Safe Routes to School? Planner Mounce responded it is a combination of the two.
Vice Chair Shepard asked: does the ODP document, as it is being presented to us, provide flexibility so that of
parcels D & E, if there were more than 10,000 sf of non-residential or more primary use than what is allowed, would
a potential PDP applicant have to, this would not have to go through an ODP amendment would it? Planner
Mounce responded that if the future phase came in as a project development plan and if it was anticipating
providing additional primary use, it would be closer to meeting the original intent of the Harmony Corridor Standards
rather than the proposed modification. It might also depend on the difference that is being proposed. If it is a large DRAFTPacket pg. 8
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 5 of 8
increase and results in additional building height, this could be a change in character which might require a major
amendment and review and approval by the commission. This would be monitored based on the minor vs major
amendment criteria. Chair Katz commented that it is the verbiage as well because the modification is for 100%
secondary use, it needs to be a maximum of 100% secondary use. Planner Mounce responded that there are some
multi-levels of control parameters as well, the modification is for 100% secondary uses for the entire ODP site. This
provides some of the flexibility to either switch some office space out in parcels D & E for community facility space,
but for those particular parcels, there are no other secondary uses listed. Proposing residential only or retail or
other types of secondary uses in parcels D & E would not be in compliance with the ODP. The modification is
parcel specific. Planner Mounce clarified that the requested modification for 100% secondary uses or zero percent
primary uses for the entire ODP site, but again, there are additional control parameters that specify where on the
ODP or individual parcels the proposed primary uses would be located.
Vice Chair Shepard requested slide 11. Looking at the housing types, he is seeing single-family attached, multi-
family and mixed use, but the ODP would also include two-family dwellings, correct? Planner Mounce deferred to
the applicants, but commented that as staff was reviewing this project, it was their understanding that the project
type under the land use code definitions would likely be what is called single-family attached and not two-family or
duplex.
Vice Chair Shepard requested slide 35. For clarification, In the general notes, #12, since childcare would be
allowed on parcels B, C, D and E, the word either should be any. Planner Mounce responded that, in the instance,
the intention of the note is that “a” childcare center will be provided as part of the ODP and that it could go into
several of the parcels of the ODP site. It is not limiting.
Chair Katz asked how the applicant was going to guarantee the childcare facilities. Mr. Sherrill responded that it
was working with Planner Mounce and making sure the language was imbedded into the ODP.
Member Stackhouse asked the applicant to give the commission a sense of what phase the childcare center will be
included. Mr. Sherrill commented that they have not spent time on the phasing. They are actively trying to find the
right childcare fit. If they are ready to go, then the intent would be to move forward.
Vice Chair Shepard requested slide 15. He would like assurance that Planner Mounce is comfortable with the
documentation on the ODP, that this will be no less than 1.5 acres and that it is listed prominently either in the
statistics, in the parcel index or in the land use statics, or that it does not get obscured. Planner Mounce responded
that there is a general note on the map indicating that a1.5 acer park or gathering space will be provided and
outlining some of the maintenance responsibilities. Vice Chair Shepard asked for verification that the 1.5 acres is
not a storm water detention pond. Planner Mounce responded this is not currently worded this way, so this is
something to consider. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the park includes a clubhouse. Mr. Sherrill responded that it
does not; the park will be accessible. The clubhouse would be more embedded.
Member Haefele commented that detention ponds cannot be used as parks. Planner Mounce responded that is
mostly correct. There are standards around park and gathering spaces among accessibility, visibility, and their use
for active recreation.
Member Hogestad asked if the park would be a passive park. Mr. Sherrill responded that it is meant to be an urban,
green space with landscaping. In other words, a gathering spot.
Chair Katz asked whether the HDP that was amended in the year 2000 addressed the entire sub area plan or just
within the Front Range village. Planner Mounce responded that the specific amendment referenced was to change
the designation of the property that became the Front Range Village, changing it from basic industrial non-retail
activity center to more of a mixed-use area on the plan.
Deliberation
Chair Katz asked if there were any other approaches contemplated versus a modification? This does not feel like a
modification, but rather a full change. Planner Mounce responded that there are some other options considered
early on in the conceptual phase as well. There are multiple paths to changing the designation of the ratio
proposed on the site; one option is to update the Harmony Corridor Plan, changing the designation of the industrial DRAFTPacket pg. 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 6 of 8
non-retail activity center for the site to something that would allow more secondary uses. It is typically handled
through the modification process.
Vice Chair Shepard commented about placemaking. He commented that there is good placemaking in Centerra,
and in parts of Windsor and West Greeley. We are not the only ones with placemaking and wanted to point it out.
He would like the commission to consider the following as a condition as he is leaning in support of this modification
to allow 100% secondary but is concerned about keeping up the placemaking qualitative aspect as noted in the
report given that we are in the competitive region. He proposed adding two policy statements, one referring to
distinctive design and the other to context sensitive development. In City Plan they are LIV 3.5 Distinctive Design
and LIV 3.6 Contact Sensitive Development”. Member Sass supported the idea. It ensures that we are providing
benefit. Member Haefele agrees as eliminating 100% of any requirement or obligation of the primary uses was
hard. The placemaking should lead to some primary uses. Member Hogestad feels that placemaking can be in both
residential, multi-family and commercial use, and it is important that it be part of the motion. Chair Katz asked if it
was already pertinent to the HCU because it is already in City Plan. Vice Chair Shepard responded that Planner
Mounce pointed out that there is a cascading effect of policies, noting that we are going from City, to corridor, to 30-
acres, now would be the time to document the intent of the policy as it applies to this modification. Chair Katz
supports this.
Vice Chair Shepard made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard to Section 4.26(D)(2). This
refers to going from 75 primary/secondary to 100% secondary land uses. This is to proceed at the ODP
level with subsequent follow-up with the condition that policies LIV3.5 and LIV 3.6 be added to the ODP
document. He moved that the commission finds that this modification as conditioned would not be
detrimental to the public good and that the granting of the modification from the strict application of
4.26(D)(2) would without impairing the intent and purpose of the land us code result in a substantial benefit
to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantial address the community needs
of 1. Childcare and 2. Meeting the City’s target neutral goal through the solar energy generation and LED
goals certification as noted by the applicant in his presentation. By reason of the visibility and proximity to
the Harmony Road Frontage, unique to this property and not caused by any act or omission of the
applicate. The strict application of 4.26(D)(2) would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties
or exceptional, or undue hardship upon the property owner and the modification does not satisfy the
modification of standards 2.8.2(H)(2) or (4). This decision is based upon the agenda materials and the
information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the commission
discussion on this item. Further, this commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact
and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the
agenda materials for this hearing. Member Hogestad seconded. Vote: 7:0.
Vice Chair Shepard commented that it is important to consider that there was a read-before memo as it was
specific and reduces some vagueness that was in the ODP in terms of the step backs required for the 4th story on
parcel A and step back required for the 4th floor on parcel B. He believes there is sufficient distance, and this gives
him comfort in considering approval of the modification. Member Hogestad is not altogether sure that this
modification should be happening now and suggests it should be happening in the PDP process. There is not
enough information to feel comfortable approving this modification. Member Haefele agreed with Member
Hogestad. Member Stackhouse was interested in hearing Planner Mounce’s opinion on whether it should be
included now or later. Planner Mounce responded that staff did discuss the situation. Typically, compatibility and
design are handled at the PDP level. At the OPD level, more direction early on and part of the evaluation was
looking at the entire OPD site and really positioning some of the lower intensity areas and then offset this in other
areas of the ODP site where this is might be less of a concern. There is more information at the PDP level.
Member Sass does not completely agree that this isn’t the appropriate time to do this. The way that it is written
now, the Harmony Corridor plan says it could be a 6-story mixed-use building. Now would be a good time to do this
because it gives the developer clear direction of what types of buildings can be in the area.
Vice Chair Shepard commented that if the commission was to deny this, they could encourage the applicant to
come back as a standalone modification prior to submitting a PDP.
Member Stackhouse views this as more a framework that the developer would operate under. She does not have
an issue approving the modification. DRAFTPacket pg. 10
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 7 of 8
If the modification is denied at the OPD, Member Haefele asked if the for the final approval of the ODP could
include a note about what Ted suggested, that the commission generally recognizes that 4-story buildings would
likely be appropriate as proposed. Attorney Yatabe commented that they could reflect on this hearing as to that in
terms of any requests that they come forward with. You could ask to have it placed as a note. CDNS Director
Sizemore asked if the commission could include this as part of the findings for the motion. Attorney Yatabe
responded they could. Chair Katz stated that the intent of the ODP is framework, he is inclined to support it.
Member Hogestad feels this goes beyond framework. Member Schneider sees both sides.
Member Hogestad made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission deny the
Modification of the Standard to the land use code Section 4.26(3)(a). The denial is based on the lack of
necessary information during this phase of the project to ensure a fair and just decision and this is a
detriment to the public good. This decision is based upon the agenda materials and the information and
materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the commission discussion on this item.
Further, this commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact and conclusions
regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for
this hearing.
Vice Chair Shepard offered up the following friendly amendment --The granting of the modification from the
strict application of the standard would impair the intent and purpose of this standard and would not
promote the general purpose equally well or better than a plan which would otherwise comply.
Member Schneider offered up the following friendly amendment – The plan that is submitted would not
comply with any of the four (4) land use code modifications of standard contained in Sections2.82(H)(1)
through (H)(4).
Member Hogestad agreed to both. Member Haefele seconded.
Member Stackhouse asked about the practical implications of a denial. Planner Mounce responded that the ODP
would need to be amended to show essentially 3-stories for the buildings. Much conversation took place as to the
direction of this motion and if the applicant had any concerns with the direction. Chair Katz will not be supporting
the motion. The modification was denied with a vote of 4:3.
Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission APPROVE the
requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) regarding dimensional
standards, to allow the maximum height for residential building to be four stories in Parcels B and C with
the limitation that:
• The fourth floor of residential buildings in Parcel B will be used only for a roof top deck and
amenities and residential loft units and must be set back a minimum of ten feet from the edge of
the third floor and the floor area shall not exceed two-thirds of the third-floor floor area, not
including open balconies or rooftop patios; and
• The fourth floor of residential buildings in Parcel C will be set back an average of ten feet from the
edge of the third floor on at least two sides of the fourth floor.
The commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and The plan as
submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) equally well or better than would a
plan which complies with 4.26(D)(3)(a) by minimizing height and scale impacts adjacent to the nearest
existing residential development and focusing fourth floor buildings towards portions of the site where
large buffer/detention areas and adjacent commercial development minimizes the impact; and the
modification does not meet modification standards 2.8.2(H)(2), (3), or (4).
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the
work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item.
DRAFTPacket pg. 11
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions
regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for
this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Member Hogestad disagrees with this. Member Haefele disagrees as
well. Vice Chair Shepard is concerned about Northern Colorado looking like one big subdivision. Member
Hogestad commented that the whole procedure is diluting the development review process. Vote 5:2
Vice Chair Shepard commented that everyone is very keenly aware of the issues and thanked everyone. His
inclination is that staff analysis is the appropriate way to move forward.
Member Sass wanted to know what would trigger a light for an intersection. Traffic Operations, Smith responded
that they look for the peak hour. It must meet a number of warrants.
Member Sass asked if it was appropriate at the ODP level to talk about separations from entering this site from
Paddington. Are there any stipulations on what the distance is? Or is this handled at the PDP, next level? Chair
Katz responded it is addressed now. The slide showing the channelized T was pulled up.
Vice Chair Shepard will be supporting the ODP.
Member Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Ziegler-
Corbett Overall Development Plan ODP210004.The Commission finds that the Overall Development Plan
complies with all applicable Land Use Code standards. This decision is based upon the agenda materials,
the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission
discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact,
and conclusions regarding this overall development plan contained in the staff report included in the
agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded. Vote: 6:1
Member Haefele believes that the modification of standards for the building dimensions are detrimental to the
public good and because that continues to be attached to the ODP. She feels that giving the applicant a blank slate
with the 4-story building heights is detrimental to the public good.
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
None.
Adjournment
Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: May 19, 2022.
Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair
DRAFTPacket pg. 12
Agenda Item 2
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 19, 2022
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 2022 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the March 23, 2022 Planning
& Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft March 23, 2022 P&Z Minutes
Packet pg. 13
David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue
Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado
Adam Sass
Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion &
Julie Stackhouse 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
March 23, 2022
Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse
Absent: Hogestad
Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Stephens, Axmacher, Kleer, Smith, Buckingham,
Glasgow, Betley, Wray, Manno
Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of
business. He described the role of the Commission, noted that members are volunteers appointed by city council.
The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and
make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the land use code. He noted that this is a legal
hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be
heard as originally advertised.
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None noted.
Consent Agenda:
1.Draft Minutes from January 20, 2022, P&Z Hearing
Planning and Zoning
Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 2 of 8
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted.
Chair Katz did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a
separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent Agenda
for the March 23, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member
Stackhouse seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Castle Ridge Group Home
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to convert an existing single-family dwelling
into a 16-resident group home for memory care residents. The project is located within the Low-Density Residential
(RL) zone district and is subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) Review.
Recommendation: Approval
Disclosures:
Member Shepard serves as the Board of Directors President for a private non-profit foundation that serves all of
Larimer County. The foundation owns three (3) host homes that are similar in character to this item. There could be
a perception that there is a conflict of interest and that he may not be fair and impartial. Due to this, he recused
himself from the item and left the meeting.
Secretary Manno reported that a presentation from concerned neighbors had been received, as well as 15 emails
varying in either support of or opposition to the item had been added to the supplemental document packet.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
CDNS Director Sizemore and Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Stephanie Hansen, Ripley Design, Inc., Eric Shenk and Xioma Diaz, Owners/developer, provided a brief
verbal/visual presentation.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Curt Johnson, Tracy Stefanon, Jesus Martin Roman, Harmon Zuckerman (attorney representation), as
representatives for larger neighborhood group - They are questioning whether the size of the group home and the
location meets the requirements of the Land Use Code and if the impact is consistent with Code. They provided a
brief verbal/visual presentation. They feel there are numerous Code issues, such as the size of the lot and number
of patients allowed, and the zone district this type of facility is allowed to operate within. Another concern is with
parking and the increased amount of traffic generated by this business. The street is narrow, and this could
increase the number of emergency calls. There are questions about the number of people will be living in the house
and the addition of a minibus. They question the parking solutions posed. Is this a home or just a crowded facility?
They noted that an operational plan is lacking and believe many items are underestimated. They are
recommending that the Commission deny the application.
Beth Williams, 5301 Highcastle Ct. – Is opposed to this item. She feels that there are two people that want to ruin
their peace. Please reconsider.
Jason Green, 5820 Fossil Creek Pkwy - Nothing exists like this for a reason.
DRAFTPacket pg. 15
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 3 of 8
Dillion Chambersfaust – 4470 S. Lemay Ave. – Boyfriend works at this facility. Strategies such as carpooling and
drop off will be used for staff members. From a personal point of view, he would rather die in a suburb, and it is not
fair that we separate these people out into traditional facilities.
Sarah McBride, 721 Yarnell Ct. – She supports the memory care facility. She is a close friend to one of the patients
and commented that his quality of life has improved. The neighbors have been negative and confrontational.
Lisa Faust, 7034 Mount Adams St. – This is like a David and Goliath situation. She is in support of the project.
Believes the neighbors and applicant should work together and try to make this work a lot better than they are right
now and not make it such a fight.
Peggy Barnett – 821 Southridge Greens Blvd. – She is opposed to the project due to parking issues, policy issues,
number of staff and homeownership dreams.
Fran Richardson – Owns homes all over that are in residential neighborhoods. She is in support of this project.
Tony Doing – This is a private street in a school zone that is not plowed. This is a difficult setup. He believes there
are more investors. This is not a neighborhood that is kicking people out; rather, this is a neighborhood of nice
people, but putting in a business is difficult.
Angie Scholterburger, 1571 Redtail Rd. – She is in support of the project as it is much needed.
Mike Pruznick - He is in support of this project. He did submit a 50-pg. written comment for the work session.
Cory Green, 801 Hinsdale Dr. – There is a need for smaller group homes in Fort Collins, but it needs to be located
in the right area. She is in opposition to this project.
Carrie Galyardt, 4304 Idledale Dr. – She is opposed to the project. There needs to be more thought put into the
logistics.
Katie Teruel – 1619 Redberry Ct. – She does not feel anyone is not being compassionate, but this needs to be
thoughtful for both the patients and the kids in the community. This is the wrong location, and she opposes the
project.
Jamie, 4143 Knox Ct. – Opposes this project.
Staff Response
Mrs. Hansen responded to public input. She commented that if there were errors or discrepancies in the plans, then
she takes full responsibility for it. The City’s Final Development Plan process is forthcoming; the plans are not set in
stone. The Operational Plan has had changes to get to this point because of feedback received from staff and the
community. The number of occupants will remain regardless of the number of patients. There are only three (3)
live-in staff; the family currently in the facility will be moving out as the number of patients increases. The applicants
have agreed to pay a larger share for street maintenance. This is a long-term residence; they will not be selling
anytime soon.
Michelle Pinkowski of Pinkowski Law and Policy Group, spoke to Fort Collins as being on the cutting edge and very
familiar with this a project of this request. This type of project is designed to be in the community, completely
integrated. As for traffic, this will not be anything near the employee levels as a large institution. This is efficient and
a lower traffic impact. Parking impact will be low.
Mr. Shenk thanked the Commission and the neighbors. This project is meant to enhance the neighborhood. They
want open lines of communication.
Planner Kleer responded to public input. He noted that Mr. Zuckerman stated that in the staff report, the city failed
to properly analyze the use based on the Land Use Code. He noted that under article 4 of the Code, group homes
are a permitted use in residential low-density zone areas. This project was analyzed as part of the Article 4 findings DRAFTPacket pg. 16
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 4 of 8
and not under the Article 3 findings. Tony Doing commented about how the private street was not plowed during
the winter. This may be an issue with on-street parking in some capacity. Typically, in cities, residential local streets
do not get plowed unless they are some sort of priority for the bus systems or provide access to a critical facility. As
a point of clarification to Mrs. Pinkowski to the parking generation manual, the 5th addition is based on 10 different
facilities that averaged 103 beds per facility. The analysis was broad, and staff feels confident that it depicts
accurately the potential minimums and maximums of an assisted living facility.
Traffic Operations Spencer Smith clarified the manuals used.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Questions
Member Haefele asked what the required ratio of caregivers to patients according to regulations. Mr. Shenk
responded that Colorado regulations require a 6:1 ratio.
Member Stackhouse asked if there were currently caregivers in the house, and how many, as there are two
patients. Mr. Shenk responded that there are two 8-hour shifts with one caregiver each shift. Member Stackhouse
also asked what experience the applicants had with respect to managing parking situations, particularly requiring,
and enforcing staff to park off-site and how the applicant envisioned using best efforts to keep parking within the
front of the building or in the open parking spaces. Mr. Shenk responded that as far as mitigating staff parking on-
site and using off-site parking, they have done some of that already. They have had staff voluntarily do it. There
have not been any complaints yet. As far as parking is concerned, he noted that Applewood Homes in Denver runs
4-16 bed, and one 12-bed memory care homes. The experience is that peak parking is about 7 vehicles around
noon. In terms of being able to handle the parking load, most of the visits are short term. In terms of family visits,
the issue has been raised that individuals will want to come after work. It is known that evening hours are not a
good time to visit and that since this is a residential neighborhood, we must treat this differently. They are going to
ask people to make an appointment so that staff knows when visitors are coming. There is no personal experience
with parking management.
Member Haefele asked if the facility was already licensed given there are two patients there? Mr. Shenk responded
‘no’ because the State allows for two individuals to be in a residential home without needing a license.
Chair Katz commented that one of the conditions suggested by staff was Condition #3, having a 24-hour
designated person. He asked whether this has been considered for context, and who it would that be? Mr. Shenk
responded that every home must have an administrator, and that his wife would be the administrator (Mrs. Diaz).
Once licensed, they will go to three (3) shifts, so that there will always be someone there. There will also be a
house manager. The house manager or the administrator will be the point of contact.
Member Haefele asked if the house manager would be in addition to the three (3) caregivers? Mrs. Hansen
responded no; this person would be one (1) of the three (3) caregivers. Member Haefele also asked whether there
would be someone there cooking and cleaning? Mr. Shenk responded that the cleaning is part of the caregivers’
tasks. They will complete a daily cleaning. The kitchen will be cleaned every meal. The caregivers will also be
required to give a light cleaning of the patient’s room every day. Member Haefele asked for clarification on the
number of total staff at the house. Mr. Shenk responded that there will be three (3) staff at any given shift; three (3)
morning, afternoon/evening and two (2) at night. Member Haefele asked if there would be an additional staff person
that will cook meals? Mr. Shenk responded that cooking is also the responsibility of the caregivers.
Mr. Shenk commented that he is available to be the point of contact for the community at large.
Chair Katz commented that the Article 5 definition does distinguish between group homes and large group homes.
Does Article 4 distinguish as well? Planner Kleer responded ‘yes’. The Land Use Code does provide in Article 5
the definition of group home; the distinction between a residential and a large group home is that a residential
group home is in a single-family residence, whereas a large group home is defined as a purpose-built structure.
Chair Katz asked for clarification that to meet the definition of large group how, it would have to be constructed for
that purpose? Planner Kleer responded affirmatively. Chair Katz asked about the approval history of the
neighborhood, and whether there a POD overlay with additional standards that are not being considered. He also DRAFTPacket pg. 17
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 5 of 8
asked whether there was an ODP. Planner Kleer responded that there is a PUD and that he would have to double
check on the ODP. He suspects that would be a part of the larger Miramont development area. For the PUD, there
are standards that are built into the PUD; however, there was a variance at the time of the building construction for
the facility now proposed that was granted to provide exemption from the 10’ or a varied setback from the typical
10’ requirement. Curt Johnson stated this was accurate. Member Katz stated that sometimes PUDs have approved
uses written on the PUD recorded documents. What would prevail if it did not have group home written on it, but
Code had group home? Planner Kleer responded that the PUD was approved as single-family detached dwellings.
You can change the use of an approved PUD or specific lot within an approved PUD through a city process, such
as a Type II review. Since a group home is permitted in Article 4 or in this zone district, you can propose it and you
can go through the city’s procedural requirements to get the use approved. Planning Manager Everette clarified that
the section of code that the commentor had referenced is written in relationship to our current PUD overlay, PUD
Master Plan Process and Standards in the Code that were adopted in the last few years. It is not in reference to
PUDs that were created under the Land Development Guidance System or previous regulatory systems prior to our
current Land Use Code. There is question of applicability of that standard that was brought into question to an older
PUD. The term is the same, but the code standard is different. Chair Katz commented that the PUD would not need
to be amended because it is driven by the current Land Use Code. Planner Kleer responded that this is application
is considered planning over an old plan. It is covered under the administrative section of the Land Use Code; this
would supersede the PUD in some sense.
Member Haefele asked if the change of use would ordinarily be required with this property. In other words, did this
not have to go through a change of use process? Chair Katz feels this is what the Type II hearing is. Planning
Manager Everette responded that the purpose of the PDP is to request a change of use for the property.
Member Haefele asked for clarification on the street width. Mrs. Hansen responded that with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Scape Standards, if you take the 28’ wide street that is currently there, subtract 7’ from each
side for parking, that leaves 14’ in the middle. This is sufficient. Two (2) cars can get past.
Member Haefele asked if potential hospice care is an additional service that facility will provide or is It expected that
it will be necessary as part of a continuum of care. Mr. Shenk responded that hospice care would be provided by a
third-party and that they would not take in a hospice care patient that was not already a resident.
Member Haefele asked if they were intending to do any type of proactive enforcement under the proposed
operating plan or if compliance with the standards and conditions would be entirely based on complaints. Planner
Kleer responded that the City functions on a complaint basis, and that any enforcement of the conditions would
have to be on a complaint basis. There would be subsequent investigation of the complaint and confirmation that it
is happening and then potentially a violation.
Member Stackhouse asked, if the road becomes encumbered with snow since it is not plowed, will there still be the
ability for two-way traffic on the street with parking on both sides? Traffic Engineer Smith responded that it is
narrower by 2’ over the local residential street section, and for that reason it would be close for two vehicles to pass
depending on the vehicle. Potentially you would need one vehicle to move through at a time.
Member Sass asked if it was correct that the city classifies the streets as priority 1-4 on snow removal. Traffic
Engineer Smith responded that he was not familiar with streets classification on the snow removal. Planner Kleer
responded that High Castle is a public street, and that this street has attached sidewalks so there may be a
tendency that cars park further away from the sidewalk. It is likely that this would be a one-way street.
Member Stackhouse noted that the street was privately maintained and asked what this includes. Engineer Betley
responded that since it is privately maintained, the city does not perform any public maintenance on the street.
Rather, the HOA completes the maintenance. This includes snow removal and surface seal and any other kind of
maintenance that would be required for the asphalt surface. High Castle would get city maintenance if it were
public.
Member Schneider asked how the applicant could guarantee that only one nurse would come in to take care of all
the patients, given different insurance providers and other factors. Mr. Shenk responded that there is a contract
with a service that has a nurse practitioner that will come in and see the patients. It is possible for the patient to
maintain his/her private physician, but most clients would be serviced by a single nurse practitioner. This person will DRAFTPacket pg. 18
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 6 of 8
come in and do a 15-minute visit once a month. Member Schneider asked if they would require that the clients use
the same service? Mr. Shenk responded that the visits fall under Medicare. Member Schneider asked about other
services like hairdressers, etc., how this would be enforced or maintained? Mrs. Diaz responded that a service will
be hired to come in and take care of residence all at once while they are there. This helps reduce the anxiety and
confusion with the residents. She noted that families receive information beforehand and understand how the
facility operates; however, a common service provider cannot be guaranteed.
Chair Katz had some concern over characteristic, compliance, compatibility and 3.5.1 (called out the word use not
being compatible) and asked for staff’s response. Planner Kleer restated that the use, residential group home, is a
permitted use within the low-density residential zone district. In some sense, that permissibility provided by Article
IV subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the use compatible; however, Article III provides the
operational compatibility requirements for the particular uses that are permitted within the Article IV district. Article
III is essentially a giant book of mitigating factors for the uses that are listed in Article IV. When evaluating the use,
the operation is typically on a site-by-site basis. All the elements are looked at and mitigated through the Article III
portion. Chair Katz asked whether staff was confident that these mitigation factors in Article III addressed the
context portion of the stated code? Planner Kleer responded that the context is predominately large lot, single-
family detached homes. Group homes are defined as single-family detached homes. This definition is in Article V. It
is contextually compatible. Member Schneider asked further about the Article V definition of group homes, and what
in the definition separates a group home from a large group home? Planner Kleer responded that under Article V,
the group home definition does not provide any numerical quantities to what classifies it as residential or large
group home facility. The distinction between the two are that a large group home facility is a purpose-built structure
for a group home and the residential group home is simply just the integration of a group home into a single-family
residence. Member Schneider asked a hypothetical question: If he came to the Commission with a 4-resident group
home as the intent, would that be considered a large group care facility? Planner Kleer responded that if you were
going to build it for the purpose of 4 residents, under 3.8.6 provides context for large group homes, it does assign a
maximum number depending on the zone district. Planning Manager Everette clarified the difference in these two
definitions or types of group homes, noting that the purpose-built facility is something that would not be built as
single-family residence and would not be built in a way that could be converted back to a single-family residence in
the same way. It would likely be designed with individual bathrooms for each unit or each room. It would not be an
easy conversion back and forth to a single-family dwelling versus a building that is built as a home. There is not a
clear threshold for number of people. Planner Kleer also stated that there is no minimum number of residents for
large group home facility.
Deliberation
Member Haefele pointed out that in the justification for the project, pgs. 398 and 399 of the agenda, the number of
patients proposed is necessary for both the financial viability of the prospective business and to improve the
therapeutic care. She noted that if there were eight (8) residents because you cannot split staff, you would have a
patient-to-care-giver ratio of 4:1. With 16 patients and 3 staff, you are going to have 5.3 patients to one care giver.
This implies a lower level of therapeutic care. Member Haefele is supportive of this type of arrangement in general;
however, she cannot imagine putting her mom in with 16 people. She questioned whether the proposal to try to limit
visitation, while noting that it would not be enforceable, could violate State laws that protect patient rights.
Everything about the operation plan seems to be based on unrealistic assumptions about the amount of parking
and traffic. To suggest that the physical or mental limitations of the patients will result in fewer family visits again
implies that the care is going to be subpar because family visits are better than no family visits. She also is not
convinced that there are enough hours in the day for 16 patients to be served by one care giver. She also believes
that a visiting nurse once a month does not support the therapeutic benefits argued by this proposal. This cannot
meet the Land Use Code requirements being operationally and physically compatibility.
Member Stackhouse stated that she believes the applicants are well intended and she is sensitive to the comments
toward small facilities and the attractiveness to many. She has a concern, however, with the parking in this situation
and what is does to the character of the neighborhood. Staff commented that 9.28 spaces would be appropriate.
She is not convinced that that parking can be managed. With snow removal, there could be some dangerous
situations. Staff that will be doing the cooking, cleaning, and caring will have very little time to manage parking.
Member Schneider agrees that the staff is not going to want to park far away to go to work. Parking is a concern of
his as well. Chair Katz also agreed that if they are carrying supplies, it could be difficult. The question is whether it DRAFTPacket pg. 19
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 7 of 8
complies or not. Member Schneider commented that realistically you could get 5 parking spaces in the driveway.
Member Sass asked if this would be defined as a group home, or a large group home. Member Katz responded
that the Commission is looking at this as a group home, not a large group home. Member Haefele responded that
per staff analysis, it proposes three (3) employees and group homes require two (2) parking spaces for every three
(3) employees. The problem is that there will be three (3) employees that will live there 100% of the time who will
require parking plus as parking for those that are asked to come, like hairdressers, physical therapists, etc. While
not defined as full-time staff, but they are necessary. There will be more than three (3) staff people at any given
time.
Chair Katz feels this is unlikely as they there will be three shifts of 3, 3, and 2. Chair Katz asked for clarification on
off-street parking. Planner Kleer responded that the requirement would be for providing off-street parking spaces,
typically when parking requirements are listed in 3.2.2, they are always for off-street parking spaces. There is an
exception for on-street for multi-family dwellings if the road is specifically built to serve that multi-family
development. If that situation, you can count your on-street parking towards that parking minimums. Group homes
require two (2) parking spaces for every three (3) employees, long-term care facilities require .33 off-street parking
spaces per bed, plus one (1) space for every two (2) employees.
Member Schneider questioned how it could be guaranteed that this could not potentially become a long-term care
facility as well? Planner Kleer responded that it can be a combination of different things; senior living, assisted
living, and nursing, etc. Chair Katz questioned the number of cars that could fit in the driveway Member Stackhouse
noted that 3.5.1(J) might be the relevant provision to discuss. Staff has indicated that conditions be applied,
keeping third-party services between 8 am and 6 pm Monday through Saturday to the extent feasible, deliveries
and short-term visits limited to available space within the driveway and street frontage to the extent possible, and
that the group home staff that cannot be accommodated by designated off-street parking within the driveway shall
park off-site at certain designated locations and someone to be designated on-call 24-hours per day. She does not
feel these can be reasonably achieved given the location of the facility and the likely level of traffic. Member Sass
cannot reasonably say he can’t send a therapist to see his mom, etc. not on Sunday. This seems unreasonable.
Member Haefele agrees. Chair Katz has concerns as well. If asked for clarification that if condition 2 was not
adopted/considered, we would interpret this provision as being non-compliant. Planner Kleer responded that would
be accurate. Chair Katz is comfortable with everything except for this part of the conditions. There is no reasonable
way to enforce this. Member Schneider commented that this will also limit visitation hours.
Member Sass referenced 3.8.6(A). the lot area is an additional 1,500 s.f. per resident. What is this lot size? Is there
enough lot size to have 16 residents? Planner Kleer responded that it is just shy of the required minimum lot size.
This would be trumped by the reasonable accommodations.
Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Castle
Ridge Group Home Project Plan PDP210012., finding that the proposal does not comply with Section
3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code and operational elements related to parking cannot be adequality addressed
through conditions. The Commission further finds that other than the stated reasons by the project
development plan does not comply with the Land Use Code and in consideration of the approve reasonable
accommodation, the project development plan complies with all other applicable Land Use Code
requirements and the Commission adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report regarding
compliance with these other requirements. This decision is based upon agenda materials, the information
and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the Commission discussion on this
item. Member Haefele seconded. Member Schneider understands the need and desire. However, he
unfortunately agrees that 16 is too large of a facility for this location. He does see the need and the demand.
Member Sass feels very strongly that the need is there. Member Stackhouse agrees there is a need, but the
parking situation needs to be addressed. Member Haefele also agrees and that asking the neighborhood to enforce
conditions or monitor and report on a complaint basis adds to the burden. The number of residents should be less.
Chair Katz feels there is a need for this type of setting. Vote: 5:0.
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
DRAFTPacket pg. 20
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 23, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Other Business
• None
Adjournment
Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: May 19, 2022.
Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair
DRAFTPacket pg. 21
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning and Zoning Commission: May 19, 2022
Northside Aztlan Community Center, MA220006
Summary of Request
This is a request for a Minor Amendment to add a shipping container
structure to house equipment associated with a retrofit on an
existing PV solar array system. Work includes a fence at the north
side of the structure.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
If approved, the applicant will submit a final set of electronic plans to
be filed as the approved plan set.
Site Location
The Northside Aztlan Community Center is
located at 112 Willow St., ~240 ft east of the
intersection of College Ave. and Willow St.
Parcel # 9712224901
Zoning
Downtown District (D) within the River
subdistrict.
Property Owner
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Co 80522-0580
Applicant/Representative
Drayton Browning
Sandbox Solar, LLC
430 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Staff
Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner
Contents
1. Project Introduction…………………………2
2. Public Outreach……………………………..3
3. Article 2 - Applicable Standards…………...4
4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards…………...5
5. Article 4 - Applicable Standards…………...6
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusiong……………...7
7. Recommendation…………………………...7
8. Attachments………………………………....8
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Minor Amendment.
Packet pg. 22
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 2 of 8
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• This is a Minor Amendment request to add an 80sf shipping container structure on a 14ft x 9ft concrete
foundation pad to house mechanical equipment associated with a retrofit on an existing PV solar array
system.
• Work includes an emergency access path and fence at the north side of the structure to provide
clearance and protection of HVAC openings. This fence is to match the existing fence adjacent to the
west side of the building.
• Applicant proposes to paint the South and West faces of the structure in partnership with Art in Public
Places (APP) as a method of screening and to provide visual interest to the west side of the site.
B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Development Status/Background
The 8.29-acre site is home to the Northside Aztlan Community Center (NACC) and is a City-owned
property. The main building for the community center was built in 2008 and the existing PV solar array
was added in 2010. The proposed minor amendment accommodates additional battery storage and
equipment needed for a retrofit of the existing PV system.
2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Downtown District (D)
River, River Corridor,
and Innovation
Subdistricts
Downtown District (D)
River Subdistrict
Downtown District (D)
River, River Corridor
Subdistricts
Downtown District (D)
River Subdistrict
Land
Use
Powerhouse Energy
Campus, Old Fort
Collins Heritage Park
Commercial and Multi-Family Old Fort Collins
Heritage Park, United
Way of Larimer County,
and Teaching Tree
Early Childhood
Learning
Commercial
Packet pg. 23
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 3 of 8
Back to Top
C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed Minor Amendment for am approximately 80sf and 8.5ft tall accessory structure is required to
provide battery storage and mechanical equipment related to the PV solar array on the roof of the community
center building. It is to be located on the west side of the community center building, between the building and
railroad tracks that run along the western portion of the site. The proposed location for the structure is at a
lower elevation than the right of way along Willow St., the railroad tracks and commercial properties to the
west, and is substantially setback from the Willow St and adjacent properties. It is located away from any
pedestrian or high activity areas. The applicant is proposing the use of fencing on the north side of the
building to provide security and adequate clearance for openings required by the housed HVAC equipment.
Fencing as proposed is to match fencing that is already used in that area. The applicant also proposes to
work with the Art in Public Places Program to paint a mural on the West and South sides of the structure to
reduce any negative visual impacts of the structure and provide additional visual interest to the western side
of the community center and is intended to be complimentary to the existing murals and painted utility boxes
found on site and in the area. A letter of intent has been provided by the Art in Public Places staff.
2. Public Outreach
A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Pursuant to Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is required for all projects to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, a Neighborhood Meeting is not required for a Minor
Amendment application. This project has been processed as a Minor Amendment in accordance with Section 2.2.10
– Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use and referred to P&Z based on the requirements of Section 2.17 – City
Projects that all City development projects be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This application has been posted on the City’s Development Review website as it is being reviewed. During the
review of the minor amendment, there have been no public comments.
Comments received after the hearing notice will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Packet pg. 24
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 4 of 8
Back to Top
3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards
A. BACKGROUND
This project was submitted on February 02, 2022. The project went through two rounds of staff review, the project
documents are substantially complete for review by the commission. The latest submittal has resolved the majority
of staff’s comments. Parks Department Planning staff has requested additional coordination in relation to existing
irrigation in the area. Technical services department is requesting corrections for compliance with their drawing
standards.
B. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Minor Amendment Submittal – MA220006
Round 1 Comments sent to applicant February 28, 2022
Round 2 Comments sent to applicant May 3, 2022
2. Minor Amendment Review
The review criteria for a Minor Amendment are used to verify that the proposed changes continue to
comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible.
The Land Use Code defines Extent Reasonably Feasible:
Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been
undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential
benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have
been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with
the regulation.
3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted notice: Not applicable for Minor Amendments.
Written notice: Per LUC Section 2.2.10(A)(5), “Written notice must be mailed to the owners of record of all
real property abutting the property that is the subject of the minor amendment application at least fourteen
(14) calendar days prior to the Director's decision.” Notice Postcards were sent on February 9, 2022.
Written notice: May 5, 2022, 43 letters sent.
Published Notice: Scheduled for May 8, 2022.
C. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
The applicant is not requesting a modification of standards
Packet pg. 25
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 5 of 8
Back to Top
4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards
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 ensures 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:
• Removal of turf grass for building foundation pad and access path.
• Existing trees to remain and be protected.
Complies
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.
• Site circulation remains the same.
• Scope of work is not in a high traffic or high pedestrian activity area
Complies
3.2.4 – Site
Lighting
This code section requires that exterior lighting meet the functional and security needs
of the project and are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent
properties or neighborhood.
• No new exterior lighting being proposed.
Not
applicable
3.2.5 – Trash
& Recycling
Enclosures
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the provision of areas, compatible with
surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of
trash, waste cooking oil, compostable and recyclable materials.
• No new enclosures are being proposed.
Not
applicable
B. DIVISION 3.3 – ENGINEERING STANDARDS
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
3.3.1(C)(1)
– Plat and
Development
Plan
Standards
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.
An emergency access easement is being dedicated on the site.
Complies
C. 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
Packet pg. 26
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 6 of 8
Back to Top
3.5.1– Building
Project and
Compatibility
(B)(C)(E)(F)(G)(I)
These subsections require new developments in or adjacent to existing developed
areas are compatible, when considered within the context of the surrounding area, by
using a design that is complimentary. They should be read in conjunction with the
more specific building standards contained in the zone district standards contained in
Article 4.
• The proposed accessory building is located on a portion of the site
that is away from high activity areas and pedestrian circulation and is
set back significantly from the adjacent properties and the public
right of way.
• It is significantly shorter than the adjacent community center building
and is in an area lower in elevation in relation to the public right of
way and adjacent properties. Minimizing its visual impact.
• The proposal for APP to paint the structure compliments the existing
murals and painted utility structures on the site and is complimentary
to the industrial character of the River subdistrict.
Complies to
the extent
reasonably
feasible
D. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This Section is intended to ensure that the transportation network of streets, alleys, roadways and trails 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
Traffic Operations has determined that no other evaluation is required. Not
Applicable
3.6.6 –
Emergency
Access
This section is intended to ensure that emergency vehicles can gain access to, and
maneuver within, the project so that emergency personnel can provide fire protection
and emergency services without delays.
• PFA requested that a 3ft all weather access path be provided to the structure.
Complies
5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards:
DIVISION 4.16 – DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE A CONCENTRATION OF RETAIL, CIVIC, EMPLOYMENT AND CULTURAL USES IN
ADDITION TO COMPLEMENTARY USES SUCH AS HOTELS, ENTERTAINMENT AND HOUSING,
LOCATED ALONG THE BACKDROP OF THE POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR. IT IS DIVIDED INTO
NINE (9) SUBDISTRICTS AS DEPICTED ON FIGURE 18. THE DEVELOP MENT STANDARDS FOR
THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT ARE INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE A MIX OF ACTIVITY IN THE AREA
WHILE PROVIDING FOR HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT MAINTAINS A SENSE OF
HISTORY, HUMAN SCALE AND PEDESTRIAN -ORIENTED CHARACTER.
THE RIVER SUBDISTRICT IS INTENDED TO REESTABLISH THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE
HISTORIC CORE AND THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER (THE "RIVER") THROUGH
Packet pg. 27
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 7 of 8
Back to Top
REDEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR. THIS SUBDISTRICT OFFERS OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE
INTENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES AND WORKPLACES TO COMPLEMENT
THE HISTORIC CORE SUBDISTRICT. IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD HIGHLIGHT THE HISTORIC
ORIGIN OF FORT COLLINS AND THE UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP OF THE WATERWAY AND
RAILWAYS TO THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AS WELL AS EXPAND CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES IN
THE DOWNTOWN AREA. REDEVELOPMENT WILL EXTEND THE POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF
DOWNTOWN SUCH AS THE PATTERN OF BLOCKS, PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED STREET FRONTS
AND LIVELY OUTDOOR SPACES.
Applicable Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
4.16(E)(5)(b)(4)(g) Service areas and outside storage areas that are not used for trash and recycling
containers, dumpsters and mechanical equipment must, to the maximum extent
feasible, be located to the side or rear of the building and be screened from public
view. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where industrial processes and outdoor
mechanical activities are functionally integral to the principal use, such areas must, to
the extent reasonably feasible, be located to the side or rear of the building and not
impact pedestrian areas. Partial screening must be provided with design and
materials consistent with the building and/or the agricultural/industrial character of the
area.
• The proposed location is to the west side of the building and away from
pedestrian areas. The use of fencing and painted murals is consistent with
the character of the site and the character of the River subdistrict
Complies
to the
extent
reasonably
feasible
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the request for the Northside Aztlan Community Center minor amendment, staff makes the
following findings of fact:
• The Minor Amendment complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
• The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development
Standards, to the extent reasonably feasible.
• The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.16, Downtown District,
Article 4.
7. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Northside Aztlan Community Center, MA220006, based on the aforementioned
findings of fact.
Packet pg. 28
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3
MA220006 | Northside Aztlan Community Center
Thursday, May 19, 2022 | Page 8 of 8
Back to Top
8. Attachments
1. Minor Amendment application
2. Planning Drawings sheets
3. Art in Public Places Program Letter of Intent
4. Art in Public Places Illustrative Examples
5. Round 1 Comment Letter
6. Round 2 Comment Letter
7. Staff presentation
8. Memo
Packet pg. 29
[Type here]
Minor Amendment #: ___________________
Effective Date: _________________________
THIS BOX IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
281 N. College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524, (970) 416-2745, zoning@fcgov.com
Minor Amendment Application Form - Zoning Department
All of the requested information on this application is required.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – Electronic Only:
1) The initial submittal shall consist of the following:
a. Existing approved plans of the site, landscape, elevation, etc. - whichever sheets are being altered
All changes on each sheet should be clouded/bubbled
b. All proposed new plans
i. A Legal Description is required on all new plan sets
2) Complete and sign this Minor Amendment Application form
3) Fee total is $1,750.00
a. Reduced to $1,500.00 if Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) does not need to review.
Note: PFA review requirement includes, but is not limited to: all changes of use, building additions and/or new buildings.
4) All documents shall be emailed to the Development Review Coordinators at drcoord@fcgov.com.
a. A Development Review Coordinator will call the applicant for payment.
5) Projects will be routed on Thursdays each week. Comments will be sent to the applicant on the Friday 2 weeks after the routing date.
6) Once all departments approve the proposed changes, the Minor Amendment will be recorded electronically.
MINOR AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Detailed description of all changes (including but not limited to HVAC equipment, lighting, etc.) and reason(s) for the request:
CERTIFICATION: I certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application,
I am acting with the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the property (including all owners having a legal or equitable interest in the real
property, as defined in Section 1-2 of the City Code; which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and authority the requested action
should not lawfully be accomplished. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the purpose of inspection,
and if necessary, for posting a public notice on the property.
Name (please PRINT): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Telephone: _______________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________________
Project Name:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Location (Street Address): ________________________________________________________________________________
General Information: List all property owners having a legal/equitable interest in the property (Attach separate sheets if necessary).
Owner’s Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Address: ______________________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________________________________
Telephone: __________________________ Email:___________________________________________________________________
Applicant’s/Consultant’s Name: _________________________________ Name of firm: ____________________________________
Street Address: ______________________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________________________________
Telephone: ___________________________Email: __________________________________________________________________
Packet pg. 30
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTES:CONTRACTOR IS AWARE OF POTENTIALSOIL CONTAMINANTS AND COORDINATEWITH CITY OF FORT COLLINS PROJECTMANAGER TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTALOVERSIGHT DURING ANY CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES THAT REQUIRE SOILDISTURBANCE.PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSANDBOX SOLAR LLC WILL RETROFIT EXISTING SOLAR SYSTEM AND ADD BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM. 117 NEW SOLAREDGE OPTIMIZERS WILL BE ADDED TO EXISTING SOLAR ARRAY. A NEW SOLAR EDGE INVERTER WILL BE INSTALLEDREPLACING EXISTING ADVANCED ENERGY INVERTER. BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM WILL INCLUDE 4 DOLOMITE 70KWHBATTERIES PAIRED WITH 3 OSTECK 40 KW INVERTERS. OZTECK INVERTERS WILL FEED A NEW BACKUP PANEL WITH WITHESSENTIAL BUILDING LOADS. BATTERIES AND INVERTERS WILL BE LOCATED INSIDE 10' SHIPPING CONTAINER WITH BUILTIN FIRE SUPPRESSION. THE CONTAINER WILL BE SOLIDLY MOUNTED TO 8" THICK CONCRETE PAD.DIRECTORY OF PAGESPV-1-PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPV-2-SITE PLANPV-3-SITE ACCESS AND EASEMENTSPV-4-SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMPV-5-ELECTRICAL CALCULATIONPV-6-PLACARDSPV-7-DISCONNECT PLACARDPV-8-TREE PROTECTION NOTESAPPENDIX-DATASHEETSEQUIPMENT SUMMARY:4 DOLOMITE 70KWH BATTERY UNITS3 OZTEK BATTERY INVERTERSSOLAR EDGE SE66.6KUS SOLAR INVERTER117 SOLAR EDGE OPTIMIZERS600A BACKUP PANELAUTO TRANSFER SWITCHPROJECT DETAILSPROPERTY OWNER -CITY OF FORT COLLINSPROPERTY ADDRESS -112 E WILLOW, ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80524AHJ-CITY OF FORT COLLINSUTILITY COMPANY -CITY OF FORT COLLINSELECTRICAL CODE -2020 NEC (NFPA 70)FIRE CODE-2021 IFCOTHER BUILDING CODES -IBC 2021CONTRACTOR INFORMATIONCOMPANY -SANDBOX SOLARADDRESS-430 N COLLEGE AVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE NUMBER -(970) 673-7733PAINTING NOTES:PER LUC 3.5.1 (I) (3) CONDUIT, METERS, VENTSAND OTHEREQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING ORPROTRUDING FROM THE ROOF SHALL BEPAINTED TOMATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES.FIRE NOTESSYSTEM EQUIPPED WITH FIRESUPPRESSION .REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMEPROJECTDESCRIPTIONSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-12022-03-11SHIPPING CONTAINER SIDES AND TOP TO BE PAINTED BY ART IN PUBLIC PLACES THE TOP WILL BE PAINTED A SOLID COLOR TO MATCH THE BUILDING. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 31
WILLOW ST10" PONDEROSA PINE(N) 4X KRONOSBATTERY UNITS(N) SOLAR EDGE P860 OPTIMIZERS(N) SOLAR EDGE INVERTER(N) BATTERY ACDISCONNECT(E) PV MODULES(N) BATTERY SYSTEMSHUTDOWN BUTTON(NEW) 600A BACKUP LOADS PANEL(N) SOLAR AC DISCONNECTUTILITY ROOM(E) UTILITY METER(N) 3X OZTEK INVERTERS(N) 14' X 9' CONCRETE PAD(N) 10' SHIPPING CONTAINER BATTERY HOUSING5'10'(N) WROUGHT IRON FENCE(N) 3' FIRE ACCESS PATHALL WEATHER SURFACE(E) IRRIGATION VALVE BOXESIRRIGATION NOTES:CONTRACTOR IS AWARE OF IRRIGATIONLINES AND WILL BE WORKING WITH CITYOF FORT COLLINS TO RELOCATE ANDINSURE NO DAMAGE OCCURS DURINGCONSTRUCTION.(N) 3' CLEARANCE ON FENCEREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMESITE PLANSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-22022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 32
(EXISTING) PV MODULES(NEW) 600A BACKUP LOADS PANELUTILITY ROOM(EXISTING)UTILITYMETERCONSTRUCTIONZONESITE ACCESS20'GAS EASEMENT50'RAILROAD EASEMENTIRRIGATION LINESIRRIGATION NOTES:CONTRACTOR IS AWARE OF IRRIGATIONLINES AND WILL BE WORKING WITH CITYOF FORT COLLINS TO RELOCATE ANDINSURE NO DAMAGE OCCURS DURINGCONSTRUCTION.(N) 3' FIRE ACCESS PATHEMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMESITE ACCESSSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-32022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 33
EXISTING SOLAR ARRAY (53.820 KW-DC STC)(234) SCHOTT 230 POLY (230W) MODULES(3) STRINGS OF 40 MODULESAGETOCOMMSARKEXISTING (234) SCHOTT 230 POLYMODULESNGL3123940==+-==+JUNCTION BOX1000V, NEMA 3RUL LISTEDSOLAREDGE SE66.6KUS (480V)OUTPUT: 480 VAC, 80.0A (PER PHASE)98.5% CEC WEIGHTED EFFICIENCYNEMA 3R, UL LISTED, INTERNAL GFDIWITH INTEGRATED DC DISCONNECTUL LISTED DCDISCONNECTL1L21239 40L3NG==+-==+(4) #3 AWG THWN-2 CU(1) #8 AWG CU GNDIN 1-1/4" EMT CONDUIT RUNL1L2L3200A/3PCOMMS600A BACKUP PANEL3P/4W, 277/480VL1L2L3G N L3 L2 L1100A/3PL1L2(E) MAIN SERVICEDISCONNECT600A/2P 600VACGNL3L2L1GNUTILITY METER277/480V 3ɸ, 4-WMEXISTINGGROUNDINGELECTRODESYSTEML3NL2L1TO UTILITY GRIDG1239 40==+-==+1237 38==+-==+1237 38==+-==+OZTEK OZPCS-RS40-PS (480V) X3OUTPUT: 480 VAC, 50A96.7% CEC WEIGHTEDEFFICIENCY(12) #10 AWG THWN-2 CU(1) #10 AWG CU GNDIN 1-1/2" EMT CONDUIT RUNG N L3 L2 L11237 38===+-=+(12) #10 AWG PV WIRE(1) #6 AWG BARE GNDIN AIR(NEW) (117) SOLAREDGE POWER OPTIMIZER P860 RATEDDC INPUT POWER - 860 WATTSMAXIMUM INPUT VOLTAGE - 60 VDCMPPT RANGE - 12.5 TO 60 VDCMAXIMUM INPUT CURRENT - 22 ADCMAXIMUM OUTPUT CURRENT - 18 ADC STRING15300WATTS STC PER STRING MAXIMUM(4) 70kWh DOLOMITE BATTERY UNIT1 ELECTRICAL LINE DIAGRAMSCALE: NTSENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMPV-3GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR/SYSTEMBONDING JUMPER NOT REQUIRED FOR SOLAREDGEPOWER OPTIMIZER. PROPERLY INSTALLED SYSTEMMEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEC 690.30 FORUNGROUNDED PV POWER SYSTEMS. PROVIDEEQUIPMENT GROUNDING PER MANUFACTURER'SREQUIREMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEC.NOTE:· ALL GROUNDING TO COMPLY WITH NEC 690.47.· ROOF TOP CONDUIT SHALL BE LOCATED MIN.1/2" ABOVE ROOF SURFACE.· ALL TERMINALS SHALL BE MIN. 90 DEG. C RATED.COMMSL3L2L1(4) #3/0 AWG THWN-2 CU(1) #6 AWG CU GNDIN 2" EMT CONDUIT RUN(4) 500kcmil(1) #4 AWG CU GNDIN 3" EMT CONDUIT RUNCLOUDABB AF300A CONTACTOR300A/3P200A FUSEDC BUSBATTERY SIDE2/0 BATTERY CABLE(4) KRONOS DOLOMITE LiON BATTERY UNITSOPERATING VOLTAGE RANGE - 800 VDCMAXIMUM OUTPUT CURRENT - 37.5ASEL 751INTERCONNECTRELAY(3) STRINGS OF 38 MODULESL1L2L3NGL1L2L3NGSQUARE D(N) AC DISCONNECTUNFUSED100AG N L3 L2 L1G N L3 L2 L1SQUARE D(N) AC DISCONNECTUNFUSED200ACOMMSLOCKABLE BATTERYSYSTEM DISCONNECT123756L1L2L3100A/3PL1L2L3125A/3PL1L2L370A/3PL1L2L350A/3PL1L2L3110A/3PH1AL1AL1BML1RTU-14(4) #2/0 AWG THWN-2 CU(1) #6 AWG CU GNDIN 2" EMT CONDUIT RUNOUTSID
E
E
Q
UI
P
M
E
N
T
INSIDE
E
Q
UI
P
M
E
N
T 480-120XFMRNEW AGETO EQUIPMENTDCAC63A/3P63A/3P63A/3PACACDCDC===G N L3 L2 L1L1L2L3L1L2L3CONTAINERHVACAGETO200A/3PREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMESINGLE LINEDIAGRAMSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-42022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 34
REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMEELECTRICALCALCULATIONSSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-52022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 35
REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMESITE PLACARDSSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-62022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 36
REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMESITE PLACARDSSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORHTSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524CAUTION!POWER OF THIS BUILDING IS ALSO SUPPLIED FROMTHE FOLLOWING SOURCES WITHDISCONNECT(S) LOCATED AS SHOWN:Utility MeterWILLOW STPV DISCONNECTBATTERYDISCONNECTPV ARRAYBATTERIESPV-72022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 37
10" PONDEROSA PINETO BE PRESERVED(N) 14' X 9' SURFACE MOUNT CONCRETE PAD() 10' SHIPPING CONTAINER22'-0"5'-0"10'-0"(N) 24" DEEP TRENCH TO BUILDING30'-9"Ø10'-0"CRITICAL ROOT ZONETREE PROTECTION NOTES:1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANYNATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESSNOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NOCUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST ORFORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORTCOLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BEPERFORMED 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 AROUNDALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGEFENCING 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) OFTHE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE ORMOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCEDTREE PROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALLPREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE ANDDISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT,CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF ATREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TOANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATEDFROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY ANDUTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTINGPROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3)ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES AMAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE TO-STAKEALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED.8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUNDFIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BEACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTEDEXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THEAUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK)AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THECHART 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. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRDNESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREESENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA.CONTRACTOR NOTE:THE TREE TO THE NORTH OF THE SHIPPINGCONTAINER WILL BE FENCED OFF ANDPROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION PERTHE LISTED TREE PROTECTION NOTES.TREE SPECIFICATIONS:TYPE: PONDEROSA PINETRUNK DIAMETER: 10"CRITICAL ROOT ZONE DIAMETER: 10'MITIGATION VALUE: 1.5 MITIGATION TREESREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONINITIALDATE REVDATEPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSSHEET NAMETREE PROTECTIONSHEET SIZEANSI B11" X 17"SHEET NUMBERNORTHSIDE AZTLANCOMMUNITY CENTER112 E WILLOW STFORT COLLINS, CO 80524PV-82022-03-11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 38
10'8.5'10'Fenced in HVAC Output Matching Existing Fence (6ft) Wrought Iron Has 3' clearance from container.South and West sides of container to be painted by Art in Public Spaces. Top of the container will be painted to match building color.Gas easement boundary Reference photo for shipping container prior to Art in Public Places painting.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 39
Cultural Services
Art in Public Places
Lincoln Center
417 W. Magnolia St
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.416-2789
970.221-6373 – fax
www.fcgov.com/artspublic
LETTER OF INTENT
Poudre River Public Library Mural Project
The Art in Public Places Program will collaborate with City of Fort Collins Operation
Services, Utilities, and the Poudre River Public Library District on this project. This
project includes a community mural to be placed on a battery storage shipping container
that will be installed on the property as part of the City’s Northside Aztlan Distributed
Energy Storage project. The proposed location for the container at the Northside Aztlan
Community Center is on the West side of the building. The mural is to act as a
substitution for a screen often required by City Planning. The proposed timeline for the
mural is completion by September 2022 to kick-off and help celebrate Hispanic Heritage
Month. This project is supported by the Art in Public Places Board.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Ellen Martin
Visual Arts Administrator
City of Fort Collins
(970) 416-2789
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg. 40
acrylic transformer cabinet Packet pg. 41
acrylic transformer cabinet Packet pg. 42
acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 43
acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 44
acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 45
acrylic, transformer box
Packet pg. 46
acrylic, transformer box
Packet pg. 47
Jan Rastall
Packet pg. 48
acrylic, transformer box
Packet pg. 49
acrylic,
transformer box
Packet pg. 50
acrylic, transformer box
Packet pg. 51
acrylic, transformer boxes
Packet pg. 52
acrylic,
transformer
cabinet
Packet pg. 53
Acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 54
Acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 55
Acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 56
Acrylic on transformer cabinet Packet pg. 57
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
February 28, 2022
Drayton Browning
Sandbox Solar, LLC
430 N College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Northside Aztlan Community Center, MA220006, Round Number 1
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Dave Betley, 970-221-6573, dbetley@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/16/2022: Note that utilities show an irrigation line going under the proposed
concrete slab.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/16/2022
02/16/2022: Please show an emergency access easement to proposed shipping
container.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/16/2022
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/10/2022: The proposed improvements will not require a Traffic Impact Study. No
comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2022
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of Northside Aztlan Community Center . If you have questions about any comments, you may
contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Project Planner, Arlo Schumann
at 970-221-6599 or aschumann@fcgov.com.
Page 1 of 5
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 58
02/16/2022: No Comment for erosion control. Please read and understand the
following. Please be aware that the historical uses of properties located adjacent to
the Site include a manufactured gas plant, a petroleum bulk plant, a retail petroleum
distribution facility, as well as other commercial facilities. In 2002, an oil sheen was
observed on a portion of the Poudre River located directly north of the Site.
Subsequent investigations delineated a plume of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL
or coal tar) and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination on the Site and adjacent
properties. The Site was named a Superfund Site by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in 2004 and was the subject of an extensive environmental cleanup.
Per an order from EPA, focused removal actions have been completed to reduce
migration and contact of NAPL contaminants to the public and river waters. The
Site is also located over a historic landfill which contains additional contaminants
including chlorinated solvents, asbestos-containing materials, and general landfill
debris. Please ensure a qualified soil spotter is available during the underground
digging activities.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/16/2022
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/03/2022: It is the understanding of Light and Power that this minor amendment
will not cause a change to the electric capacity needs or the location of our facilities.
If this an incorrect understanding or if plans change, please contact me directly at
akreager@fcgov.com or (970)224-6152. Thank you.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2022
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Ben Oesterling, , boesterling@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/17/2022: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/17/2022
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
2/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
There appears to be an existing tree near the fence location. Please label this tree
as to be preserved and protected. Include the City of Fort Collins Tree Protection
notes to the plans, as well. These are available from City Forestry
(mroche@fcgov.com). Note that tree protection is required during fence installation
and other site work.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2022
Department: PFA
Contact: Kerry Koppes, , kkoppes@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Page 2 of 5
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 59
02/11/2022: ACCESS AND CLEARANCE: In order to accommodate fire access,
the new fencing around shipping container shall be installed so as to provide a
minimum 36" clearance on sides and back of container and enough clear space for
container doors to be fully opened on front. Access across a maintained, all weather
surface shall be provided to the fencing and container location. Setback of the
container from the building shall be in accordance with the IBC as enforced by the
Fort Collins Building Department.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/11/2022
02/11/2022: FIRE PERMITTING: Batteries, inverters, backup panel and other
appurtenances for the solar system, as well as the integrated suppression system
will need to be reviewed under separate permit with Poudre Fire Authority. This
separate submittal must demonstrate compliance with Section 604, Chapter 9 and
Chapter 12 of the International Fire Code (IFC - 2018 edition) as well as NFPA 70
(NEC) as enforced by the Fort Collins Building Department and other referenced
standards.
PFA has a current, pending PV permit application and submittal (#211221002-P01)
on file, awaiting review. If additional details are needed to comply with comments
above, please email additional plans to plans@poudre-fire.org with a notation that
the submittal is for the permit number referenced above.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/11/2022
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 3 of 5
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 60
02/07/2022: The shipping container is considered to be a building and will require a
building permit.
Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes
are:
2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments
2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments
2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments
2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments
2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments
2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at
fcgov.com/building.
New 2021 Building Codes will be adopted in mid March 2022.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or
· Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code: 2018 IECC commercial chapter.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· Commercial occupancies must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet
between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7
of the IBC.
· City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler
system per IBC chapter 9 or when building exceeds 5000 sq.ft. (or meet fire
containment requirements).
· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for
buildings using electric heat.
· A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new
commercial structure.
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services for this project.
Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the
design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City
codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to
mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new projects should
email rhovland@fcgov.com to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should
be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss
code issues of occupancy, square footage, type of construction, and energy
compliance method being proposed.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/07/2022
Topic: General
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 02/07/2022
Department: Technical Services
Page 4 of 5
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 61
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/17/2022: There are spelling issues on sheet PV-1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/17/2022
Department: Zoning
Contact: Arlo Schumann, 970-221-6599, aschumann@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/28/2022: As a city project the minor amendment shall be referred to the Planning
and Zoning Commission for review and final decision.
At the conclusion of round 2 and depending on the number or new or unresolved
comments staff may target an upcoming P&Z meeting date to add the project to the
agenda. All significant comments shall be resolved prior to review by the
commission.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/28/2022
02/28/2022: Please confirm no new exterior site or building lighting is included in the
scope of this project.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/28/2022
02/28/2022: Please note per LUC 3.5.1 (I) (3) Conduit, meters, vents and other
equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be painted to
match surrounding building surfaces.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/28/2022
02/28/2022: Painting the structure as part of a art in public places is a novel solution
to the need to screen the container. There is some concern that the top of the
container would be visible by a pedestrian walking along willow street. It is staff's
recommendation to include painting the top as part of the APP project.
A letter of intent from Art in Public Places should be included in the documentation at
the time of referral to P&Z. A mockup of the art would also be beneficial if available.
The painting of the box will need to be complete at the time of closeout of the
building permit.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/28/2022
Page 5 of 5
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet pg. 62
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
May 03, 2022
Drayton Browning
Sandbox Solar, LLC
430 N College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Northside Aztlan Community Center, MA220006, Round Number 2
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Dave Betley, 970-221-6573, dbetley@fcgov.com
Topic: General
04/27/2022: Engineering has no further comments.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/27/2022
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/10/2022: The proposed improvements will not require a Traffic Impact Study. No
comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2022
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/03/2022: It is the understanding of Light and Power that this minor amendment
will not cause a change to the electric capacity needs or the location of our facilities.
If this an incorrect understanding or if plans change, please contact me directly at
akreager@fcgov.com or (970)224-6152. Thank you.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2022
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Ben Oesterling, , boesterling@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of Northside Aztlan Community Center . If you have questions about any comments, you may
contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Project Planner, Arlo Schumann
at 970-221-6599 or aschumann@fcgov.com.
Page 1 of 4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 63
02/17/2022: No comments.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/17/2022
Department: Forestry
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
04/18/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have
regarding these comments. Please contact Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com),
970-416-2062, or Parks Planning Technician, Aaron Wagner
(aawagner@fcgov.com) 970-682-0344, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/18/2022
04/18/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Thank you for contacting Parks about the irrigation lines in the immediate vicinity of
the project. Please coordinate with Parks for potential impacts to the irrigation
system. If service is going to be disrupted please let us know:
a. The dates of disruption,
b. Anticipated length of time for the disruption
c. Any impacts to the irrigation infrastructure (i.e. main line cut, valve box removal,
controller disconnection etc.)
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/18/2022
04/18/2022: FOR INFORMATION:
The redline pdf provided is schematic in nature and does not accurately show
locations for Parks’ irrigation infrastructure. This is provided for graphic reference
only. Please coordinate with the Parks Dept. for irrigation infrastructure locations.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/18/2022
04/18/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please show and label existing irrigation infrastructure, (i.e. backflow, locations of
the mainline and laterals, valve boxes, and other irrigation infrastructure) on the Site
and Landscape plans and/or Construction Documents. Please add the following
note to all applicable plans: “ANY IRRIGATION LINES, INFRASTRUCTURE, OR
RELATED EQUIPMENT THAT IS DISTURBED, DESTROYED, OR MOVED SHALL
BE PROMPTLY REPLACED AND/OR REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE CITY.”
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/18/2022
04/18/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Irrigation mainlines maybe as large as 3 inches. No attempt shall be made to cut,
disconnect or disturb irrigation infrastructure (including lateral lines and sprinkler
heads) without approval from the Parks Department. Parks reserves the right to
appoint an irrigation sub-contractor to perform any and all repairs and/or
modifications to the system.
a. Parks Departments preferred irrigation contractor: Korby Landscape, Attn: Kyle
Korby, Kyle@korbylandscape.com , 970.305.7237.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/18/2022
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Page 2 of 4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 64
02/07/2022: The shipping container is considered to be a building and will require a
building permit.
Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes
are:
2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments
2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments
2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments
2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments
2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments
2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at
fcgov.com/building.
New 2021 Building Codes will be adopted in mid March 2022.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or
· Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code: 2018 IECC commercial chapter.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· Commercial occupancies must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet
between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7
of the IBC.
· City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler
system per IBC chapter 9 or when building exceeds 5000 sq.ft. (or meet fire
containment requirements).
· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for
buildings using electric heat.
· A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new
commercial structure.
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services for this project.
Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the
design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City
codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to
mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new projects should
email rhovland@fcgov.com to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should
be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss
code issues of occupancy, square footage, type of construction, and energy
compliance method being proposed.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/07/2022
Topic: General
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 02/07/2022
Department: Technical Services
Page 3 of 4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 65
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
04/26/2022: The sheet index does not match the sheets in plan set.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2022
Page 4 of 4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet pg. 66
Arlo SchumannAssociate PlannerPlanning and Zoning CommissionNorthside Aztlan Community CenterMinor Amendment, MA220006May 13, 2022ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 67
Project Location2Situated ~240ft east of College Ave and north of Willow St.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 68
Project Context3Approximately 8.3-acre siteDowntown District (D) within the River subdistrict.Existing Community Facility.Existing Community Center Building was built in 2008 roof mounted PV array was added in 2010Community Center is a certified LEED Gold building.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 69
Northside Aztlan Community CenterProject Overview4Proposed Scope:• Install a shipping container structure to house battery storage and other associated mechanical equipment needed as part of the retrofit of the existing rooftop PV solar array.• Provide a 3ft wide all-weather emergency access path from the basketball court to the north to the structure.• Provide fencing on the north side of the structure for security and maintain required clearances.• In partnership with the Art in Public Places Program paint the S and W sides of the structure to provide visual interest and screeningITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 70
Northside Aztlan Community CenterProject Overview5Proposed Site Plan:ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 71
Northside Aztlan Community CenterProject Overview6ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 72
Northside Aztlan Community Center7Staff recommends approval of MA220006,Northside Aztlan Community Center In evaluating the request for the Northside Aztlan Community Center minor amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:• The Minor Amendment complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.• The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, to the extent reasonably feasible.• The Minor Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) within the River subdistrict, Article 4.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 73
8Thank You.Landmark Apartments Additional BedroomsITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 74
Operation Services
300 LaPorte Ave, Building B
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6610
970.221.6534
fcgov.com
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner
FROM: Blake Visser, Sr. Facilities Project Manager
Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator, Cultural Services
RE: Northside Aztlan DESS Project APP Clarification
Regarding the Northside Aztlan Community Center project and a clarification on the City
of Fort Collins Arts in Public Places (APP) program mural that is planned for the project.
The Poudre River Public Library District is collaborating with the APP program on the
mural. The mural will be a gift to the City. The Library District will select a professional
artist that will oversee the design and execution of the mural with community volunteers.
The APP Board will approve the final design of the mural before it is painted. The
painting of the mural is scheduled to coincide with Hispanic Heritage Month.
An example of a previous collaboration between the Library District and APP is the
community mural located at the Civic Center Parking Garage. There are pictures of the
process and the completed mural on the APP website at:
https://www.fcgov.com/artspublic/gallery/?view=rafael-lopez-community-mural
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet pg. 75