Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 February 16, 2023 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 February 16, 2023 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Julie Stackhouse Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & York 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/96288043255. 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 February 16, 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. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 February 16, 2023 ROLL CALL • ELECTION OF OFFICERS • 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 • 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. • 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: 962 8804 3255. 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 adopted by City Council Ordinance 143, 2022, 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 February 16, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z December Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the December 15, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Fleet Maintenance Subdivision PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to plat an unplatted lot at 835 Wood St. The property is owned by the city. The platting of the property is to facilitate minor amendments for upgrading a fueling station and an addition to the existing city maintenance facility. APPLICANT: Blake Visser City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner 3. 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to replace existing equipment and canopies at an existing city fleet vehicle fueling station. APPLICANT: Blake Visser City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner 4. Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 MA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Minor Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Rolland Moore Community Park located at 2201 S. Shields Street (parcel #9722411901). The proposal is the second phase of replacing lighting fixtures near baseball Field 3 and Field 4 in the park. APPLICANT: Jill Wuertz City of Fort Collins 413 S Bryan St Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Katelyn Puga, City Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA o No Items Listed • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 16, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 15, 2022 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the December 15, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft December 15, 2022 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Hall West 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 December 15, 2022 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse Absent: Haefele Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Sizemore, Myler, Claypool, Mounce, Kleer, Lindsey, Dinger, Stamey, and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (Commission’s) role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: •While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. •The Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission once for each item. •Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code (Code). •Should a citizen wish to address the Commission on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. •This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Development Review Manager Rebecca Everette 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 December 15, 2022 Page 2 of 23 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from October 20, 2022, Commission Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a final review of the items that are on the consent agenda and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the December 15, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Vice Chair Shepard seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Impala Multi-Family Redevelopment Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the redevelopment of the Impala project located at 306 Impala Circle and 400 Impala Circle. The site is approximately 7.2 acres and is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). The PDP proposes to redevelop the existing 306 Impala Circle property with 56 multifamily dwelling units. The project includes renovations to the 24 existing duplexes at 400 Impala Circle and a new 6-unit, two-story multifamily building along Mulberry Street to replace one existing duplex building. The goal of the new units is to provide housing for Fort Collins Residents with incomes ranging in income from 30%- 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), with a target average of 55% AMI. Five modifications of standards for the PDP are proposed. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Will Lindsey, City Planner, provided a brief overview of the project, noting its location and showing images of the property. He stated the project will provide 100% affordable units for individuals making 30-80% of the AMI and contains 105 bedrooms with a gross net density of 11.94 dwelling units per acre. He noted six modifications of standard are being requested. Secretary Manno noted several letters have been received both in opposition to and in support of the project. Kristin Fritz, Housing Catalyst Chief Real Estate Officer, stated this project has been thoughtfully designed and is intended to compliment the neighborhood. She discussed the mission of Housing Catalyst to provide affordable housing in the community. She noted Housing Catalyst develops, owns, manages, and maintains all of the housing in its portfolio, which currently consists of over 1,000 affordable homes. She discussed the City’s Housing Strategic Plan goals. Nichole Rex, Housing Catalyst Senior Project Manager, discussed the benefits of the project location and provided additional detail on the redevelopment and new development. Ms. Fritz stated the proposed site plan, design, and use are all in alignment with the purpose, design intent, and permitted uses of the low-density, mixed-use neighborhood (LMN) zone district. She discussed the success of DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 3 of 23 other affordable housing developments in Fort Collins and noted this project is actually only requesting five modifications of standard, not six as stated in the staff overview. Ms. Rex discussed the goals of the project that came out of outreach efforts, including a clubhouse and all electric buildings, and further detailed the aspects of the project that will be redeveloped and those that will be newly developed. She showed a rendering of the site plan and noted all tree mitigation will occur on site. She discussed the site amenities, including a clubhouse, sport court, an enhanced walking path, play areas, and a BBQ area. Ms. Rex discussed the traffic impact study which indicated the project will have minimal impact on the existing street system and will not create parking challenges as significantly more parking is being added to the project site and includes 13 more spaces than what is required by the Code. She outlined the five requested modifications stating none will be detrimental to the public and all of which will meet the intent and purpose of the Code. She stated the project would not be feasible without the modifications and she provided additional information on each: orientation to a connecting walkway, access to a park, central feature, or gathering place which is highly visible from a public street, block size, the number of units in a building, and maximum floor area. City Planner Lindsey provided a detailed staff analysis of the project. He outlined the timeline of the project and summarized concerns that were brought up at the neighborhood meeting, including traffic congestion, the adequacy of the on-site parking, the number of affordable units, building sizes, and the overall compatibility of the project with the area. He outlined the project’s compatibility with both City Plan and the Northwest Subarea Plan. Lindsey discussed the five requested modifications of standard and why they are necessary. He stated staff found the requested modification for orientation to a connecting walkway to not be detrimental to the public good, that it achieves the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a complying plan, and that the project as a whole substantially alleviates the community need for affordable housing. Staff found the requested modification related to park location being easily viewed from a public street to not be detrimental to the public good, that it achieves the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a complying plan, that the project as a whole substantially alleviates the community need for affordable housing, that the existing conditions of the site result in an exceptional and undue hardship not caused by the applicant due to the existing street and property configuration, and that the deviation from the standard is nominal and inconsequential. Regarding the third modification related to block size, staff found the requested modification is not detrimental to the public good, that it achieves the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a complying plan, that the project as a whole substantially alleviates the community need for affordable housing, and that the modification is nominal and inconsequential. Regarding the fourth and fifth requested modifications related to the number of units in a building and maximum floor area, staff found them both to not be detrimental to the public good, that the project, as a whole, substantially alleviates the community need for affordable housing, and that the placement and design of the buildings has been done in a way that is compatible with the zone district and neighborhood. Lindsey discussed the site plan, noting staff finds it complies with all necessary requirements of Article 3, including parking, bicycle parking, walkway connectivity, and a centralized park and amenity space. He stated staff also finds the landscape plan is in compliance with applicable standards and noted all 71 of the mitigation trees will be on-site. Regarding architectural context and building compatibility requirements, Lindsey stated staff found the project to be in compliance. He provided additional detail regarding the architecture, materials, and color palettes of the buildings. He outlined the site plan noting the buildings have been placed in a way to de-emphasize the largest of the proposed structures. Lindsey stated staff finds the project complies with the relevant standards in Article 2, Article 3 with the proposed modifications, and Article 4 with the proposed modifications. He stated staff is recommending approval of all modifications and the PDP. Commission Questions Member Schneider requested clarification regarding the legal memo that indicated six modifications of standard. Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney, replied he was counting each subsection as an individual modification; however, the applicant grouped two subsections together. DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 4 of 23 Vice Chair Shepard asked Ms. Fritz about the number of dwelling units and acreages for the Village on Redwood and the Village on Horsetooth projects. Ms. Fritz replied Village on Redwood has 72 units on 6 acres and Village on Horsetooth has 96 units on 8 acres. Vice Chair Shepard asked about the number of bedrooms in the existing duplexes that will not be demolished. Ms. Rex replied the 24 duplexes are split evenly between two-bedroom, one-bath and three-bedroom, one-bath units. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the proposed street trees will be irrigated. Ms. Rex replied in the affirmative. Vice Chair Shepard suggested a condition of approval may be necessary regarding City Council taking action to grant the public right-of-way vacation of Impala Circle. Russ Lee, Ripley Design, stated Engineering would take the vacation request to Council after the project is approved. Mr. Yatabe stated the Commission could impose a condition if desired. Chair Katz asked if this project was originally designed to include the 30-unit building. Ms. Rex replied many iterations of the overall site design have been considered and the 30-unit building was influenced by parking requirements, the desire for visual blocking of that building with smaller buildings, and the need for a proper drainage channel from the north end of the site to the south end of the site. Vice Chair Shepard asked if any new street trees will be required on Mulberry. Ms. Rex replied most of the street tree removal and planting is happening at the 306 Impala site and no trees are being planned for removal at the Mulberry site. Mr. Lee stated there are currently four trees along the existing Mulberry structure and they will all remain with the addition of one more. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jennifer Wagner, Housing Catalyst Board of Commissioners Vice Chair, expressed support for the Village on Impala project noting it will net 49 new affordable housing units while rehabilitating existing affordable units. Evan Gill-Martin expressed support for the project. Rich Ricketts expressed concern about the proposed six-unit building across from his property, noting there are three historic homes within a block of the site. He expressed concern about compatibility and parking and asked if there will be a contact available if his drive is blocked. He thanked Nichole Rex for keeping him informed throughout this process. Phoebe McWilliams opposed the project, stating Housing Catalyst should have spent more time upkeeping the existing buildings. She stated more time should be spent enforcing Codes in rental, unkempt neighborhoods. She stated all of the Housing Catalyst projects look the same and questioned why the projects could not just be single- family homes. She also expressed concern about traffic throughout Fort Collins. Terry Ricketts expressed concern about the monitoring of the Mulberry house and about parking. She also thanked Nichole Rex for listening to her concerns. Applicant Response Ms. Fritz stated the existing property on Impala Drive has been under the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) public housing program for decades and that program has suffered from underfunding for quite some time. Housing Catalyst has received approval from HUD to transition the property out of public housing into a new, more sustainable form of housing that allows it to operate with on-site property management in a more sustainable fashion. She stated it is challenging to finance the development of affordable single-family homes and 12 units per acre is actually seen as low density in comparison to other affordable projects throughout the state. Ms. Rex thanked Mr. and Mrs. Ricketts for their input. She noted the Mulberry property has presented design challenges. She stated it is currently a duplex with a total of six bedrooms and six parking spaces, and the new 6- plex will have a total of nine bedrooms with ten parking spaces, which does meet Code. Additionally, she noted a space for delivery trucks and trash trucks has been incorporated into the design and signage will be added to help DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 5 of 23 reduce unnecessary traffic. She stated trash will be internal to the building with fob-only access. Additionally, she noted there will be an on-site property manager available to respond to any issues. Staff Response Planner Lindsey noted special attention was paid specifically to the design and layout of the 6-plex off Mulberry, including the building orientation, trash location, and adequate parking. He also encouraged Ms. McWilliams to utilize Access Fort Collins to report any Code enforcement issues. Commission Questions / Deliberation Member Schneider asked if this project has gone through Historic Preservation review. Lindsey replied in the affirmative and stated Historic Preservation staff looked at design compatibility standards and found the Rickett’s farmhouse should serve as the basis for the design compatibility of the Mulberry 6-plex. He stated staff found the proposed project met the criteria, including the two-story height, materiality, and color palette. Vice Chair Shepard asked about the possibility of moving the buildings that are proposed for demolition. Ms. Rex replied the 11 single-family homes have basement-level foundations and moving the buildings would not be particularly feasible. Additionally, there are some existing health hazard concerns that would need to be addressed if the buildings were to be relocated and there are issues with many of the interiors. She noted adherence to the rigorous standards for recycling materials will be ensured. Regarding the Mulberry duplex, Ms. Rex noted it was actually relocated to that site and does have more potential to be relocated. She stated Housing Catalyst is open to that possibility if there is an interested party; however, there is not a Housing Catalyst site that would be able to absorb it. Vice Chair Shepard requested staff provide Ms. McWilliams with the information about Access Fort Collins. Chair Katz requested discussion on the requested modification to the orientation to a connecting walkway standard in Section 3.5.2(D)(1). Member Hogestad made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Shepard, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.5.2(D)(1), orientation to a connecting walkway, as described in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1), the submitted plan provides a positive sense of community, includes views and easy park access, and the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard. The Commission also finds the modification satisfies 2.8.2(H)(2) by substantially alleviating an existing defined problem of city-wide concern and would result in a substantial benefit to the city by providing affordable housing. The plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Vice Chair Shepard noted this modification would not be necessary if Impala Drive was not being vacated. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Katz requested discussion on the requested modification to the park location and access standard in Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b). DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 6 of 23 Member Schneider stated he would like to see this issue addressed in future revisions as the intent of the Code has been met with this design. Vice Chair Shepard noted this project is about a quarter-mile away from Rogers Park and there is a signal to cross Mulberry at that location. Member Hogestad stated the park in the proposed location may function better than a complying plan. Member Stackhouse made a motion, seconded by Member Sass, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) to not require the boundary of the park to be formed by a street network in such a way that it is highly visible or easily observed from streets, as described in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criteria are met: the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) equally well or better than would a plan which complies because the site plan layout promotes security, visibility, and access to the park, and without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would substantially address the important community need for affordable housing, and the strict application of Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) would render the project practically infeasible, the plan as submitted will not diverge from Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of Land Use Code Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Katz requested discussion on the requested modifications to the block size standards in Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) and 3.8.30(D)(2). Member Sass made a motion, seconded by Member Stackhouse, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modifications of standard to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) and 3.8.30(D)(2) to allow the block structure to vary from the boundary requirements and to allow the block size to exceed seven acres, all as described in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criteria are met: the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) and 3.8.30(D)(2) equally well or better than would a plan which complies because the private drive and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian route will functionally break up the block size, and without impairing the intent of the purpose of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modifications would substantially address the important community need for affordable housing, and the strict application of 3.8.30(D)(1) and 3.8.30(D)(2) would render the project practically infeasible, the plan as submitted will not diverge from Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) and 3.8.30(D)(2) except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of Land Use Code Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Vice Chair Shepard noted the reason for this modification is through no fault of the applicant. Chair Katz concurred noting the site is irregularly shaped. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 7 of 23 THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Katz requested discussion on the requested modifications to the number of units per building and building size standards in Sections 4.5(E)(4)(a) and 4.5(E)(4)(i). Vice Chair Shepard stated he would be supporting the modifications as affordable projects are allowed 12 dwelling units per acre in the LMN zone and are allotted a bit more latitude in the granting of modifications. He also stated the project is designed well and the largest building is screened by other buildings. Additionally, there is quite a bit of distance between the largest building and the single-family homes. He acknowledged a three-story building could be seen as an outlier, but noted the affordable housing will be addressing a substantial community need. Chair Katz stated modifications of standard are an integral part of the Code given every project is different, particularly infill projects. He expressed some concern a 30-unit building is not a modification, but a complete disregard of the Code. He did compliment the design team but remained concerned about the building size. Member Schneider commented on the overall property and density, which meets Code, and stated the design is well done. He stated infill developments are the future of Fort Collins and flexibility and opportunity need to be provided to make that happen. He concurred a three-story building would not fit in every situation, but stated he believes it fits in this case based on the character of the project and its design. Member Hogestad stated the architecture of the two-story building is very well done, though the three-story building may not rise to the same level of design. However, he noted the three-story building is set back to the west allowing the two-story building to screen it. He expressed concern about the project density given it is an infill project in the middle of an existing neighborhood. He stated the project is worthy, however, and he will support it. Member Schneider noted the LMN zone allows both three-story buildings and twelve dwelling units per acre for affordable housing projects. Member Stackhouse stated she would be supporting the modification and commented on the need for HUD to release properties that were designated as public housing. She stated this project will result in an improvement in neighborhood conditions, which is an overall good situation. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion, seconded by Member Stackhouse, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modifications to Land Use Code Sections 4.5(E)(4)(a) and 4.5(E)(4)(i) to allow 16 dwelling units and approximately 18,300 square feet of floor area in building B, and 30 dwelling units and approximately 32,000 square feet in building C as depicted in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would substantially address the important community need for affordable housing, and the strict application of 4.5(E)(4)(a) and 4.5(E)(4)(i) would render the project practically infeasible. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Vice Chair Shepard disagreed with Member Hogestad that this would not be the norm in the LMN zone and noted the affordable housing aspect is of critical importance from a policy perspective as stated in the Housing Strategic Plan. Chair Katz stated he understands the financial piece that that the project would be rendered infeasible without these modifications. He noted the project could be considered ‘as is or better’ given some of the existing HUD buildings will be improved. He stated he is cautious as he does not want future projects to stray farther and farther from the Code; however, he will support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 8 of 23 THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Katz requested the Commission discuss the PDP itself. Vice Chair Shepard stated he would support the Project Development Plan and commented on the information included in the staff report regarding the Northwest Subarea Plan, which aimed to blend the edge of a city. He discussed the diversity of the area and noted it is difficult to get zoning exactly right on the edge of a growing city. Member Schneider stated he would support the project as it will enhance and redevelop the neighborhood. He stated he lives near the Village on Redwood and it has brought a great deal of improvement to the area. He noted density is one of the requirements to make these projects successful. He commended the design of the project. Member Stackhouse stated she would support the PDP and stated overall, the city has done a great job of accommodating housing choices while dealing with the reality of the expense of living in Fort Collins. She stated this project will improve the neighborhood. Member Hogestad stated he would like to see the project provide social enhancements for both new and current residents and he will support the project. Member Sass made a motion, seconded by Member Schneider, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Impala Redevelopment Project Development Plan #220005. The Commission finds in consideration of the approved modifications that the Project Development Plan complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Vice Chair Shepard thanked the individuals who spoke regarding this item and encouraged Housing Catalyst to continue to work with the Rickett’s. He stated the on-site manager and more sustainable housing funding model will provide a long-term benefit for the area. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. Seven Generations Multi-Family Development Project Description: This is a request for a Major Amendment to the approved plan for the Seven Generations Office Park, proposing a multifamily project at 3221 Eastbrook Drive (parcel #s 8730406002 and 8730406004). This project proposes a three-story building consisting of a mix of forty-six (46) one-bedroom units and twenty-nine (29) two-bedroom units, for a total of seventy-five (75) dwelling units and 104 beds, to be sold at market rate. A total of 126 on-site parking spaces and 108 bicycle parking spaces will serve this site. Access will be taken from the east from Eastbrook Drive. This is considered a Secondary Use in the Employment (E) zone district and is subject to a Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) review. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported no new information has been received on this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Will Lindsey, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. He discussed the project location and size noting it is in the Employment (E) zone district. He stated the proposed project includes 75 multi-family dwelling units with a total of 104 bedrooms, 126 vehicle parking spaces, 108 bicycle parking spaces, and a 16,780 square foot central DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 9 of 23 amenity feature. He noted one modification of standard related to secondary uses in the Employment district is being requested. Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, stated this project was originally approved under a PDP in 2007 for three office buildings, which is why this is a major amendment. He stated only one of those office buildings has been constructed as has all of the infrastructure on the site. He noted the Employment district allows for 25% of the gross development plan area to be secondary uses that compliment the primary use. He stated this major amendment is requesting a modification to increase that percentage to 80% of the original acreage for the site. He stated including this use in all secondary uses for the larger swath of E zone in the area would total 21.87%. He stated this modification request can be seen as promoting the purpose of the secondary use standard equally well or better than a complying plan. Mr. Coutts outlined the site plan noting it utilizes much of the existing infrastructure and does not touch the natural habitat buffer. He discussed the existing trail connection to the north and noted this project would enhance that connection. He discussed the parking layout and pedestrian plaza, which doubles as an emergency access due to the perimeter parking lot being too narrow for Poudre Fire Authority to utilize an aerial apparatus. Ian Shuff, alm2s Architects, discussed the architecture of the existing office building on the site and other area structures. He commented on the use of massing elements and materials to respond to the area context. Lindsey provided a detailed analysis of the project. He outlined the history of the parcel and project and noted the grand total of originally approved office space was 56,000 square feet and the one office building that has been constructed is just under the approved 10,000 square feet for that building. He discussed the concerns voiced at the neighborhood meeting, primarily centered around additional traffic congestion, project compatibility, residential density, parking management, and on-site wildlife. Lindsey outlined the City Plan guidance for the zone district and infill properties. He noted the requested modification must be found to not be detrimental to the public good and also meet one of the four criteria found in Section 2.8.2(H). He stated staff’s interpretation is that the 25% limitation for secondary uses applies to each individual project development plan; therefore, the modification is necessary because the major amendment proposes to replace the originally approved primary office use with multi-family development, and doing so means the secondary use will occupy more than 25% of the PDP gross area. He discussed the applicant’s assertion, outlining what could potentially have been an overall development plan and the fact that primary uses make up almost 88% of the land area in that case, and almost 80% in the contiguously zoned area that includes this site. Lindsey stated staff finds the modification will not be detrimental to the public good because the proposed multi- family use, although it exceeds the 25% limitation for the individual development plan, the overall context of the area contains a mix of office and commercial uses. The area would not only benefit from high-density residential nearby, but the use will also contribute to the quality of life in the area by supporting the overall mix of uses in the zone district as a whole. Additionally, staff finds the modification meets criteria one because the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a complying plan. Staff also finds the modification request meets criteria four because, based on the overall distribution of secondary uses in the area, it does not result in secondary uses exceeding 25%; therefore, the plan as submitted will not deviate except in a nominal and inconsequential way from the standards. As a result, Lindsey stated staff is recommending approval of the modification request. Lindsey outlined the provided vehicle and bike parking, both of which meet or exceed Code requirements. Additionally, he noted the required central feature exceeds Code requirements for square footage, the landscape plan meets Code requirements, and the design and materiality of the proposed building meets contextual requirements and meets building standards. He stated staff finds the major amendment complies with the relevant standards in the Code subject to the approval of the modification of standard related to secondary uses, and is recommending approval. Commission Questions Vice Chair Shepard requested more information regarding the enclosed bicycle parking. Mr. Coutts replied there is some wall-mounted bike parking with overhead canopies, but the majority of the enclosed bike parking is in the DRAFTPacket pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 10 of 23 inside corner of the building entry which is quite wide and lined with bike racks. He stated the goal was to distribute the bike parking for residents. Vice Chair Shepard noted general office uses have a lower parking ratio requirement than medical office uses and asked if the 30 spaces that are being left for the existing building will leave it in compliance with the minimum parking requirements. Mr. Coutts replied in the affirmative and outlined the parking requirements for the uses in the building. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the owner of the existing office building is the applicant for this building. Mr. Coutts replied there are separate owners. Vice Chair Shepard stated the landscaping for this project carries the burden to help the office building and multi- family building blend together. He requested additional detail on the landscape plan. Mr. Coutts showed the landscape plan indicating existing and proposed landscape features. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the Eastbrook Drive building entrance noting it should be prominent as it is a key feature of the project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None. Commission Questions / Deliberation Chair Katz requested the Commission discuss the requested modification to Section 4.27(D)(2) regarding primary and secondary use ratios. Vice Chair Shepard noted the area could have been used as a larger denominator for determining the use ratio and the origin of the standard was when larger office parks were being done as part of large overall development plans. He agreed that had an ODP been in place, the extent of the modification would not have been extreme. Chair Katz concurred and stated the Code does not clearly define what the ratio is based on. He stated he would like to see the ratios addressed in future Code updates. Member Sass stated it is clear the modification meets the intent of the standard. Member Sass made a motion, seconded by Member Hogestad, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 4.27(D)(2) to allow the project to exceed the 25% limitation of secondary uses as described in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the following modification criteria are met: the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 4.27(D)(2) because the multi-family use will integrate into the existing area while not diminishing the purpose of the employment zone district, the plan as submitted will not diverge from Section 4.27(D)(2) except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code in Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Katz requested discussion on the major amendment. DRAFTPacket pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 11 of 23 Member Sass stated the amenity area on the northeast side of the new three-story building is going to be shadowed all winter long if there is no mitigation plan for that. He stated it is of importance that is a safe area during the winter months. Vice Chair Shepard suggested that area is likely to be shaded longer than just the winter months. He commented on the possibility of heated pavement or heaters, but agreed there is nothing in the Code that could be utilized to mandate those things. Member Hogestad stated the project meets the Code, but he doubts that area will be used without sunshine even if the ground is heated. Member Sass stated the area is appealing and will be nice in the summer months. Vice Chair Shepard commented on Section 3.8.30(F)(4) related to building entrances being made clearly visible from streets and public areas through the use of architectural elements and landscaping. He questioned whether the building entrance goes to a long hallway or a conditioned room and requested Commission input as to whether the entrance meets the standard. Member Sass stated entrances have been allowed to not face the street for certain reasons in the past. He questioned whether the Code is placing a hardship on the project by forcing the entrance to be on Eastbrook given the L-shape of the lot. He also noted the address numbers that will need to be placed at the entrance will help identify it. Chair Katz stated he is comfortable with the building entrance as designed. Member Sass commended the residential feel of the balconies on the building. Member Hogestad expressed appreciation for the residential aspects of the building. Member Stackhouse and Chair Katz commended the design. Member Stackhouse made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Shepard, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Seven Generations Major Amendment, MJA #220002. The Commission finds in consideration of the approved modification that the major amendment complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Chair Katz stated he would support the motion. Member Hogestad stated he likes seeing the residential use next to the office use and suggested more instances of that may occur as office building uses decline in popularity and land is left vacant. Member Stackhouse concurred and noted adjustments will need to be made to older PDPs as the desire for different uses occurs. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 4. The Landings at Lemay Rezone & Structure Plan Map Amendment DRAFTPacket pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 12 of 23 Project Description: This is a request to amend the Structure Plan Map and rezone 17.1 acres from the Industrial (I) zone district to the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone district. If approved, the rezoning is likely to facilitate a future proposal for a multifamily development project. Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Staff and Applicant Presentations Ryan Mounce, City Planner, provided a brief overview of the project. He stated it is a proposal to rezone approximately 17 acres east of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Duff Drive from industrial (I) zoning to medium-density mixed-use neighborhood (MMN) zoning. He noted City Council is the ultimate decision-maker in rezonings; therefore, staff is requesting a recommendation from the Commission. Mounce discussed the site and surrounding zoning. He noted the site is well defined with the railroad tracks to the north, the new realigned Lemay Avenue and overpass to the west, and the future extension of Cordova Road on the east. He stated the realignment of Lemay has not impacted the floodplain mapping in the area and noted no critical facilities would be allowed on the site given it is within the 500-year floodplain. Russ Lee, Ripley Design, stated many of the neighborhood meeting attendees were in favor of this rezoning. He outlined the Code criteria for rezoning, two of which are mandatory and three of which offer additional considerations. He stated the first mandatory criterion is that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or City Plan, and that the proposed rezoning meets several of the City Plan principles and policies, including adequate public facilities, compatibility of adjacent development, and providing a variety of housing types and densities, among others. The second mandatory criterion for rezonings is that the new zoning is warranted by changing conditions within the neighborhood. He commented on the number of changes to the area and its zoning in the past few years and noted there has been a decreased demand for industrial zoning in Fort Collins with an increased demand for housing. Mr. Lee commented on two additional considerations: that the zoning map be compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is an appropriate zone for the land, and that the zoning map amendment will result in a logical and orderly development pattern. He noted the subject property is ideally located between single-family to the west and existing industrial to the east. Additionally, it complements the existing multi- family to the south. The site is also located near several desirable amenities. Mr. Lee stated the applicant is willing and able to accept the three conditions presented by staff. He concluded by stating the proposal meets the two mandatory zoning amendment justifications and the three additional zoning amendment considerations. Additionally, the zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and meets several of its principles and policies. The zoning is warranted by changed conditions within the surrounding neighborhood, including the subject property, and multi-family would be a desirable zoning designation for this property. He stated there will be no adverse impacts to the natural environment and the zoning results in a logical and orderly development pattern. Mounce provided a detailed analysis of the proposed rezoning. He detailed the criteria for rezoning in the Code. Regarding compliance with City Plan, Mounce stated staff considered the land use guidance provided in City Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, both of which necessitate a Structure Plan Map amendment to change the place type from industrial to multi-family housing. Additionally, staff considered policy guidance from both City Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Mounce stated staff is recommending several conditions which are organized around the City’s residential metro district policy evaluation system, which asks developments to go above and beyond current code standards. He clarified this proposal is not seeking a residential metro district. The first condition being recommended as part of the rezoning is that the future residential development within its boundaries would achieve fifteen points within the energy renewables and water subcategories. The second recommended condition is that the residential development would achieve five combined points from the livability categories of the residential metro district point system. He outlined the different livability categories from which the applicant could choose. DRAFTPacket pg. 16 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 13 of 23 Mounce stated staff found the most support for the rezoning given changing conditions in the area. He stated infrastructure as well as land uses and zoning have changed in the area. He commented on the property’s lack of proximity to major highway corridors and stated the location is not the best suitable site for much of what is being seen now in terms of industrial development. Additionally, the site has transitioned from being in the middle of a broader industrial area to more of an edge, making it more appropriate for a broader range of uses. Mounce discussed staff’s analysis of the quality and quantity of industrial and employment land in the city. He stated the existing vacant industrial land is well suited to support the community into the future. Mounce commented on the trade-offs between industrial and multi-family zoning, including the potential for overall more traffic with multi-family, noisier traffic with industrial, and taller building heights with multi-family. He noted there are no identified sensitive natural habitat features on the site and stated staff’s finding is that the rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Mounce stated the Cordova Road extension would help with buffering between industrial and residential zoning; therefore, staff’s third recommended condition is that the residential buildings be set back 30 feet from the Cordova right-of-way, which would achieve the full buffering standard from the Code. He stated staff finds the rezoning petition complies with the applicable standards with the three recommended conditions. Commission Questions Vice Chair Shepard noted the parcel shape is not a square, but includes a notch that is not owned by this applicant and is not in city limits; however, that is where Cordova Road is slated to run. He questioned whether the subject parcel has the capability of dedicating the right-of-way for Cordova Road. Mounce replied that has come up during staff’s review, and the feedback to the applicant team in thinking about a future development project is that the extension of Cordova Road will be necessary to meet certain standards, including emergency access. Mr. Lee replied the applicant does have a letter of intent on the notched out property and is working through the process to purchase it to build Cordova Road. Vice Chair Shepard questioned why there is not a joint, two-ownership rezoning application. He suggested this rezoning may be premature and questioned whether the project can proceed under this uncertainty. Mr. Lee replied the applicant is confident in their ability to purchase the additional property and they would not be moving forward with this process without that confidence. Development Review Manager Everette noted the zoning is less pertinent on the other parcel because it is not developable for anything other than a roadway. Jessica Tuttle from the applicant team stated they were aware the parcel would need to be acquired for Cordova Road to extend and the site plan only shows the roadway on that parcel. Vice Chair Shepard noted the parcel is 150 feet wide and the roadway will not be that wide; therefore, there will be some outparcel awkwardness that may cause issues for surveyors, appraisers, and lenders. However, he stated he can see the City is comfortable with proceeding. Chair Katz asked if the City could involuntarily annex the parcel. Development Review Manager Everette replied it is already annexed. Mounce confirmed that information and noted it carries City zoning. Vice Chair Shepard expressed support for the third condition and asked if it would also apply to the north property line, which also abuts industrial zoning. Mounce replied the condition is currently not set up that way as the burden of the buffering would fall on the industrial land to the north if it is developed. Chair Katz stated it appears the applicant is willing to comply with the conditions, but questioned if they would be more appropriate at the PDP stage. Mounce replied the conditions would be recorded on the rezoning map to be part of the project development plan, and if they are not met, certificates of occupancy could be delayed. Member Hogestad asked why the entire parcel that is currently owned by the applicant is not being sought for rezoning. Mr. Lee replied this project was originally brought before staff when the Mulberry Corridor Plan was DRAFTPacket pg. 17 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 14 of 23 moving toward being redone, and staff wanted to focus on the 17 acres that Thompson Thrift really needed then wait to see what the Corridor Plan was going to say for the northern parcel. He stated the owners do want to have the entire property ultimately rezoned. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Sarah King expressed concern about the amount of traffic and taller buildings that would result from a multi-family development on the site. Staff Response Mounce stated a change in the zoning to MMN would increase the likelihood of taller buildings, though both zoning designations have similar height limits. He noted there are buffering and compatibility standards that work to address some of those concerns and issues at the time of a project development plan. Commission Questions / Deliberation Member Hogestad stated he is still struggling with the remaining small sliver of industrial zoning. Member Stackhouse questioned whether it is within the purview of the Commission to have an opinion as to whether the boundaries are too limited for the rezoning request. Mr. Yatabe stated the Commission should focus on the standards for the rezoning and Structure Plan Map amendment. Member Schneider stated the Commission has changed several properties with split zoning over the years and questioned why it should artificially create that situation which would normally not be desirable. He cited an example of a daycare parcel in Old Town that the Commission decided to change from two zone districts to one. Mounce stated the East Mulberry Corridor Plan update was just beginning when this rezoning was proposed, and there was a desire to look wholistically at the entire corridor for zoning or land use changes rather than having this particular rezoning occur in front of that process. He noted the update has been delayed, which has pushed this issue to the forefront. He noted staff may still want to look at these pieces of this property during the update and there may be some recommended changes to the land use guidance. He stated the boundary of this proposed rezoning lines up with the future extension of Link Lane; therefore, if the rezoning is approved, there is not necessarily going to be a situation wherein industrial zoning would be adjacent to residential. Member Schneider asked for examples of other properties on which split zoning has been created by a Commission decision. Mounce replied it is not common and he is unsure of the circumstances, though he is aware of some properties with split zoning. Vice Chair Shepard stated the existing Bucking Horse property was annexed with three or four different zone districts and the Bucking Horse development therefore required eight additions of permitted use. Vice Chair Shepard stated he appreciates staff’s attempt to address the industrial sections with the third condition that speaks to how a forthcoming project development plan would have to address that incongruity. He suggested the possibility of expanding on the condition to address these issues in more detail and with Code citations. He noted detention ponds are not considered buffers in the Code. He also stated it is incumbent upon the less intense land use, residential in this case, to provide the buffering between it and the industrial zoning. He stated he has a proposed condition that would expand on staff’s third condition. Member Sass questioned whether such a condition would be burdensome to the property owner. Vice Chair Shepard stated the parcel in question could potentially be placed into MMN zoning with the Mulberry Corridor Plan update. Mounce confirmed that is a possibility and noted the rezone boundaries were already in place when he took over this item as staff. Vice Chair Shepard expressed concern about the statement from the applicant team that the whole east side of the project could be a detention pond. He proposed to amend condition three as follows: residential buildings shall be DRAFTPacket pg. 18 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 15 of 23 set back a minimum of 30 feet from the Cordova Road right-of-way, as well as along the north property line that abuts industrial zoning and the possible extension of Link Lane. These two buffer yards must exceed buffer yard C as defined in Section 3.8.26, and be enhanced with additional attributes consisting of undulating earth and berms and dense landscaping comprised of an equal mix of evergreen trees and deciduous trees along with multiple shrub beds, to establish an effective and high-performing buffer in relationship to the industrial areas to the east and north. Such buffer yards must extend for the entire length of the project property lines that face the industrial area whether developed or vacant. Chair Katz stated he would support that amendment based on the current conversation. Member Schneider questioned why the development team cannot wait and come back with a proposal to rezone the entire property. Chair Katz asked the applicant if the intent is to replat and only procure a section of the parcel in question. Ms. Tuttle replied in the affirmative and reiterated staff requested them to only seek rezoning of the parcel they are purchasing and platting, which is the area south of a Link Lane extension. She noted the seller of that outlying parcel would like it to be rezoned. Vice Chair Shepard stated he is leaning toward approving this item, but only if there is a performance aspect that allows the Commission to be comfortable with MMN zoning on a direct edge with existing and future industrial zoning. Chair Sass commended the idea of making the condition performance based. Members discussed the definition of buffer yard and whether the amended condition would meet Code standards or provide an enhanced buffer situation over and above requirements. Member Schneider expressed concern it is not yet known where Cordova Road will lie on the 150-foot-wide parcel and it is known there will be some buffer on the east side of Cordova that will not be developed; therefore, he is unsure about the amended condition. Vice Chair Shepard stated the east side of Cordova will not include further enhancements because it is in the county and is fully developed. He expressed doubt the future sliver of property will ever be enhanced without an applicant doing a PDP with an associated landscape plan. Member Schneider expressed concern the amended condition adds restrictions to the existing property owner even though a further buffer distance will exist. Vice Chair Shepard agreed with that thinking and suggested the applicant could do both stormwater detention and a buffer yard. Member Schneider questioned whether this conversation would be better at a PDP level because dimensions and setbacks will be fully available at that time. He expressed concern about putting conditions on a rezone for unknown details. Vice Chair Shepard expressed concern about creating a parcel that has the potential to be isolated. He stated the MMN parcel must perform as such or it will not work as a rezoned property. Chair Katz asked Member Schneider if he believes even the staff proposed conditions are too extreme. Member Schneider replied that is his concern and stated the details should be sorted at the PDP level. Vice Chair Shepard suggested the possibility that rezoning should not occur without a project development plan. Chair Katz stated that does not make sense given the amount of planning that goes into a PDP on the part of an applicant. Chair Katz stated he is leaning with Member Schneider that the conditions should apply at a PDP level, not for this rezoning. DRAFTPacket pg. 19 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 16 of 23 Member Stackhouse stated there is some appeal to having benefits shown via the metro district criteria in a rezoning. She also stated that what the Cottages project was required to do should be continued either now or later; however, she would not discount the possibility of doing more. Member Schneider noted the Cottages project did not have to meet the residential metro district criteria. Member Stackhouse acknowledged that was true. Member Schneider stated this action would be pushing city-wide policies and agendas down onto development projects without even knowing what the project looks like. Chair Katz noted the metro district requirements add expense to projects which is then passed on to the renters or buyers. He stated he would prefer to see the conditions placed at the PDP level. Vice Chair Shepard stated that while the exact site plan is unknown, there was testimony that there would be a detention pond along Cordova. He stated he will not support the rezoning to MMN in an existing industrial park that does not have performance standards such as those provided in the conditions with a more detailed third condition. Member Stackhouse asked if there were any conditions on the Cottages rezoning. Mounce replied he was uncertain if there were any conditions on the rezoning, but noted that project has a slightly different context across Cordova because there are areas of MMN also on the east side of Cordova for part of that project and other areas where the MMN abuts industrial. Member Sass asked Vice Chair Shepard to be more specific in terms of what he would like to see over and above the Code minimum. Vice Chair Shepard replied the Code minimum would require a 30-foot buffer because the existence of Cordova Road reduces the buffer from 80 to 30 feet; however, the definitions of buffer yard and landscaping in the Code require a separation and buffer between incompatible uses. Chair Katz noted that would also be true at the PDP stage. Vice Chair Shepard argued that would not be so based on the testimony provided this evening. Member Sass noted the applicants have heard the Commission, and until they have hired an engineer to develop the rezoned lot, they do not know how large the detention pond needs to be. Vice Chair Shepard stated he would be uncomfortable allowing the rezoning to go through without the knowledge that there will be some performance aspect to the proposed land use, otherwise, this is not a good place for multi- family housing. Chair Katz argued it is a good place for multi-family housing based on the context. Vice Chair Shepard stated only the three conditions make that so. Chair Katz again stated those would have the same effect at the PDP level. Members Sass and Stackhouse agreed with the first two conditions and having those apply at this time. Vice Chair Shepard stated this project cannot just meet bare minimum requirements because of its placement in the industrial zone. He stated the buffer cannot just be a detention pond and a setback but needs to be designed to a high level so it is effective and high-performing, otherwise the incompatible relationship between multi-family and industrial is not being addressed. Chair Katz stated he believes other members agree with that sentiment; however, he is having a hard time over- restricting the project at this high level. Member Schneider concurred and noted the applicant team has stated the conditions are acceptable. He also stated he would be willing to apply the first two conditions, but stated the third pushes too far at this level of the process. Vice Chair Shepard argued the first two conditions are philosophically similar to the third: energy conservation, water conservation, and buffering, which are all performance oriented. Member Schneider respectfully disagreed. Chair Katz stated there are too many unknowns at this point to include the third condition. DRAFTPacket pg. 20 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 17 of 23 Vice Chair Shepard stated he would like the applicant to made a statement at the podium that they will create a more enhanced, effective, and high-performing buffer than the 30 feet between Capstone Cottages and Cordova Road, which he stated was an unacceptable design. Mr. Lee stated the purpose of Code Section 3.8.26 is to provide standards to separate residential land uses and high-occupancy building units from existing industrial uses in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances; therefore, the Code already requires a buffer yard at the PDP level. Member Stackhouse suggested proceeding with motions. Vice Chair Shepard asked the applicant to address whether it has an equal condition along Cordova and the north property line. Mr. Lee replied the project would absolutely have to apply with the applicable buffer yard section of the Code in both cases. Member Hogestad expressed disappointment the third condition could not have gone a bit farther, as suggested by Vice Chair Shepard. Chair Katz stated that can be done at the PDP level. Member Stackhouse made a motion, seconded by Member Sass, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Structure Plan Map to change the place type designation for the property to the mixed neighborhood place type, finding that the change to the Structure Plan Map is needed for the property to rezone to the medium-density mixed- use neighborhood zone district. The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, and Katz. Nays: Shepard. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Stackhouse made a motion, seconded by Member Schneider, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council approve the rezoning of the property to the medium-density mixed-use neighborhood zone district with two staff recommended conditions: one, residential development within the boundaries of the Landing at Lemay rezoning shall achieve fifteen combined points from the energy renewables and water subcategories of the 2021 residential metro district point system, and two, residential development within the boundaries of the Landing at Lemay rezoning shall achieve five combined points from the neighborhood livability category of the 2021 residential metro district point system. In consideration of the conditions, the rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the property, the rezoning would be compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the property and is the appropriate zone district for the property, the rezoning would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, and the rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the commission discussion on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this item contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Hogestad, Schneider, Sass, and Katz. Nays: Shepard. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) DRAFTPacket pg. 21 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 18 of 23 5. Castle Ridge Group Home Project Development Plan / Final Development Plan Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to convert an existing single-family dwelling into a 10-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 Commission (Type 2) Review. (**Secretary’s Note: Vice Chair Shepard withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported several emails have been received both in favor of and in opposition to the item. Additionally, a photo was just recently provided by Greg Lesartre which will be updated as part of the packet after the meeting. Staff and Applicant Presentations Kai Kleer, City Planner, discussed the reasonable accommodation request submitted by the applicants which would grant relief from Code Section 3.8(A) to allow for ten residents, which would typically be limited to eight. He noted the decision maker for these requests is the CDNS Director, Paul Sizemore, in this case, and the process is not open to public input; only the applicant can appeal the decision and the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot alter the decision as part of its consideration of the project. He stated the reasonable accommodation request was approved with the following conditions: the proposal must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the project will be subject to the requirements of the low-density residential zone district, and that the project may be subject to conditions of approval including, but not limited to, requirements for parking, limitation of hours of drop-off and pick-up, regulations of lighting intensity and hours of illumination, requirements related to trash and recycling screening, storage, and fencing, and the facility will be required to implement measures to mitigate impacts and retain the residential character, including the maintenance of the garage doors, no exterior signage, and no more than two staff working on-site at any given time, with and exception for emergencies and shift changes. City Planner Kleer outlined the original proposal for 16 residents that was previously denied by the Commission. He discussed the project location and proposal for a ten-resident assisted living group home, the retention of two garage spaces for the use of employees, and four parking spaces within the driveway. He noted parking is proposed to be managed through a parking app. Kleer discussed the neighborhood meeting held in July and noted comments included questions and concerns about the proposed number of residents, parking impacts generated particularly given the narrowness of the street, a general feeling this is not an appropriate land use, concerns about procedural requirements being met for postings, and impacts to the privacy of neighboring properties, among others. Stephanie Hansen, Craft X Studio, noted the applicants, who are current residents, will be moving out of the home once it becomes a residential home for seniors. She discussed the ten-bed request and noted the HOA did approve the use. She discussed how this proposal addresses neighborhood concerns, including by only showing parking off-street with employees parking in the garage, utilizing a parking app to manage the driveway parking spaces, and ensuring therapists, nurses, and grocery deliveries can only occur Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday between 9 AM and 2 PM so as to avoid peak hours. Ms. Hansen stated the applicants offered to meet with the neighbors on either side of the property to show them the house and discuss the project, but neighbors have yet to respond. Additionally, it was determined another neighborhood meeting would not be particularly valuable. DRAFTPacket pg. 22 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 19 of 23 Ms. Hansen discussed the street width, which is two feet narrower than a standard neighborhood street. She stated the parking issues in the neighborhood exist currently and she does not believe this use will drastically impact roadway parking. She discussed the change in window orientation and screening that would help provide privacy for the neighbors. Ms. Hansen discussed other residential group homes in town, comparing parking and overall residential feel of the properties. She summarized by stating this project meets the Code and is not requesting any modifications or variances. City Planner Kleer provided a detailed analysis of the project. He discussed proposed changes to the property, including a change in fencing, a change to windows and a screen wall to address privacy concerns, a new shrub bed that will provide screening for the neighbor’s yard, an enclosed covered patio, and the retention of the two garage spaces. He provided detailed images of the proposed bicycle parking, exterior lighting fixtures, courtyard security gate, and screen wall in front of the window. Kleer discussed the staff proposed conditions. The first is to reduce the potential impacts to on-street parking, noise, and other types of disturbances, to the extent reasonably feasible, hours of operation for third-party services shall be limited to the hours of 8 to 6, Monday through Saturday, and staggered in a way to reduce the on-street parking impacts. He noted Ms. Hansen indicated those visits would be even more limited. Kleer stated the second recommended condition is that the property owner cooperate in good faith to remedy any unforeseen impacts created through the operation of the group home. Kleer stated staff finds the project development plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements in Article 2, conditionally complies with Article 3, and complies with all relevant standards in Article 4, and is recommending conditional approval of the Castle Ridge Group Home. Commission Questions Member Stackhouse asked about the statement that the HOA has approved the occupancy level. Ms. Hansen replied the HOA saw the reasonable accommodation and agreed to approve the ten residents per that request. Member Schneider asked how the parking app can control on-street parking. Ms. Hansen replied the app would specifically apply to the off-street spaces. Eric Shenk, property owner, stated the peak number of cars at his home, assuming a normal day, would be in the five to seven range; therefore, the parking app should help to mitigate on-street impacts as the site provides six spaces. Mr. Shenk asked how friends and family will be encouraged to use the parking app. Ms. Hansen replied it can be written into the lease as a requirement and she noted that is in place with the current residents. Member Hogestad asked if maintenance and service contractor vehicles will also be required to use the app. Ms. Hansen replied in the affirmative and noted all service industry staff that will be regularly responding to resident needs have agreed the Tuesday-Thursday schedule is acceptable. Chair Katz reminded those in chambers that the reasonable accommodation request that was granted cannot be changed by the Commission and it should therefore be avoided as a topic. (**Secretary’s Note: Chair Katz made a determination as to which members of the public would be dedicating time to other speakers at this point in the meeting.) Public Input (3 minutes per person) Dr. Steve Sunderman expressed support for the previous denial of the project and suggested the revised project would lead to the same devastating results to the community that the original proposal would have had. He stated objections from the neighbors have been universal and the applicants have repeatedly presented false expectations about traffic, parking, visitation, change in residential appearance, noise, and safety. He asserted he DRAFTPacket pg. 23 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 20 of 23 has never been asked to see the home and talk with the applicants despite making that request. He stated the HOA covenants make it clear there will be no high-traffic uses in the neighborhood. Dr. Sunderman claimed the applicants have misrepresented their credentials and are currently housing two residents without a license. Additionally, he stated the use of Fair Housing Act accommodations is not appropriate in this situation as the applicants are not members of a protected class. He stated City staff has consistently tried to push this project through without due process and outlined the ways in which this project would decrease property values in the neighborhood. He requested the Commission deny this proposal in its entirety. Kurt Johnson commented on narrow street issues in the neighborhood, particularly right in front of the subject property. He compared this project to Seneca House, which he stated has key built-in parking advantages. He suggested the parking app will not last long term and stated the operational plan is optimistic and dubious. He stated it is far too risky to approve this home for ten residents, which is above what the Code would allow by two. He stated the same issues exist with this proposal as with the original proposal and suggested it could be possible to approve the use with the number of residents allowed by Code then increase that number based on demonstrated compatibility. He also suggested additional conditions such as no bus or van parking on Castle Ridge and requiring deliveries and short-term visits must exclusively use the driveway. He stated the HOA Board was pressured by the applicants’ attorney to approve this proposal and stated the HOA cannot be expected to monitor for parking issues. Mike Leuzze stated this proposal is being done solely for the financial gain of the applicants and he also stated the HOA approved the proposal out of fear of reprisal. He commented on the difficulties of navigating the street during snowstorms. Barbara Suhrstedt stated this is a residential neighborhood and no one is making a profit; however, this is a proposal for a profit-making business which is opening the door for unintended consequences. Steve Rhodes stated this is a home for declining patients and suggested having two caregivers for ten residents is unrealistic. He stated there will be traffic at odd hours and noted visitors are unpredictable. Tony Doing stated this is a private road and the City would not take over maintenance as it is too narrow for a snow plow. He reiterated parking concerns and stated the house has four garage spaces; however, they want to increase the number of residents, so they are proposing to take away two of those. Erin Ellis stated these types of residential assisted living homes are an important resource in the community and they help to make communities better. He discussed his experience running a home in the Nedrah Acres neighborhood and commented on how these homes do not disparage property values, but rather improve neighborhoods. Applicant Response Ms. Hansen clarified the applicants have only reached out to the next door neighbors for meetings and stated the applicants have had to get a cease and desist order due to harassment from other neighbors. Additionally, she stated there will be a property manager available 24/7 for any concerns and the two residents who are currently living at the home are doing so completely legally. She noted the applicants did offer a circular driveway option, but that was immediately rejected by neighbors. Ms. Hansen stated two Medicaid beds would have been part of the 16-resident plan; however, those have been removed due to the reduction in the number of residents. She stated there will not be a bus or large van on the site. Additionally, she noted the applicants’ attorney did not in any way attempt to threaten the HOA into agreeing to this proposal. Staff Response Kleer commented on Dr. Sunderman’s assertion that staff has tried to push this project through and noted staff is just processing the application as it would any other and is evaluating it through staff review for compliance with applicable codes; ultimately, the decision is up to the decision-maker, not staff. He also noted the original sign that DRAFTPacket pg. 24 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 21 of 23 was posted for the neighborhood meeting was taken down for some yard work and has since been replaced. Additionally, the mailed notice was completed in compliance with the Code. Kleer clarified this use falls under the definition of a group home, not a long-term care facility. Chair Katz asked about the accusation of staff censoring members of the public. Kleer replied there were efforts made by staff to try to set up a second neighborhood meeting for the residents who did not feel like they were heard at the first meeting; however, in the end, the applicant team found it would potentially not be productive to have that meeting. Everette noted staff hosts neighborhood meetings, not the applicant team, and staff always reserves the right to facilitate those meetings in a way that promotes respectful and productive dialogue. Commission Questions / Deliberation Member Sass asked if trash is handled through the HOA. Ms. Hansen replied everyone has individual trash haulers and the plan is to have three individual trash cans and one recycle bin that will stay in the garage or courtyard out of sight until they are taken to the curb on trash pick-up day. Member Hogestad asked if there are only two staff members on site. Ms. Hansen replied in the affirmative. Member Stackhouse commented on the role of the Commission: to assess compliance with the Code. She noted this use is permitted in low-density residential zones and a reasonable accommodation request was granted for ten residents. Member Hogestad stated, in consideration of impacts related to parking, the operational aspects must be understood. He stated he did not believe two people could do all of the necessary work for the operation. Member Sass stated he is empathetic to this need in the community and noted the two workers are caregivers, not plumbers and maintenance personnel. Member Hogestad questioned where people making meals and doing laundry would park. He stated the ultimate issue is that operational considerations are not enforceable and he stated he doubted the parking app would work smoothly and parking issues would not impact the neighborhood. Member Schneider expressed concern about the parking impacts given this property is in the middle of a neighborhood rather than on the periphery. He also expressed doubt the parking app would work successfully and stated he is concerned the considerations being raised about parking may lead to compatibility issues, particularly with the narrowness of the street. Member Hogestad expressed doubt the parking will work as presented. Member Stackhouse asked how much off-street parking was provided in the original proposal. Kleer replied this proposal offers two additional garage spaces. Chair Katz asked what Code standards should be considered. Member Stackhouse replied it is Section 3.5.1(J) related to operation and physical compatibility. Member Stackhouse stated she was very concerned about parking with the original proposal; however, this is an improved proposal given there are two additional parking spaces with fewer residents. She questioned whether street width could be used as a criterion for denial given the use is allowed. Member Schneider stated the two-foot reduction makes a big difference, even with smaller vehicles. He also stated the reality is that family members will visit residents when desired rather than attempting to go when a parking space was available. Member Hogestad stated this would be easier to approve on a public street and suggested the street width is quite important in this consideration. DRAFTPacket pg. 25 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 22 of 23 Chair Katz noted there are many unknowns and the Code is the only tool the Commission can utilize to make this decision. Member Hogestad argued it is not unlikely the four spaces other than the garage will be utilized by those doing the cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Member Stackhouse stated she believes the two caretakers are doing the cooking and laundry based on the previous hearing. Member Schneider noted the residents are memory care patients who may not require a high level of hands-on care. He stated he is struggling with determining how much of an impact this will provide to the neighborhood and whether it is a reasonable impact. Chair Katz noted the impacts will ebb and flow throughout the day, week, and year. Member Sass noted group homes are allowed in the zone, six parking spaces are provided, and this use will not create any more of an impact than a household with three driving children and two driving parents. He stated he would have a hard time stating this is incompatible. Member Stackhouse stated she tends to agree and stated the concerns that were raised previously are somewhat mitigated by the decrease in the number of residents. Member Hogestad stated he believes the parking impact is too great as the street was never built to sustain a commercial use. Members concurred the use of the parking app should not be considered in the decision. Chair Katz asked if this would still be a type 2 hearing if there were only eight residents proposed. Kleer replied in the affirmative. Chair Katz stated he would support the project. Member Sass made a motion, seconded by Member Stackhouse, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning 7 Commission approve the Castle Ridge Group Home, Project Development Plan and Final Development 8 Plan, PDP220013, with staff recommended conditions as stated in the staff report. This approval is only 9 for a group home for memory care described in the agenda materials and not for any other type of group 10 home. The Commission finds in consideration of the conditions and approved reasonable 11 accommodation that the project development plan and final development plan comply with all applicable 12 Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and 13 materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. 14 Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions 15 regarding this project development plan and final development plan contained in the staff report included 16 in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Schneider thanked all who spoke and are engaged in this item and stated his decision will only be based on his interpretation of the Code. Member Stackhouse also thanked those who spoke and stated these decisions are difficult given the Code interpretations that are needed. Chair Katz concurred these decisions are difficult as both the neighbors and the applicants have rights and it is almost impossible to accommodate all sides. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stackhouse, Sass, and Katz. Nays: Hogestad and Schneider. THE MOTION CARRIED. DRAFTPacket pg. 26 Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2022 Page 23 of 23 Other Business Chair Katz thanked Members Hogestad and Schneider for their service on the Commission. Member Schneider thanked staff and wished the Commissioners the best of luck moving forward. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned December 16, 2022 at 1:09 AM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: February 16, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 27 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: February 16, 2023 BDR220007, Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Summary of Request This is a request to plat an unplatted lot at 835 Wood St. The property is owned by the city. The platting of the property is to facilitate minor amendments for upgrading a fueling station and an addition to the existing city maintenance facility. Zoning Map (ctrl + click map to follow link) Next Steps If approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant will be eligible to submit mylars for recording with Larimer County and the City. Once the plat has been recorded the applicant may complete the minor amendment process for the property. Site Location Located west of Wood St., north of W. Vine Dr. at 835 Wood St. (parcel # 9702300920). Zoning Employment District (E) Property Owner City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Blake Visser City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards .......................................................... 3 4. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards ................................... 4 Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ......................................................... 6 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7 6. Recommendation ....................................... 7 7. Attachments ............................................... 7 8. Links ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval with one condition. Site Wood St UE Larimer County E POL POL E CL Packet pg. 28 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 BDR220007 | Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request to plat an existing unplatted lot. The parcel is 6.36 acres and is owned by the city. The property is used as a fleet maintenance facility and fueling station for city vehicles. • This plat is in conjunction with two minor amendments under review. Minor amendments cannot be made to unplatted property. The request complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code, specifically: • Standards and requirements located in Section 3.3.1 Plat Standards in Article 3 General Development Standards: and • Division 2.17 City Projects: and • Section 2.18.2 Minor Subdivisions B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Development Status/Background The site has been use as a city maintenance facility since 1979, and was annexed into the city along with other city owned property in 1987. The site currently provides maintenance facilities for fleet and public transit vehicles along with a fueling station for city vehicles. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Unincorporated Larimer County Employment (E) Urban Estate (UE) Unincorporated Larimer County Land Use Agricultural / Residential Vehicle Storage (City Facility) Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Site Packet pg. 29 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 BDR220007 | Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Plat is intended to facilitate upcoming additions and maintenance projects to the existing facility. The Land Use Code does not allow Minor Amendments to unplatted properties. The platting of the parcel will allow these upcoming projects to move forward. D. CITY PLAN (2019) The City’s comprehensive plan (2019 City Plan) was developed with the participation of thousands of community members and embodies the vision and values of the community for the future. A basic aspect of the vision pertinent to the proposal is the unique character and sense of place in Fort Collins. The subject property is part of an “Mixed Employment District” land use designation, for which City Plan provides the following pertinent guidance: p.77 “Principle T 2: Build and maintain high-quality infrastructure that supports all modes of travel.” Policy T 2.6 - MAINTENANCE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT Protect investment in transportation facilities, systems and services through a proactive, high quality maintenance program using principles of asset management. p.81 “Principle T 5: Ensure that transit is a safe, affordable, efficient and convenient travel option for people of all ages and abilities.” 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 Subdivision application. This project has been processed as a Minor Subdivision in accordance with Section 2.18.2 – Minor Subdivisions 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. A neighborhood meeting was not conducted. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This application was posted on the City’s Development Review website as it is being reviewed. During the review of the minor amendment, no public comments were received. Comments received after the hearing notice will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. MINOR SUBDIVISION PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. First Submittal – BDR220007 A Minor Subdivision Plan was submitted on November 09, 2022. 2. Second Submittal – BDR220007 The Minor Subdivision Plan was resubmitted on January 39, 2023. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Not Applicable Packet pg. 30 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 BDR220007 | Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Applicable only for Minor Subdivisions that result in the creation of no more than one (1) additional lot. No notice required. Notice of Hearing: Written notice: February 1, 2023, 50 letters sent. Published Notice: Scheduled for February 5, 2023. B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant is not requesting a modification of standards. 4. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development 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 The standards of this section require that a development plan demonstrate a comprehensive approach to landscaping that enhances the appearance and function of the neighborhood, buildings, and pedestrian environment. No alterations proposed N/A 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard This standard requires that development projects accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit throughout the project and to and from surrounding areas safely and conveniently and contribute to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. No alterations proposed N/A 3.2.4 – Site Lighting This standard requires that exterior lighting not adversely affect the properties, neighborhood, or natural features adjacent to the development. Further, the standard requires exterior lighting to be examined in a way that considers the light source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need. No alterations proposed N/A Packet pg. 31 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 BDR220007 | Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Section 3.2.5 – Trash and 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 alterations proposed N/A B. DIVISION 3.3 - ENGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.3.1 – Plat and Development Plan Standards These standards outline requirements for the platting of property within the city limits and include general plat requirements, lot standards, and requirements for public sites, reservations and dedications. • The proposed plat meets the general plat requirements. • The lot boundaries are not changing and the requirements for this section and the zoning district requirements. • An emergency access agreement will accompany this plat. • ROW dedication along Wood St. is in process and is anticipated to be approved by Council on 2/7. Complies C. DIVISION 3.4 - ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when property is developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site will protect the natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats The site is not within 500 feet of an identified natural habitat or feature; therefore, the standards of this section do not apply. No alterations proposed N/A 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources This standard is intended to ensure that development is compatible with and protects historic resources and that the design of new structures is compatible with and protects the integrity of historic resources located within the area of adjacency. Review of this project under 3.4.7 was waived by Historic Preservation staff because any historic resources within 200 feet are across a major 4 or 6-lane arterial, which reduces any design compatibility requirements considerably. In addition to the mitigating factor of the arterial separation, the placement of the building on the western portion of the development site further separates the new construction from the midcentury era properties across College Avenue. In this case, a more practical, common sense N/A Packet pg. 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 BDR220007 | Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top approach is for the design of the new construction to follow the general design standards and zone district standards elsewhere in the land use code. No alterations proposed 3.4.8 – Parks and Trails This standard requires compliance of development plans with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan to ensure that the community will have a fair and equitable system of parks, trail and recreation facilities as the community grows. No alterations proposed N/A D. DIVISION 3.5 - BUILDING STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility 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. No alterations proposed N/A 3.5.3 - Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale. No alterations proposed N/A E. DIVISION 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 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This standard states,” all developments shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and emergency services by complying with Article 9, Fire Department Access and Water Supply, of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. All emergency access ways, easements, rights-of-way or other rights required to be granted pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code must include not only access rights for fire protection purposes, but also for all other emergency services.” The project has been reviewed by Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) and currently meets the needs and requirements of PFA regulations. An emergency access agreement is being drafted but has not been formalized. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires this agreement to be finalized prior to recording of the plat. Condition of Approval Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: Packet pg. 33 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 BDR220007 | Fleet Maintenance Subdivision Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top F. DIVISION 4.27 – EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E) The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.27 District standards do not impact parcel size or boundaries. No alterations proposed N/A 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the BDR220007, Fleet Maintenance Subdivision, Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 – Employment District (E) in Article 4. 4. Staff recommends the following condition of approval for the proposed project to comply with LUC Section 3.6.6, Emergency Access: Prior to the recording of any approved Plat documents, the applicant shall: a. Provide the City with an emergency access agreement meeting the access requirements provided by Poudre Fire Authority. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Fleet Maintenance Subdivision, BDR220007 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials, subject to one condition. 7. Attachments 1. Plat plans 2. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 34 S89°55'30"W 534.30' (MEAS)530.00' (REC)S0°04'30"E 276.00'(MEAS & REC)S89°56'55"W 129.89' (MEAS)S89°55'30"W 130.00' (REC)S0°13'29"E 197.78' (MEAS)S0°04'30"E 198.00' (REC)N89°55'30"E 663.63' (MEAS)660.00' (REC)N0°04'07"W 473.73'(MEAS) 474.00' (REC)N89°56'09"E 2648.16'S0°03'45"E 2657.03'N89°59'21"W 2647.58'(BASIS OF BEARINGS) N0°04'30"W 2653.55'S89°58'24"W 1323.93'S89°58'24"W 1323.93'S0°04'07"E 1327.64'S0°04'07"E 1327.64' 1326.78'1326.78'1324.08'1324.08'1328.51'1328.51'1323.79'1323.79'N89°55'30"E 789.62' (MEAS) (790.00' REC)N0°04'30"W 1266.00' (MEAS & REC) 793.98'59.66'4025 Automation Way, Suite C4Fort Collins, CO 80525970-232-9645www.WashburnSurveying.comSheet 1 of 3 Project #: 2020-007 Date: December 30, 2022 Scale: N/A Drawn: CDBNOTICEACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEYWITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANYDEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION.Scale: 1"=250'FORT COLLINS FLEET MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6THPRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOGENERAL NOTES:1. DEFINITION: CERTIFY, CERTIFICATION - A PROFESSIONAL'S OPINION BASED ON HIS OR HER OBSERVATION OFCONDITIONS, KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEFS. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROFESSIONAL'SCERTIFICATION OF A CONDITION'S EXISTENCE RELIEVES NO OTHER PARTY OF ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR OBLIGATION HEOR SHE HAS ACCEPTED BY CONTRACT OR CUSTOM.2. PER C.R.S. 18-04-508, ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEYMONUMENT OR LAND MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY, COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR.3. ALL REFERENCES HEREON TO BOOKS, PAGES, MAPS AND RECEPTION NUMBERS ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS FILED IN THERECORDS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO.4. EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS SHOWN OR NOTED HEREON WERE EXAMINED AS TO LOCATION AND PURPOSEAND WERE NOT EXAMINED AS TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS, TERMS, OR AS TO THERIGHT TO GRANT THE SAME..5. PER C.R.S. 38-51-106, "ALL LINEAL UNITS DEPICTED ON THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT ARE U.S. SURVEY FEET. ONE METEREQUALS 39.37/12 U.S. SURVEY FEET, EXACTLY ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS ANDTECHNOLOGY.6. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. MONUMENTED AS SHOWN HEREON.7. THERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS THAT PROHIBIT OR LIMIT THE INSTALLATIONOF RESOURCE CONSERVING EQUIPMENT OR LANDSCAPING THAT ARE ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 12-120-12-122 OF THECITY CODE.TITLE COMMITMENT NOTES:FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TITLE OF RECORD, WASHBURN LAND SURVEYING, LLCRELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT ORDER NUMBER FCIF25172822, BY OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 27, 2020 AT 5:00 P.M.. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE IN REGARDS TO THE ABOVEREFERENCED TITLE COMMITMENT.STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION:KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING OWNWER(S) OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND:BEGINNING AT A POINT 1266 FEET NORTH OF THE SW CORNER OF SECTION 2, T.7N., R.69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,AND RUN THENCE EAST 790 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE SOUTH 276 FEET; THENCE WEST 130 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 198 FEET; THENCE EAST 660 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EAST LINE OFTHE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE NORTH 474 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE;THENCE WEST 530 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.. . . (WHICH ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 6.400 ACRES, MORE OR LESS)FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (COLLECTIVELY,“OWNER”) HAVE CAUSED THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND TO BESURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS, TRACTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS FORT COLLINS FLEETMAINTENANCE SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOW OF RECORD OR EXISTING OR INDICATED ON THIS PLAT.THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND.CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION:THE OWNER DOES HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO (HEREAFTER “CITY”), FOR PUBLIC USE,FOREVER, A PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET PURPOSES AND THE “EASEMENTS” AS LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT;PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT (1) ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THIS DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON THE CITY A DUTY TOMAINTAIN THE EASEMENTS SO DEDICATED, AND (2) ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THIS DEDICATION OF STREETS DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON THECITY A DUTY TO MAINTAIN STREETS SO DEDICATED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE HAVE BEENFULLY SATISFIED. THE STREETS DEDICATED ON THIS PLAT ARE THE FEE PROPERTY OF THE CITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-23-107 C.R.S.THE CITY’S RIGHTS UNDER THE EASEMENTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, OPERATE, ACCESS, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, REMOVEAND REPLACE WITHIN THE EASEMENTS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE EASEMENTS; THE RIGHTTO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE GATES IN ANY FENCES THAT CROSS THE EASEMENTS; THE RIGHT TO MARK THE LOCATION OF THEEASEMENTS WITH SUITABLE MARKERS; AND THE RIGHT TO PERMIT OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES TO EXERCISE THESE SAME RIGHTS. OWNERRESERVES THE RIGHT TO USE THE EASEMENTS FOR PURPOSES THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FULL ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTSHEREBY GRANTED. THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ITS OWN IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BYITS ACTIVITIES IN THE EASEMENTS, BUT BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEDICATION, THE CITY DOES NOT ACCEPT THE DUTY OF MAINTENANCE OFTHE EASEMENTS, OR OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EASEMENTS THAT ARE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY. OWNER WILL MAINTAIN THE SURFACE OFTHE EASEMENTS IN A SANITARY CONDITION IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE WEED, NUISANCE OR OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN AN APPROVED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT OR OTHER WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, OWNER WILLNOT INSTALL ON THE EASEMENTS, OR PERMIT THE INSTALLATION ON THE EASEMENTS, OF ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE, IMPROVEMENT,FENCE, RETAINING WALL, SIDEWALK, TREE OR OTHER LANDSCAPING (OTHER THAN USUAL AND CUSTOMARY GRASSES AND OTHER GROUNDCOVER). IN THE EVENT SUCH OBSTACLES ARE INSTALLED IN THE EASEMENTS, THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THE OWNER TO REMOVESUCH OBSTACLES FROM THE EASEMENTS. IF OWNER DOES NOT REMOVE SUCH OBSTACLES, THE CITY MAY REMOVE SUCH OBSTACLESWITHOUT ANY LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION FOR REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT THEREOF, AND CHARGE THE OWNER THE CITY’S COSTS FOR SUCHREMOVAL. IF THE CITY CHOOSES NOT TO REMOVE THE OBSTACLES, THE CITY WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO THE OBSTACLES ORANY OTHER PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTACHED. THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE CITY BY THIS PLAT INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THECITY’S AGENTS, LICENSEES, PERMITTEES AND ASSIGNS.ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN DULY EXECUTED AS REQUIREDPURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.3(C)(3)(A) THROUGH (E) INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND USE CODE OFTHE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND THAT ALL PERSONS SIGNING THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT ONBEHALF OF A CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY ARE DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIESUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. THIS CERTIFICATION IS BASED UPON THERECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AS OF THEDATE OF EXECUTION OF THE PLAT AND OTHER INFORMATION DISCOVERED BY ME THROUGHREASONABLE INQUIRY AND IS LIMITED AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2.2.3(C)(3)(F) OF THELAND USE CODE.ATTORNEY:__________________________________ADDRESS:__________________________________ __________________________________REGISTRATION NO.:______________APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER:BY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS______ DAYOF____________A.D.,______.CITY ENGINEERPLANNING APPROVAL:BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS______ DAY OF____________A.D.,______. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESSURVEYOR'S STATEMENTI, CHAD R. WASHBURN, A COLORADO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THISSUBDIVISION PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION, THAT THEMONUMENTATION AS INDICATED HEREON WERE FOUND OR SET AS SHOWN, AND THAT THE FORGOING PLAT IS ANACCURATE REPRESENTATION THEREOF, ALL THIS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF.CHAD R. WASHBURN, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORCOLORADO PLS 37963FOR AND ON BEHALF OFWASHBURN LAND SURVEYING, LLC.VICINITY MAPScale: 1"≈500'MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE:THE OWNER HEREBY WARRANTS AND GUARANTEES TO THE CITY, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION ANDFIRST ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WARRANTED HEREUNDER, THE FULL AND COMPLETE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OFTHE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT. THIS WARRANTYAND GUARANTEE IS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY LAND USE CODE AND/OR THE TRANSITIONAL LAND USE REGULATIONS, ASAPPLICABLE. THIS GUARANTEE APPLIES TO THE STREETS AND ALL OTHER APPURTENANT STRUCTURES AND AMENITIES LYING WITHIN THERIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL CURBING, SIDEWALKS, BIKE PATHS,DRAINAGE PIPES, CULVERTS, CATCH BASINS, DRAINAGE DITCHES AND LANDSCAPING. ANY MAINTENANCE AND/OR REPAIR REQUIRED ONUTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OWNING UTILITY COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT. THE OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN SAIDIMPROVEMENTS IN A MANNER THAT WILL ASSURE COMPLIANCE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS WITH ALL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, SAFETYREQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. THE OWNER SHALL ALSO CORRECT AND REPAIR, ORCAUSE TO BE CORRECTED AND REPAIRED, ALL DAMAGES TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT-RELATED ORBUILDING-RELATED ACTIVITIES. IN THE EVENT THE OWNER FAILS TO CORRECT ANY DAMAGES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER WRITTENNOTICE THEREOF, THEN SAID DAMAGES MAY BE CORRECTED BY THE CITY AND ALL COSTS AND CHARGES BILLED TO AND PAID BY THEOWNER. THE CITY SHALL ALSO HAVE ANY OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. ANY DAMAGES WHICH OCCURREDPRIOR TO THE END OF SAID TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD AND WHICH ARE UNREPAIRED AT THE TERMINATION OF SAID PERIOD SHALL REMAIN THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER. REPAIR GUARANTEE: IN CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS FINAL PLAT AND OTHER VALUABLECONSIDERATION, THE OWNER DOES HEREBY AGREE TO HOLD THE CITY HARMLESS FOR A FIVE (5) YEAR PERIOD, COMMENCING UPON THEDATE OF COMPLETION AND FIRST ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH THEDEVELOPMENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT, FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, OR DEMANDS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF THEDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREIN; AND THE OWNER FURTHERMORE COMMITS TOMAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, TO INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE ROADS, STREETS, FILLS,EMBANKMENTS, DITCHES, CROSS PANS, SUB-DRAINS, CULVERTS, WALLS AND BRIDGES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OFWAY, EASEMENTS AND OTHERPUBLIC PROPERTIES, RESULTING FROM FAILURES CAUSED BY DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS. THIS AGREEMENT TO HOLD THECITY HARMLESS INCLUDES DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP, AS WELL AS DEFECTS CAUSED BY OR CONSISTING OF SETTLINGTRENCHES, FILLS OR EXCAVATIONS. FURTHER, THE OWNER WARRANTS THAT HE/SHE OWNS FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOWNHEREON AND AGREES THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE OWNER OR HIS/HER SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST DURING THE WARRANTYPERIOD, FOR ANY CLAIM OF DAMAGES RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE IN EXERCISING ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES AND DUE CAUTION IN THECONSTRUCTION OF CROSS DRAINS, DRIVES, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS, THE CHANGING OF COURSES OF STREAMS AND RIVERS, FLOODINGFROM NATURAL CREEKS AND RIVERS, AND ANY OTHER MATTER WHATSOEVER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. ANY AND ALL MONETARY LIABILITYOCCURRING UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE THE LIABILITY OF THE OWNER. I FURTHER WARRANT THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONVEYSAID LAND ACCORDING TO THIS PLAT.NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS:ALL PERSONS TAKE NOTICE THAT THE OWNER HAS EXECUTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATECERTAIN RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE OWNER AND/OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OF ALL OR PORTIONS OF THEDEVELOPMENT SITE, MANY OF WHICH OBLIGATIONS CONSTITUTE PROMISES AND COVENANTS THAT, ALONG WITH THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTHIS PLAT, RUN WITH THE LAND. THE SAID DOCUMENTS MAY ALSO BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND MAY INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION,THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SITE AND LANDSCAPE COVENANTS, FINAL SITE PLAN, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND ARCHITECTURALELEVATIONS, WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CITY AND SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED BY ALLPERSONS INTERESTED IN PURCHASING ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE.OWNER:BY: __________________________________STATE OF COLORADO ))SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ______ DAY OF_____________________, 2____, BY _________________________AS _______________________________________.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEALMY COMMISSION EXPIRES __________________________________________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 35 S89°55'30"W 534.30' (MEAS) 530' (REC)S0°04'30"E 276.00' (MEAS & REC)S89°56'55"W 129.89' (MEAS) S89°55'30"W 130.00' (REC)N0°04'07"W 473.73' (MEAS & REC) S0°13'29"E 197.78' (MEAS) S0°04'30"E 198.00' (REC)UNPLATTEDUNPLATTEDLOT 1-ASERVICE CENTER THIRDSUBDIVISION, FIRST REPLATUNPLATTEDLOT 16.186 ACRES ±WOOD STREET (ROW VARIES)N89°55'30"E 663.63'(MEAS) 660' (REC)S0°04'07"E 55.61'N89°55'53"E 2.00'S0°04'07"E 269.08'S89°55'53"W32.00'S0°04'07"E 149.04'PATEROS CREEKSUBDIVISIONUNPLATTEDLOT 1FIRST REPLAT OF SERVICECENTER FOURTH SUBDIVISIONN89°55'30"E 789.62' (MEAS) (790.00' REC)S89°55'30"W 494.40'S0°04'06"E 74.00'N89°55'30"E 571.38'N14°32'32"W 37.73'N34°35'08"E 90.42'N1°30'01"E 66.50'N31°18'36"W 78.00'27.00'N0°04'07"W 201.36'N89°55'53"E 11.00'S0°10'37"E 262.34'N89°20'39"W 11.50'S0°04'07"E 10.17'UNPLATTEDN0°04'07"W 59.56' (PER BK, 110, PG, 466, BK. 2061, PG.619, REC. #20140007734 AND PER PATEROS CREEK SUBDIVISION)LEGENDFOUND NO. 4 REBARFOUND NO.4 REBAR WITH 1" ALUM. CAPSTAMPED "W.C. 2.0' PLS 37963"SET NO.4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PLS 37963"LIGHT POLE4025 Automation Way, Suite C4Fort Collins, CO 80525970-232-9645www.WashburnSurveying.comSheet 2 of 3 Project #: 2020-007 Date: December 30, 2022 Scale: 1"=30' Drawn: CDBNOTICEACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEYWITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANYDEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION.Scale: 1"=30'FORT COLLINS FLEET MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6THPRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO2.0' WITNESS CORNERFOUND NO.4 REBAR WITH 1" ALUM. CAPSTAMPED "W.C. 2.0' PLS 37963"SET NAIL AND DISC IN ASPHALTSTAMPED "PLS 37963"ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 36 N0°04'07"W 473.73' (MEAS & REC)S0°04'07"E 58.23'S8°08'27"W 82.87'L1C1S0°04'07"E 233.49'L2L 3 C2N89°55'30"E 36.00' L4WOOD STREET(ROW VARIES)LINE TABLELINE #L4L1L2L3BEARINGN89°55'30"EN81°51'33"WS07°30'22"ES37°49'07"EDISTANCE14.19'2.48'31.13'15.51'CURVE TABLECURVE #C1C2RADIUS8.50'75.00'DELTA98°12'35"39°01'44"LENGTH14.57'51.09'CHORDS49°02'10"WS13°00'20"WDISTANCE12.85'50.11'LEGENDFOUND NO. 4 REBARFOUND NO.4 REBAR WITH 1" ALUM. CAPSTAMPED "W.C. 2.0' PLS 37963"SET NO.4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAPSTAMPED "PLS 37963"LIGHT POLE4025 Automation Way, Suite C4Fort Collins, CO 80525970-232-9645www.WashburnSurveying.comSheet 3 of 3 Project #: 2020-007 Date: December 30, 2022 Scale: 1"=20' Drawn: CDBNOTICEACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEYWITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANYDEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION.Scale: 1"=20'FORT COLLINS FLEET MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6THPRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO2.0' WITNESS CORNERFOUND NO.4 REBAR WITH 1" ALUM. CAPSTAMPED "W.C. 2.0' PLS 37963"SET NAIL AND DISC IN ASPHALTSTAMPED "PLS 37963"ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 37 Arlo SchumannAssociate PlannerPlanning and Zoning CommissionFleet Maintenance Subdivision, BDR220007February 16, 2023ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 38 Project Location2Situated ~0.12 Miles East of N Shields St. and ~0.15 Miles North of W Vine Dr.SITEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 39 Project Context3Address 835 Wood St.23.86-acre siteEmployment District (E)Existing Facility.Home of CoFC Fleet Maintenance. SITELarimer CountyCLEEPOLUEPOLITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 40 Fleet Maintenance SubdivisionProject Overview4Proposed Scope:• Plat of unplatted parcel.• No other site improvements are proposed with this project.• Associated with site improvements as part of Minor Amendments MA220131 & MA220136ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 41 Fleet Maintenance SubdivisionProject Overview5Proposed Plat:ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 42 Fleet Maintenance Subdivision6Staff recommends approval with condition of BDR220007, Fleet Maintenance SubdivisionIn evaluating the request for the Fleet Maintenance Subdivision, staff makes the following findings of fact:• The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards.• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 – Employment District (E) in Article 4.• Staff recommends the following condition of approval for the proposed project to comply with LUC Section 3.6.6, Emergency Access : Prior to the recording of any approved Plat documents, the applicant shall:• Provide the City with an emergency access agreement meeting the access requirements provided by Poudre Fire Authority.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 43 7Thank You.Hoffman Mill Weigh StationITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 44 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 & Zoning Commission Hearing: February 16, 2023 MA220131, 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy Lighting Summary of Request This is a request to replace existing equipment and canopies at an existing city fleet vehicle fueling station. Zoning Map (ctrl + click map to follow link) Next Steps If approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant will be eligible to apply for construction and building permits after the new plat of the property has been recorded. Site Location Located west of Wood St., north of W. Vine Dr. at 835 Wood St. (parcel #9702300920). Zoning Employment District (E) Property Owner City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Blake Visser City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards .......................................................... 3 4. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards ................................... 4 Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ......................................................... 6 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7 6. Recommendation ....................................... 7 7. Attachments ............................................... 7 8. Links ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. Site Wood St UE Larimer County E POL POL E CL Packet pg. 45 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MA220131 | 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • This is a request for a minor amendment to remove and replace underground fuel piping, including adding new secondary containment. The request also includes installing a new canopy over fueling positions; Setting and installing new electrical rack for fuel system needs; Closure in place of one 30,000 gallon above ground fuel tank; Resurfacing all disturbed surfaces with new concrete and asphalt; Replacing existing canopies with one larger new canopy and new lighting; and Potentially adding solar PV on the roof. This is in conjunction with a plat of the property under review in BDR220007. The request complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code, specifically: • Standards and requirements located in Section 2.2.10 Amendments and Changes of Use in Article 2 Administration: and • Division 2.17 City Projects B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Development Status/Background The site has been use as a city maintenance facility since 1979, and was annexed into the city along with other city owned property in 1987. The site currently provides maintenance facilities for fleet and public transit vehicles along with a fueling station for city vehicles. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Unincorporated Larimer County Employment (E) Urban Estate (UE) Unincorporated Larimer County Land Use Agricultural / Residential Vehicle Storage (City Facility) Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Site Packet pg. 46 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MA220131 | 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Minor Amendment is intended to update and replace the exiting fueling station canopy and equipment. D. CITY PLAN (2019) The City’s comprehensive plan (2019 City Plan) was developed with the participation of thousands of community members and embodies the vision and values of the community for the future. A basic aspect of the vision pertinent to the proposal is the unique character and sense of place in Fort Collins. The subject property is part of an “Mixed Employment District” land use designation, for which City Plan provides the following pertinent guidance: p.77 “Principle T 2: Build and maintain high-quality infrastructure that supports all modes of travel.” Policy T 2.6 - MAINTENANCE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT Protect investment in transportation facilities, systems and services through a proactive, high quality maintenance program using principles of asset management. 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 was posted on the City’s Development Review website as it was being reviewed. During the review of the minor amendment, no public comments were received. Comments received after the hearing notice will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. MINOR SUBDIVISION PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. First Submittal – MA220131 A Minor Amendment was routed on November 010, 2022. 2. Second Submittal – MA220131 The Minor Amendment was routed on December 22, 2022. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Not Applicable Packet pg. 47 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MA220131 | 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top 4. 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 after November 23, 2022. Written notice: February 1, 2023, 50 letters sent. Published Notice: Scheduled for February 5, 2023. B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant is not requesting a modification of standards. 4. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development 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 The standards of this section require that a development plan demonstrate a comprehensive approach to landscaping that enhances the appearance and function of the neighborhood, buildings, and pedestrian environment. Tree protection notes have been added to the plans. There are no removal or new plantings associated with the project. Complies 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard This standard requires that development projects accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit throughout the project and to and from surrounding areas safely and conveniently and contribute to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Project does not propose changes to the access or circulation. N/A 3.2.4 – Site Lighting This standard requires that exterior lighting not adversely affect the properties, neighborhood, or natural features adjacent to the development. Further, the standard requires exterior lighting to be examined in a way that considers the light source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need. Project complies with the standards as required for added lighting to the site. Complies Section 3.2.5 – Trash and 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. The scope of work does not alter the trash requirements for the site. Evaluation of the current trash and recycling facilities are part of a separate Minor Amendment currently under review. N/A B. DVISION 3.3 - ENGINEERING STANDARDS Packet pg. 48 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MA220131 | 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.3.1 – Plat and Development Plan Standards These standards outline requirements for the platting of property within the city limits and include general plat requirements, lot standards, and requirements for public sites, reservations and dedications. Platting of the property is in process under BDR220007 N/A C. DIVISION 3.4 - ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when property is developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site will protect the natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats The site is not within 500 feet of an identified natural habitat or feature; therefore, the standards of this section do not apply. N/A 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources This standard is intended to ensure that development is compatible with and protects historic resources and that the design of new structures is compatible with and protects the integrity of historic resources located within the area of adjacency. Review of this project under 3.4.7 was waived by Historic Preservation staff because any historic resources within 200 feet are across a major 4 or 6-lane arterial, which reduces any design compatibility requirements considerably. In addition to the mitigating factor of the arterial separation, the placement of the building on the western portion of the development site further separates the new construction from the midcentury era properties across College Avenue. In this case, a more practical, common sense approach is for the design of the new construction to follow the general design standards and zone district standards elsewhere in the land use code. N/A 3.4.8 – Parks and Trails This standard requires compliance of development plans with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan to ensure that the community will have a fair and equitable system of parks, trail and recreation facilities as the community grows. N/A D. DIVISION 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. 49 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MA220131 | 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility 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. The new canopy and equipment are replacing the existing aging structures found on site and are in line with the standards. Complies 3.5.3 - Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale.. N/A E. DIVISION 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 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This standard states,” all developments shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and emergency services by complying with Article 9, Fire Department Access and Water Supply, of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. All emergency access ways, easements, rights-of-way or other rights required to be granted pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code must include not only access rights for fire protection purposes, but also for all other emergency services.” The project has been reviewed by Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) and currently meets the needs and requirements of PFA regulations. An emergency access agreement is being drafted but has not been formalized.. N/A Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: F. DIVISION 4.27 – EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E) The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.27 As an existing approved use the scope of the minor amendment does not expand or change with this project and is in compliance with the zone district standards. Complies Packet pg. 50 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3 MA220131 | 835 Wood Street – Fuel Canopy Lighting Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the MA220131, 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy Lighting, Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 – Employment District (E) in Article 4. This Minor Amendment is dependent on approval of BDR220007. Pending approval by this commission the Minor Amendment will not be closed until the associated plat has been recorded. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve one condition of approval the 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy Lighting, MA220131 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials. 7. Attachments 1. Minor Amendment Application 2. Plans and Canopy Elevations 3. Canopy Color Swatch Exhibit 4. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 51 [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: __________________________________________________________________ 835 Wood St AST Line Replacement (Permit # B2207817) 970-388-5646 835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 City of Fort Collins - Operation Services 300 Laporte Ave Building B Fort Collins, CO, 80522 970-388-5646 bvisser@fcgov.com Blake Visser City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Building B Fort Collins, CO, 80522 bvisser@fcgov.com Remove and replace underground fuel piping, including new secondary containment. Install new canopy over fueling positions. Set and install new electrical rack for fuel system needs. Closure in place of one 30,000 gallon above ground fuel tank. Resurface all disturbed surfaces with new concrete and asphalt. Replace existing canopies with one larger new canopy and new lighting. Potential solar PV on the roof pending budget. Blake Visser 300 Laporte Ave Building B, Fort Collins, CO, 80522 970-388-5646 Blake Visser Digitally signed by Blake VisserDN: CN=Blake Visser, OU=Users and Groups, OU=OPERATION-SERVICES, OU=INTERNAL-SERVICES, DC=cs, DC=city, DC=fcgov, DC=com Date: 2022.11.09 15:53:48-07'00' ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 52 X700 WOODSTREETWOOD STREET 835 WOODSTREET1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC.835 Wood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521SCOPE OF WORKFUELING SYSTEM REPLACEMENTWOOD STREET1.0 Project SummaryThe project consists of the installation of a new underground piping system, canopy, and thein-place closure of the north-most 30,000-gallon diesel aboveground storage tank (AST). This willinvolve the removal of the existing piping and dispensers, environmental sampling associatedwith the removal, and installing a fully-functioning and compliant fuel system for fleet fuelingoperations at the City of Fort Collins Maintenance Facility.2.0 Scope of WorkThe scope of work is outlined below:1.Remove the six dispensers and the two FuelMaster FMU's from the island.a. Demolish, remove, and dispose of 1,277 sq. ft. of concrete including the islands,bollards, and product pipe trenches.b. Perform preliminary inspection of existing dispensers for repairs as needed.2.Remove existing piping and electrical.a. Purge all lines back to the AST's.b. Excavate and expose the existing piping and conduits.c. Remove piping from the islands to the AST dike wall. Exclude containment embeddedpipe.d. Remove conduits and wiring from the dispensers, lights, and FMU.3.Conduct environmental sampling beneath the former dispensers and along former productlines per OPS requirements.4.Install four 5' x 5' x 5' canopy footings - one at each end of the two islands.5.Install canopy with capability to hold solar panels - additional 10 lbs/sq.ft6.Install new piping and dispenser infrastructurea. Set one single-wall 4'X4'X4' fiberglass transition sump (Bravo Transition Sump B500).b. Set two 4' x 20' stainless steel islands.c. Set six aboveground under dispenser containment sumps (UDC's).d. Install 2-inch SCH 40 steel pipe from two ASTs to transition sump.e. Paint exposed section of steel pipe inside and over containment wall to sump.f. Install 3-inch over 2-inch double walled fiberglass lines from transition sump to sixUDCs. All piping and containment will be fiberglass with bonded fittings throughout.Piping will be sloped with 1% grade back to transition sump.g. Install impact valves with steel flex into each of the UDC's.h. All buried piping systems will be "pre-tested" with iota prior to backfill.7.Install and mount one Omntec Proteus leak detection system at the building for UDCsensors and future tank gauging probes.8.Install new electricala. Horizontal bore conduits from the building to the fence areab. Mount one 100-amp panelc. Run conduit and wiring into UDC's, canopy lights, dispensers, and FMU.9.Concrete Resurfacinga. Set and install two 6" bollards at the ends of the islands TYP (8).b. Install 1,277 sq. ft. of eight-inch concrete to match existing concrete10.Place the dispensers and FMUs onto islands and connect all conduit and wiringa. Start up system and purge all product lines11.Conduct in-place closure of 30-000-gallon ASTa. Lock-out/Tag-out electrical breakers for fueling systemb. Remove residual product from AST. Triple rinse for closure in place.c. Cap the remote fill, the submersible turbine pump, and all openings except vent lines3.0 Applicable Codes & StandardsThe following Industry standards are listed for reference and shall govern all applicable aspects ofthis project. Except where specified, most recent codes shall apply.1. International Code Council (ICC)a. 2021 International Building Code (IBC)b. 2021 International Plumbing Code (IPC)c. 2021 International Mechanical Code (IMC)d. 2021 International Fire Code (IFC), Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquidse. City of Fort Collins Stormwater Management BMPsf. National Electric Code (NEC) 20202. Petroleum Equipment Installation Institute (PEI)a. Publication RP-100-17, Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground LiquidStorage Systems3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)a. ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and OtherStructures4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)a. 2020 ASTM-D2996 Standard Specification for Filament-Wound Fiberglass Pipe5. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)a. 29 CFR 1910.206, Flammable and Combustible Liquidsb. 29 CFR 1910.106, Personal Protective Equipment6. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)a. NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Codeb. NFPA 30A, Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Codec. NFPA 70, National Electric Code (NEC)d. NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials forEmergency Response7. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)a. UL Standard 971 2021, Nonmetallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquidsb. UL Standard 2039 2016, Flexible Connector Piping for Fuels8. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety (OPS)a. 7 C.C.R 1101-14, Storage Tank Regulations9. Applicable State of Colorado codes including those from the Colorado Department of PublicHealth and Environment, Solid and Hazardous Waste Divisiona. Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations 6 C.C. R 1007-310. Requirements of the City of Fort Collinsa. City Municpal Code C.C 26-498 regarding Stormwater Water Quality Control11. Requirements of the local Fire Department12. The equipment manufacturer's installation instructions and specifications0 50 100 150 200SCALE IN FEETITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 53 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC.New Aboveground PipingProposed Underground PipingExisting UndergroundExisting Underground PipingDiameterSCH ScheduleERW Electric-Resistance WeldedTYP TypicalPSIG Pounds Per Square Inch GaugeFOS Fuel Oil SupplyNative FillGravelExisting ConcreteRebarCompacted Granular Fill1Keyed Note11Detail ReferenceWater LineProposed Underground ElectricalLineXFence LineAST Aboveground Storage TankGeneral Requirements1.Abide by all applicable codes & jurisdiction requirements pertaining to local, state, & federal guidelines.2. Non-corrosive or corrosion protection material shall be provided to avoid galvanic action of dissimilar metals.3. Piping joints shall be liquid tight and per manufacturers listing4. Dispensers shall be protected by concrete island 6" or more in height5. Breakaway devices shall be designed to retain liquid on both sides of breakaway point6. Dispenser shall be secured per manufacturer using local codes7. Contractor shall not substitute materials without the project manager's written approval.8. Maintain a current & complete set of construction documents & addenda on the job site during all phases of construction for use duringconstruction.9. Engineer / architect's review of shop drawings shall not relieve the contractor from responsibility for deviations from drawings, specifications,and/or manufacture's installation requirements unless contractor has, in writing, called attention to such deviations to project manager atthe time of submissions, nor shall review of shop drawings relieve contractor of responsibility for errors of any work in the shop drawings.10. Contractor to verify all measurements etc. and is responsible for installing complete and functional system.11. Submit as-built drawings to construction coordinator at completion of project.12. Abide by all warranty requirements published by the manufacturer. Abide by all requirements established by contract to maintain insurance onthe premises.13. If contractor encounters suspected hazardous materials, contact construction coordinator without delay. Project manager will contract withothers to perform testing & decontamination work.14. Provide appropriate protection for contractor's employees working in confined space & hazardous areas. Follow OSHA guidelines and contact coordinator before beginning.15. Staging of materials & equipment shall not interfere with Kyndryl operations. Staging requirements shall be approved by constructioncoordinator. Storage will not be allowed in Kyndryl hallways. Provide storage unit as required to ensure space is available for materials.Coordinate with construction coordinator.16. Keep all demolition and construction noise to a minimum so as not to disrupt surrounding work areas. Coordinate with construction coordinatorto develop a schedule of the activities with excessive noise.17. Keep the project area and surrounding area free from dust.18. Protect adjacent areas and isolate them from smoke, vapors, noise, odors, vibrations, light flashes or any other obtrusive emissions from the jobsite or other work areas.19. Dust & welding fumes that affect smoke detection systems must be controlled by means such as exhaust fans or water. Coordinate withconstruction manager.20. Verify dimensions in the field. Conflicts or discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of the construction coordinator in writing forclarification before proceeding with the work.21. Prevent damage to property, materials, or construction. Any damage caused by contractor shall be repaired or replaced at no additional charge.22. No defective work or work deficient in any requirement of drawings & specifications will be accepted. If project manager fails to discoverdefects in work, contractor shall not be relieved from responsibility for securing quality & progress of work, as required by contract. Contractorshall replace defective work revealed within time required by warranties with work conforming to intent of contract. No payment, whetherpartial or final, shall mean an acceptance of defective work or improper materials.23. At altered construction, contractor shall repair cut edges, replace construction, and fit new to existing construction as required to matchexisting work. Make joints of new and existing patches smooth, even, and practically invisible. Where new paint or other finishes are joined,carry to nearest break in surfaces, corner, or other break in construction as required for neat finished appearance.24. All transitions between materials shall align evenly with smooth surfaces.25. The use of these drawings constitutes a contractual agreement between the Contractor and the Owner. Thus, these Contract documents takeprecedence over trade practices and third party specifications.26. The term "Engineer" shall be taken to mean the Engineer of Record. Third party entries are specifically noted as "Professional Engineer,""Contractor's Engineer," "Designer," etc.27. Where discrepancies exist among Drawings and General Notes, the most stringent requirements shall govern.Design Criteria1. Ground snow load: 35 psf2. Frost Depth: 30-inches3. Seismic design category B4. WInd speeds: 140 mph, Risk category B, Exposure category BConcrete1. Concrete mixes shall conform to the above table, unless noted otherwise. Mixes shall comply with all durability requirements specified inthe latest version of Chapter 4 of ACI-318, based on the specified exposure class. If discrepancies exist between Chapter 4 and the above table,the most stringent requirements shall govern.2. Material and workmanship shall be in accordance with the requirements of the American Concrete Institute "Building Code Requirementsfor Reinforced Concrete" (ACI 318, latest edition), and "Specifications for Structural Concrete" (ACI 301, latest edition).3. All Cement shall conform to ASTM C 150. All fly ash and natural pozzolans shall conform to ASTM C 618. All aggregates shall conform to C 33(NW) and/or C 330 (LW), as applicable. Water shall conform to ASTM C 1602.4. Reinforcing bars shall be deformed bars and shall conform to ASTM A 615, Grade 60, unless noted otherwise. All stirrups and column tiesshall conform to ASTM A 615, Grade 40. Weldable reinforcement shall conform to ASTM A 706, Grade 60.5. Footings shall be carried down to undisturbed soil or compacted engineering fill per site geotechnical soil testing. Footing placement shall bebelow frost line.6. Concrete Testing and Inspections per City of Fort Collins QA/QC plan.Piping1. Minimum schedule 40 steel pipe that complies with either ANSI/ASME B36.10M, Standard on Welded/Threaded and Seamless Wrought SteelPipe; ASTM A106B, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black, Welded and Seamless; for Seamless or ASTM A105/A106M, Standard Specification Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service.2. Fittings that are part of an engineered fuel piping system that is listed to UL 971, Nonmetallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids,installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, and approved by the authority having jurisdiction.3. Threaded connections shall be permitted for aboveground transitions.4. A fill pipe terminating in accordance with 26.4.3.7.1 shall not be required for tanks that are filled manually at the fill connection on the tank,provided that the tank and its fill connection are located within the spill containment required by 26.4.3.7.3 and the filling operation isconstantly attended.5. Provided with a shutoff valve where the fuel line enter sumps and tanks.6. Unions or fittings that require gaskets or packings used in a fuel lines shall be listed to UL 180, Standard for Combustible Liquid TankAccessories. Gaskets may have asbestos. See C-101 for gasket procedures7. Pressure testing for leakage shall be conducted with air or an inert gas and shall be held for a time sufficient to conduct a complete visualinspection of all piping and fittings, but in no case for less than 10 minutes after pneumatic test pressure in between (1.2 to 1.5) times thedesign pressure for the piping system stabilization. A gauge pressure of at least 38 psi, but not more than 58 psi, shall be applied to all portionsof the supply piping to be evaluated. Containment piping shall be tested to 5 psi soap test. Pipe shall slope 1% back to transition sump.Structural Steel1. All detailing, fabrication and erection shall conform to American Institue of Steel Construction "Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings"(AISC 360) and the "Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges" (AISC 303), latest editions. all bolting shall conform to theResearch Council on Structural Connections "Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM 325 or A490 Bolts" (RCSC A.1), Latest edition.2. All steel shall conform to the following ASTM Standards, unless otherwise noted:All steel not otherwise shown............ ASTM A 36W and WT Shapes............................... ASTM A992Steel Tubing........................................ ASTM 500, Grade BSteel Pipe............................................ ASTM A106B3. Structural steel bolts conform to ASTM A 325, heavy hex. Nuts shall conform ASTM A 563 heavy hex. Washers shall conform to ASTM F 436.Bolted assemblies shall be 3/4" Dia, unless noted otherwise.4. Bolted connections shall be snug tight, unless noted otherwise.5. All welding shall conform to the America Welding Society "Structural Welding Code" (AWS D1.1), latest edition. Welding shall be performed withE70xx electrodes unless otherwise noted.6. All steel shall receive on shop coat of fabricator's standard primer7. All structural steel testing and inspections will be conducted per the City of Fort Collins QA/QC plan.8. New piping shall not penetrate existing concrete containment structure.Piping Abandonment1. Existing piping will be flushed, cut aboveground within the concrete containment and below ground beneath the former fuel island,flow-filled with concrete slurry, and will be capped and abandoned in place.Canopy1. Canopy drains shall be routed out the end of each island form on the down-gradient side using PVC pipe cut flush with island just above parkinglot grade elvelation. Drain will be silicon sealed.2. Contractor is responsible for flood testing the canopy once finished. Plug all canopy drains and flood canopy for 4 hours. Mark leaking areas forrepair by canopy fabricator. Construction Manager shall witness canopy flood test.3. Contractor shall measure canopy clearance and provide and install canopy clearance decals per company image guidelines. Confirm size, color,and font style with the Construction Manager. Construction Manager shall confirm canopy clearance height.4. Islands to be independently set to result in an average of 6 inches of reveal with a minimum of 5 1/4" to a maximum of 10 1/2" (elevationabove adjacent finished grade).Fort Collins General Requirements1. Existing materials or equipment not being reused, relocated, or turned over to owner shall be disposed of properly. Recyclable materials(metals, cardboard, concrete floorwithout metals) shall be recycled using site procedures and reported to City of Fort Collins.2. CGRS shall obtain Colorado OPS and building permits as necessary. Contractor shall obtain all necessary trade permits. Contractor shall contactOPS, local fire & building officials for required inspections. Coordinate inspections with construction coordinator.Project Requirements1. Contractor is responsible to review all of the construction documents for this project for coordination prior to bidding.2. Existing materials or equipment being demolished and not being reused, relocated, or turned over to the owner shall be removed from theCity of Fort Collins site.3. Scrap metal shall be separated from other waste and replaced.4. All fuel line welding shall be performed by a certified state licensed contractor who shall be approved by City of Fort Collins. Pressure test byapproved sub in presence of CBRE. Pressure test shall be performed at a pressure of 1.5x operating pressure and shall stay within 5% ofstartingpressure for one hour.Coordination1. Contractors shall coordinate their work with the work of all other trades and the existing field conditions.2. Contractor shall visit the job site and verify existing field conditions prior to submission of bid.3. Contractor shall secure and pay for all required permits and shall arrange all required inspections.Piping To Be RemovedIntended UseFootingsMin. f'c at28 days4.5 ksiUnitCONCRETE MIX DESIGN MATRIX% AirWeight145 pcfCementTypeIIMax.w/cm0.45Content5-7Durability Exposure ClassFrz./ThawF2SulfateS1WaterW0CorrosionC1Storm Sewer LineNatural Gas LineUgEXTemporary Construction FenceNew ConcreteContraction JointExisting UndergroundPiping To Be AbandonedExisting UndergroundElectrical LineSanitary Sewer LineElectrical VaultIrrigation Control ValveICExisting UndergroundFuel LineOverhead LightStraw Waddles, 8" dia. x 25'ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 54 X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com WARNING: THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEENREDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SCALE THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC.0 5 10 15 20 SCALE IN FEET 31XXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXX425U g E U g E U g E U g E U g E U g E U g E U g E U g E U g E UgE 67A2C-201981010B4M-201ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 55 LEGENDTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC. 01 3/30/22 PIPE SLOPE ADJUSTMENTWARNING: THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEENREDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SCALENOT TO SCALEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 56 8"6"6"3"THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC. 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com WARNING: THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEENREDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SCALE NOT TO SCALE DETAIL NOT USEDNTSA1CONCRETE PATCH (TYP)NTSA2BOLLARDNTSA3CONTRACTION JOINT DETAILNTSA4DISPENSER ISLAND DETAILNTSA6EXPANSION JOINT DETAILNTSA5ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 57 THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC. 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com WARNING: THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEENREDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SCALE 0 5 10 SCALE IN FEET 01 3/30/22 PIPE SLOPE ADJUSTMENTDDDDUUCCDIESELUNLEADEDTRANSITION SUMPBOLLARDCANOPYCANOPY COLUMNNEW ELECTRICALPANELA5C-201A3C-201S1S 101S3S-101B1M-201B2M-201B3M-201A2C-201A4C-201ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 58 THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC. 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com WARNING: THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEENREDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SCALE NOT TO SCALE DISPENSER CONTAINMENT DETAILNTSB2PIPE TRENCH DETAILNTSB3PIPE ABANDONMENTNTSB4DATA LINE & CONDUIT TRENCH DETAILNTSB5TRANSITION SUMP DETAILNTSB1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 59 THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC. 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com WARNING: THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEENREDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SCALE NOT TO SCALE 14'-0"±27'-0"14'-0"±36" ACM FASCIA℄ COLC-216" Ø COL (TYP OF10)INTERNAL PVCDRAIN (TYP)TOP OFGRADETOP OFFOOTINGTHE TOP OF ALL FOOTINGS MUST BELEVEL AND AT THE SAME ELEVATION17'-0"CLEARANCE℄ COLC-4C-10COLOR: MATCH FORT COLLINS PAINT SCHEMA1'-6"SUBSET3'-0"24'-0"3'-0"36" ACM FASCIAC-1C-2C-10C-93'-0"24'-0"3'-0"36" ACM FASCIA17'-0"17'-0"CLEARANCECLEARANCE1'-6"1'-6"SUBSETSUBSETNORTH-SOUTH CANOPY ELEVATIONNTSS8EAST CANOPY ELEVATIONNTSS9WEST CANOPY ELEVATIONNTSS1055'-0"CB-1 CB-1 CB-1 14'-0"±27'-0"6'-0"℄ COL3'-0"±℄COL℄COL3'-0"±4'-0"℄ CB20 GA. STEEL DECKPANS, WHITEEMBOSSED (TYP)CANOPYFASCIA(TYP)PERIMETERGUTTER, WHITEEMBOSSED (20 GASTEEL) (TYP)℄ CBPURLIN LATERALBRACING @ 1/6OF 40' SPANS(TYP)PURLIN LATERALBRACING @ 1/2OF END BAYSPANS (TYP)C-2P-1C-1024'-0"P-1C-1C-911'-0"P-1℄ COL℄ COL4'-0"14'-0"±CANOPY FRAMING PLANNTSS11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 60 1301 Academy Court, Fort Collins CO 80524 Tel: (970) 493-7780 www.cgrs.com THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THEORIGINAL USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE, REPRODUCTION,MODIFICATION OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CGRS, INC. 01 3/30/22 PIPE SLOPE ADJUSTMENTNOTESCONTACTORSCB20ASCONTACTORSCB20ASCONTACTORSCB20ASCB20ACB20ACB20ACONTACTOR ENCLOSURECB20ACARDREADERCONTACTORCONTACTORCONTACTORCB20ACANOPYSSSSCONTACTORCONTACTORCONTACTORCONTACTORCONTACTORCONTACTORSSSSDISPENSER#6DISPENSER#5DISPENSER#4DISPENSER#3DISPENSER#2DISPENSER#1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 61 12/2/22 This Drawing has been drawn under the guidance of Frost Structural Engineering (aka FSE) and has been reviewed for compliance with the Structural Calculations and for correctness of structural items only. The scope of FSE's liability does not exceed that of the accompanying Structural Calculations. B- ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 62 12/2/22 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 63 12/2/22 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 64 12/2/22 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 65 12/2/22 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 66 LSI - 1 OF 9ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 67 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (800) 436-7800 • ©LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Page 1/6 Rev. 09/28/22 SPEC.1019.C.0922 Catalog #:Project: Date:Type:Prepared By: Scottsdale VertexTM (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS Construction • Rugged low-profile die-cast aluminum housing, optical unit, and driver cover. • Below canopy access to optical chamber and driver housing for serviceability. • IP66 rated luminaire protects integral components from dust and water. • Fixtures are finished with LSI’s DuraGrip® polyester powder coat finishing process. The DuraGrip finish withstands extreme weather changes without cracking or peeling. • Four fasteners secure the door frame to housing. Door frame also provides quick and easy access to the electrical compartment for servicing. • Shipping weight: 18.5 lbs in carton. Optical System • Symmetrical distribution utilizes a clear tempered flat glass lens to uniformly illuminate the area under the gas canopy. • Combination Forward Throw distribution uses clear tempered flat glass and optical grade PMMA acrylic lens to create an industry leading unique distribution pattern to illuminate the area under the gas canopy and the area between the gas canopy and convenience store eliminating the need for extra floodlights. • Available in 5000K, 4000K and 3000K color temperatures. • Minimum CRI of 80. Electrical • High-performance factory programmable driver; features include over-voltage, undervoltage, short circuit and over temperature protection. • Integral 6kV surge protection that meets IEEE C62.41.2 and ANSI C82.77-5 Location Category C Low standards. • Additional field replaceable 10kV surge protection device meets a minimum Category C Low operation (per ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2). • Custom lumen and wattage packages available. • 0-10V dimming (10% - 100%) standard. • Standard Universal Voltage (120-277 Vac) Input 50/60 Hz or optional High Voltage (347-480 Vac). • L80 Calculated Life: >100k Hours (See Lumen Maintenance on Page 2). • Total harmonic distortion: <20%. • Operating temperature: -40°C to +50°C. (-40°F to +122°F) when mounted to Steel/ Aluminum surfaces for 10L, 13L, & 15L Lumen Packages, +45°C for 20L Lumen Package, and +35°C for 23L Lumen Package. If mounted to a non-metallic surface, reduce ambient by 5°C. • Power factor: >0.90. • High-efficacy LEDs are mounted to (4) circuit boards to maximize heat dissipation. • Driver components are fully encased in potting material for moisture resistance. Driver complies with FCC standards. Hazardous Location • Designed for lighter than air fuel applications. Product is suitable for Class 1 Division 2 with all lumen packages and distributions only when properly installed per LSI installation instructions. Models with optional controls are not approved for Class 1, Division 2 applications. - Gas Groups A, B, C, and D – Group A: Acetylene / Group B: Hydrogen / Group C: Propane and Ethylene / Group D: Benzene, Butane, Methane & Propane. Installation (Standard) • Installs in a 12” or 16” deck pan. • Four fasteners are provided for use in single deck steel canopies. Other suitable fasteners may be required and provided by others. • Unit is designed to quickly retrofit into existing Scottsdale (4”) hole. • Aluminum locking collar and gasket are included and required for complete seal and support of canopy deck. • Retrofit panels are available for existing Encores, Richmond, 2x2 Universal, and more. • Direct mount to surface or recessed J box with hardware bracket kit ordered separately as an accessory. Installation (REDiMount) • Patent pending 3 piece quick mounting system; components include collar, capsule and connector. • Designed to reduce canopy penetrations and increase installation efficiency. • Installs in 12” or 16” deck pan. Warranty • LSI LED Fixtures carry a 5-year warranty or 10-year warranty with registration for petroleum applications only (contact your LSI representative for details). Listings • Listed to UL 1598 and UL 8750. • Meets Buy American Act requirements. • State of California Title 24 Compliant with IMSBT or ALSC/ALSCS option. • DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights. org/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. • IDA compliant with 3000K or lower color temperature. OVERVIEW Lumen Package 9,000 - 23,000 Wattage Range 67 - 188 Efficacy Range (LPW)109 - 154 Weight lbs(kg)18.5 (8.4) QUICK LINKS Ordering Guide Performance Photometrics Dimensions IP66 LSI - 2 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 68 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (800) 436-7800 • ©LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Page 2/6 Rev. 09/28/22 SPEC.1019.C.0922 Type: Scottsdale VertexTM (SCV) Petroleum ORDERING GUIDE Back to Quick Links Accessory Ordering Information Description Part Number Description Part Number Retrofit Panel Kit - EC / ECTA / SCF to SCV, for 16” Deck Panel with larger openings7 673425R2 Junction Box 687461 Retrofit Panel Kit - EC / ECTA / SCF to SCV, for 12” Deck Panel8 676011R2 Kit - Hole Plugs and Sealant (enough for 25 retrofits)1320540 Retrofit Panel Kit - RECU Richmond to SCV 673426R2 Rectangular Top Plate Kit (includes top plate and sealant)678291R2WHT Retrofit Panel Kit - UNV Universal 2x2 to SCV 673427R2 Surface Mount Box 673433R2 Retrofit 2x2 Cover Panel Blank (no holes)357282 Retrofit Kit - CRU/CRUS to SCV 687462R2 Retrofit RIC Cover Panel Blank (no holes)354702 Retrofit Kit for SCM/SCV to upgrade SC/SCF/EC/ECTA White 744333 26” X 26” Beauty Plate Kit (with 4” Center hole)557193WHT BRKT SCM / SCV DIRECT MNT W/ HDWR 752172R2 26” X 32” Beauty Plate Kit (with 4” Center hole)564160WHT Prefix Light Source Lumen Package Distribution Voltage Driver Color Temperature Finish Options Mounting SCV - Petroleum Canopy Luminaire LED 10L - 10,000 Lumens 13L - 13,000 Lumens 15L - 15,000 Lumens 20L - 20,000 Lumens 23L - 23,000 Lumens Custom Lumen Packages4 23L - 23,000 Lumens SC - Standard Symmetric SCFT - Combination Standard Symmetric and Forward Throw1 UNV - 120-277V HV - 347-480V2 DIM - 0-10V Dimming3 50 - 5000K 40 - 4000K 30 - 3000K WHT - White BLK - Black BRZ - Bronze Blank - NONE ALSC - AirLink Synapse Wireless Control System ALSCS - AirLink Synapse Wireless Control System with Sensor ALBCS1 - AirLink Blue Wireless Motion & Photo Sensor Controller (8-24’ mounting height) ALBCS2 - AirLink Blue Wireless Motion & Photo Sensor Controller (25-40’ mounting height) IMSBT1 - Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (8 - 24’ mounting height)4 IMSBT2 - Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (25 - 40’ mounting height)4 HL - Hazardous Location Class 1 Div 25 REDI - REDiMount integrated junction box system6 TYPICAL ORDER EXAMPLE:SCV LED 13L SC UNV DIM 50 WHT IMSBT2 REDI 1 Custom lumen and wattage packages available consult factory. Values are within industry standard tolerances but not DLC listed. 2 HV not available with REDiMount. 3 0-10 low voltage wired dimming not available with REDiMount. 4 IMSBT is field configurable via the LSI app that can be downloaded from your smartphone’s native app store. 5 HL not compatible with AirLink, IMSBT, 3000K, or REDiMount. 6 Light fixture engine ships with REDiMount attached. 7 Ideal for 9” to 12” openings. 8 Ideal for 9” openings. LSI - 3 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 69 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (800) 436-7800 • ©LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Page 3/6 Rev. 09/28/22 SPEC.1019.C.0922 Type: Scottsdale VertexTM (SCV) Petroleum PERFORMANCE Back to Quick Links *LEDs are frequently updated therefore values are nominal. *Electrical data at 25˚C (77F). Actual wattage may differ by +/-10%. ELECTRICAL DATA - Current draw in AMPS* Lumen Package Wattage 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V 10L 67 0.56 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.14 13L 90 0.75 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.26 0.19 15L 102 0.85 0.49 0.42 0.37 0.29 0.21 20L 133 1.1 0.64 0.55 0.48 0.38 0.28 23L (SC)155 1.29 0.75 0.65 0.56 0.45 0.32 23L (SCFT) 188 1.57 0.9 0.78 0.68 0.54 0.39 RECOMMENDED LUMEN MAINTENANCE - SCV 15L SC1 Ambient Temperature C Lumen Multiplier Initial2 25k hr2 50k hr2 75k hr3 100k hr3 25 102%97%92%88% 84% 30 102%97%92%88% 84% 35 102%97%92%88% 84% 40 102%97%92%88% 84% 45 101% 95% 91% 86% 81% 50 101% 95% 90% 85% 80% RECOMMENDED LUMEN MAINTENANCE - SCV 23 SC1 Ambient Temperature C Lumen Multiplier Initial2 25k hr2 50k hr2 75k hr3 100k hr3 25 102%97%92%88% 84% 30 102%97%92%88% 84% 35 102%97%92%88% 84% 40 101% 96% 91% 86%82% RECOMMENDED LUMEN MAINTENANCE - SCV 23 SCFT1 Ambient Temperature C Lumen Multiplier Initial2 25k hr2 50k hr2 75k hr3 100k hr3 25 105% 88% 73%61%51% 30 105% 80%61%47%36% 35 105%70%47%32%21% DELIVERED LUMENS* Lumen Package 3000K CCT 4000K CCT 5000K CCT WattageDelivered Lumens Efficiency BUG Ratings Delivered Lumens Efficiency BUG Ratings Delivered Lumens Efficiency BUG Ratings 10L 9,652 144 B3-U0-G1 9,928 148 B3-U0-G1 10,317 154 B3-U0-G1 67 13L 12,567 140 B3-U0-G1 12,927 144 B3-U0-G1 13,443 149 B3-U0-G1 90 15L 13,999 137 B3-U0-G1 14,399 141 B3-U0-G1 14,963 147 B3-U0-G1 102 20L 18,755 141 B4-U0-G1 19,598 147 B4-U0-G1 20,234 152 B4-U0-G1 133 23L 21,783 141 B4-U0-G2 22,406 145 B4-U0-G2 23,284 150 B4-U0-G2 155 23L (SCFT) 20,886 111 B3-U0-G3 23,187 123 B4-U0-G3 23,101 123 B3-U0-G3 188 1 Lumen maintenance values at 25˚C are calculated per TM-21 based on LM-80 data and in-situ luminaire testing. 2 In accordance with IESNA TM-21-11, Projected Values represent interpolated value based on time durations that are within six times (6X) the IESNA LM-80-08 total test duration (in hours) for the device under testing ((DUT) i.e. the packaged LED chip). 3 In accordance with IESNA TM-21-11, Calculated Values represent time durations that exceed six times NA LM-80-08 total test duration (in hours) for the device under testing ((DUT) i.e. the packaged LED chip). LSI - 4 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 70 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (800) 436-7800 • ©LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Page 4/6 Rev. 09/28/22 SPEC.1019.C.0922 Type: Scottsdale VertexTM (SCV) Petroleum Back to Quick Links Luminaire photometry has been conducted by an accredited laboratory in accordance with IESNA LM-79. As specified by IESNA LM-79 the entire luminaire is tested as the source resulting in a luminaire efficiency of 100%. PHOTOMETRICS LUMINAIRE DATA Wide Distribution Description 5000 Kelvin, 80 CRI Delivered Lumens 15,410 Watts 103 Efficacy 150 IES Type Type VS - Very Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 LUMINAIRE DATA Wide Distribution Description 5000 Kelvin, 80 CRI Delivered Lumens 24,361 Watts 191.5 Efficacy 127 IES Type Type IV - Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 ZONAL LUMEN SUMMARY Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°4,101.6 26.6% Medium (30-60)°8,386.4 54.4% High (60-80)°2,748.8 17.8% Very High (80-90)°173.4 1.1% Uplight (90-180)°0.0 0.0% Total Flux 15,410.2 100% ZONAL LUMEN SUMMARY Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°4,368.4 17.9% Medium (30-60)°12,592.5 51.7% High (60-80)°6,960.6 28.6% Very High (80-90)°439.5 1.8% Uplight (90-180)°0.0 0.0% Total Flux 24,361.0 100% SCV-LED-15L-SC-50 SCV-LED-23L-SCFT-50 ISO FOOTCANDLE POLAR CURVE ISO FOOTCANDLE POLAR CURVE 1262 2524 3786 5048 15’ Mounting Height / 15’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone 2754 5508 8261 11015 15’ Mounting Height / 15’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone LSI - 5 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 71 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (800) 436-7800 • ©LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Page 5/6 Rev. 09/28/22 SPEC.1019.C.0922 Type: Scottsdale VertexTM (SCV) Petroleum PRODUCT DIMENSIONS Back to Quick Links 15.9” (403mm) 2.6” (66mm) 2.0” (52mm) 0.7” (17mm) 13.5” (343mm) 13.5” (343mm) 2.0 (51 mm) 8.3 (211 mm) 4.0 (101 mm) 6.00” (152mm) Gasket 3/4” NPS SCFT Distribution IMSBT Option REDiMount Direct Mount Accessory LSI - 6 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 72 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (800) 436-7800 • ©LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Page 6/6 Rev. 09/28/22 SPEC.1019.C.0922 Type: Scottsdale VertexTM (SCV) Petroleum Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (IMSBT1, IMSBT2) Slim low profile sensor provides multi-level control based on motion and/or daylight. Sensor controls 0-10 VDC LED drivers and is rated for cold and wet locations (-30° C to 70° C). Two unique PIR lenses are available and used based on fixture mounting height. All control parameters are adjustable via an iOS or Android App capable of storing and transmitting sensor profiles. Click the link below to learn more details about IMSBT. https://www.lsicorp.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/products/imsbt-specsheet.pdf AirLink Wireless Lighting Controller (ALSC, ALSCS) The AirLink integrated controller is a California Title 24 compliant lighting controller that provides real-time light monitoring and control with utility-grade power monitoring. It includes a 24V sensor input and power supply to connect a sensor into the outdoor AirLink wireless lighting system. The wireless integrated controller is compatible with this fixture. Click the link below to learn more details about AirLink. https://www.lsicorp.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/products/airlink-outdoor-specsheet.pdf AirLink™ Blue (ALBC, ALBCS1, ALBCS2) Wireless Bluetooth Mesh Lighting Control System that provides energy savings, code compliance and enhanced safety/security. Three key components; Bluetooth wireless radio/sensor controller, Time Keeper and an App. Capable of grouping multiple fixtures and sensors as well as scheduling time-based events by zone. Radio/Sensor Controller is factory integrated into luminaires. Click the link below to learn more details about AirLink Blue. https://www.lsicorp.com/product/airlink-blue/ RETROFIT KITS LSI Industries offers a full line of Retrofit Kits for existing Encore, Richmond, 2x2 Universal and many more older canopy luminaires. Click the link below to see more details on all our Retrofit Kits. https://www.lsi-industries.com/documents/datasheets/scm-petro-retrofit-specsheet.pdf CONTROLS Back to Quick Links LSI - 7 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 73 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (513) 372-3200 • ©2020 LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice. Page 1/2 Rev. 12/22/20 SPEC.1051.B.1120 Catalog #:Project: Date:Type:Prepared By: Motion and Photo Sensor Module FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS ORDERING GUIDE The AirLink Blue motion and photo sensor controller provides multi-level control based on motion and/or daylight. Multiple fixtures can be grouped to be controlled by a single sensor. Controls 0-10 VDC LED drivers and is rated for cold and wet locations ( -40°C to 85°C ). Two unique PIR lenses are available and used based on fixture mounting height. Control parameters are adjustable via an iOS App capable of storing and transmitting sensor profiles. The addition of an AirLink Blue Time Keeper adds the ability to schedule multiple events based on time of day or Astronomical clock. Construction • Bluetooth Mesh radio pairs with iOS applications for initial system setup and subsequent adjustments or changes. • Quad element PIR sensor with 360 degree coverage pattern • Fresnel lens options for mounting heights of 8-24 feet or 25-40 feet • Built in day/night photo sensor • Sensor housing is white polycarbonate • Sensor settings are stored and maintained in the event of a power failure • Red LED motion indicator Electrical • Class 2 device with a 0-10V configurable dimming output • Operates on 12-24 VDC from either a 120-277V power pack or auxiliary output driver Controls Range (Line of sight) • Phone App to fixture 100 feet • Fixture to Fixture 150 feet • Time Keeper to Fixture 150 feet glass wall, 50 feet solid wall Installation • Designed for installation on the underside of a luminaire housing in a horizontal orientation. • Compatible fixtures include Mirada Area (Large, Medium, Small), Slice Area Medium, Mirada Wall (Medium, Small), Scottsdale Canopy (SCV, SCM), Excursion Garage. • IP65 rated • Rated for use in -22°F to 158°F (-30°C to 70° C) environments Warranty • LSI LED fixtures carry a 5-year warranty. Listings • UL Listed • FCC • CE • Bluetooth PERFORMANCE 0'10'10'20'20'30'30'40'40' 0'0' 0' 3' 5' 7' 9' 12'3'5'7'9'12' 8'30' 40' 20' SIDE VIEW IMSBT1 IMSBT2 SIDE VIEWTOP VIEW (at 8ft.)TOP VIEW (at 8ft.)15' 15' 10' 10' 5' 5' 0' 15' 15' 10' 10' 5' 5' 0' Technology Partner SILVAIR Catalog Number Suffix Description ALBCS1 AirLink Blue Motion and Photo Sensor 8-24’ mounting height ALBCS2 AirLink Blue Motion and Photo Sensor 25-40’ mounting height ALB TK 120 AirLink Blue Time Keeper 120 volt *Add catalog number suffix to the catalog number of compatible fixtures: Mirada Area (Large, Medium, Small), Slice Area Medium, Mirada Wall (Medium, Small), Scottsdale Canopy (SCV, SCM), Excursion Garage. LSI - 8 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 74 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • www.lsicorp.com (513) 372-3200 • ©2020 LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice. Page 2/2 Rev. 12/22/20 SPEC.1051.B.1120 Type: PRODUCT DIMENSIONS LSI - 9 OF 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 75 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 76 Arlo SchumannAssociate PlannerPlanning and Zoning Commission835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy Lighting, MA220131February 16, 2023ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 77 Project Location2Situated ~0.12 Miles East of N Shields St. and ~0.15 Miles North of W Vine Dr.SITEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 78 Project Context3Address 835 Wood St.23.86-acre siteEmployment District (E)Existing Facility.Home of CoFC Fleet Maintenance. SITELarimer CountyCLEEPOLUEPOLITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 79 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy LightingProject Overview4Proposed Scope:• Remove and replace underground fuel piping, including adding new secondary containment.• Installation of a new canopy over fueling positions.• Setting and installing a new electrical rack for fuel system needs.• Potentially adding solar PV on the roof.• Associated with a plat of the property as part of Minor Subdivision BDR220007, Fleet Maintenance SubdivisionITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 80 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy LightingProject Overview5Proposed Plan:ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 81 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy LightingProject Overview6Proposed Canopy Color:Proposed Canopy:ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 82 835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy Lighting7Staff recommends approval of MA220131,835 Wood Street - Fuel Canopy LightingIn evaluating the request for the Fleet Maintenance Subdivision, staff makes the following findings of fact:• The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards.• The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 – Employment District (E) in Article 4.• This Minor Amendment is dependent on approval of BDR220007. Pending approval by this commission the Minor Amendment will not be closed until the associated plat has been recorded.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 83 8Thank You.Hoffman Mill Weigh StationITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 84 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 4 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission: February 16, 2023 Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 - MA220151 Summary of Request This is a request for a Minor Amendment to the City of Fort Collins Rolland Moore Community Park located at 2201 S. Shields Street (parcel #9722411901). The proposal is the second phase of replacing lighting fixtures near baseball Field 3 and Field 4 in the park. 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 Rolland Moore Community Park is located at 2201 S. Shields Street. Parcel # 9722411901 Zoning Public Open Lands (POL) Property Owner City of Fort Collins – Parks Department 413 S. Bryan Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Jill Wuertz City of Fort Collins 413 S. Bryan Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Katelyn Puga, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 6 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 6 4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards ................. 7 5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ............. 10 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 10 7. Recommendation ..................................... 10 8. Attachments ............................................. 10 Staff Recommendation Approval of the Minor Amendment Packet pg. 85 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 2 of 10 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is to complete a second phase of updates to the existing lighting at baseball Field 3 and Field 4 at the Rolland Moore Community Park. The proposal replaces a total of ten (10) lighting fixtures with 76 lights that are related to the baseball fields and adjacent walkways at the park. The proposed lighting update improves safety by replacing damaged light poles in the park and provides efficiencies by replacing the lights. All light fixtures in the proposal will be updated to LED lighting. The lighting replacements save energy over the existing lighting system and reduces lighting spill and glare light by approximately fifty percent. The update to the control and monitoring system also allows for programmable parameters and controls for the lights that held to reduce lighting levels and improve customer service. The proposal for the lighting update will improve the community’s sense of place and help to promote health and wellness within the community. B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Development Status/Background The 68.58-acre site at the Rolland Moore Community Park is a park programmed for sports activities. It is located adjacent to two City Natural Areas (Fischer Natural Area and Ross Natural Area) and borders the Larimer Canal No.2 and the New Mercer Ditch irrigation ditch system on the south side of the site. The park is home to many sports fields, including baseball fields, basketball courts, and volleyball courts. The baseball fields are located near the south, center portion of the property. The baseball fields are located more than 250 feet from any adjacent residential property and natural area but is within 200 feet of the irrigation ditch system to the south of the baseball fields. The baseball fields are separated from the irrigation ditch system by the internal street (Rolland Moore Drive) and landscaping. Portions of the baseball fields at the property are within the FEMA floodplain designated areas. An update to the lighting at baseball Field 1 and Field 2 was made in Phase 1 in 2018. Improvements to the baseball field lighting was made to reduce the amount of glare and light spill. The site is zoned Public Open Lands (POL). 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) Public Open Lands District (P-O-L) Public Open Lands District (P-O-L) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M- N) Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) Low Density Residential District (R-L) Land Use Fischer Natural Area Multi-Family Residential Commercial, Office Ross Natural Area Multi-Family Residential Townhome and Condominium Residential Single-Family Residential Packet pg. 86 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 3 of 10 Back to Top C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Minor Amendment for the lighting replacement at Rolland Moore Community Park is intended to update a total of 76 lighting fixtures near baseball fields three and four at the sports complex. There are a total of ten (10) light poles that are proposed to be replaced. The maximum height of the poles is 80 feet with various mounting heights on the poles at 15 feet, 25 feet, 35 feet, 70 feet, and 80 feet, depending on the type of light fixture. The proposal provides a site plan showing the location of the lighting fixtures to be replaced with the photometric plan. Details of the lighting fixtures are also provided with the proposal. Information about the light color temperature, off-site impacts, and lighting controls are provided with the plans to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code. The site is within designated FEMA floodplain areas and the applicant has provided the City with no-rise certifications to satisfy requirements for being within the floodplain. No significant grading or impacts to the existing landscaping are expected with the proposal. The proposed changes do not result in a change in the character of the existing development or significantly alter the facility’s existing relationships with the surrounding properties. Packet pg. 87 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 4 of 10 Back to Top Photometric Plan showing footcandle readings at and near property lines. Packet pg. 88 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 5 of 10 Back to Top Proposed Light Pole Fixtures Packet pg. 89 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 6 of 10 Back to Top 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. Therefore, no neighborhood meeting was conducted. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This application was posted on the City’s Development Review website as it is being reviewed. During the review of the minor amendment, no public comments were received. Comments received after the hearing notice will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. BACKGROUND This project was submitted on December 21, 2022. The project has completed two rounds of staff review, the project documents are substantially complete for review by the Commission. The second submittal resolved staff’s comments. B. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Minor Amendment Submittal – MA220081 Round 1 Comments sent to applicant January 9, 2023 Round 2 Comments resolved on January 23, 2023. Packet pg. 90 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 7 of 10 Back to Top 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 1, 2023. Written notice: February 1, 2023, 40 letters sent. Published Notice: Scheduled for February 5, 2023. C. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant is not requesting any modification of standards. 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. • No landscaping is expected to be disturbed for the installation of the site lighting improvements. The City’s Forestry staff did not have any concerns with the proposal. Not Applicable 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. • No new parking is proposed as a part of this project. • No changes to the existing circulation is proposed as a part of this project. Not Applicable Packet pg. 91 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 8 of 10 Back to Top 3.2.4 – Site Lighting (A)(C)(K) 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. • The site is in the Lighting Context Area 1, however, 3.2.4(K) exempts athletic and recreational fields from the lumen, BUG and color temperature requirements of this section and shall meet 3.2.4.K.1-3 instead. • The proposed design of the new lighting fixtures meet the Design Standards of this section and will reinforce the lighting fixture style of the existing land use. • The placement of the new light fixtures demonstrates that there is no light trespass onto adjacent properties, Natural Areas, Natural Habitat Buffer Zones or River Landscape Buffers. • The lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature of 3000 Kelvin and is less than the maximum of 5700 Kelvin for athletic and recreational fields. • Off-site impacts are limited to the maximum extent practical by demonstrating that lighting spill will be minimized at property lines. All values near property lines do not exceed 0.1 footcandles. Areas adjacent to designated Natural Areas do not exceed 0.0 footcandles. • The proposed lighting controls demonstrate that the lighting will meet the control requirements in Division 3.2.4(K)(3), including lighting levels for maintenance vs. active play, preset illuminance levels, automatic extinguishing of light after play, and directional requirements for upward and downward- directed field lighting. Complies 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. • No dedications or easements are required for the project. Not Applicable C. DIVISION 3.4 – ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Packet pg. 92 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 9 of 10 Back to Top 3.4.1(A)(B) This Code section applies to any portion of a development that is within five hundred feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City’s Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map or if any portion of the site contains natural habitats or feature of ecological value. Development will protect any existing natural habitats and features. • The site is within two hundred fifty feet of the Spring Creek, Larimer County Canal No.2, and the New Mercer Ditch. • The site is adjacent to area’s identified as City Natural Areas, the Ross Natural Area to the southwest of the ball fields and the Fischer Natural Area to the north of the property. Both Natural Areas are greater than five hundred feet in distance from the ball fields at Rolland Moore Park. The area of the lighting update does contain natural habitats or features of ecological value (Spring Creek). • To minimize any adverse ecological impacts from the lighting changes, the applicant has included the lighting control procedures with the proposed plan set that limits unnecessary lighting during ecologically sensitive time periods. Complies 3.4.6 (A)(B) The community and neighborhood are to be protected from glare, or uncomfortably bright light. • The proposed lighting fixtures are located a minimum of 250 feet from the nearest adjacent properties or right-of-way and meets the lighting standards so as to not produce glare or bright light. Complies D. 3.5 – BUILDING STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1– Building Project and Compatibility (B)(C)(E)(F)(G)(I)(J) 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 scope of work does not include any changes to buildings nor does it change the compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. All improvements to the lighting are internal to the site. Not applicable E. 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 Packet pg. 93 Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 2 MA220151 | Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 Thursday, February 16, 2023 | Page 10 of 10 Back to Top 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This section ensures that all adopted level of service (LOS) standards are achieved for all modes of traffic. • The scope of work does not change the adopted transportation LOS. 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. • The scope of work does not change the existing emergency access on site. Not Applicable 5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards: DIVISION 4.13 - THE PUBLIC OPEN LANDS DISTRICT IS FOR LARGE PUBLICLY OWNED PARKS AND OPEN LANDS WHICH HAVE A COMMUNITY-WIDE EMPHASIS OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS WHICH WARRANT INCLUSION UNDER THIS SEPARATE DESIGNATION RATHER THAN INCLUSION IN AN ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD OR OTHER DISTRICT DESIGNATION. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.13 – Permitted Uses This section ensures that a change of use or addition of use on the property would go through the prescribed Development Review process as determined in this section. • The scope of work does not change the existing land use at the site. Not Applicable 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2 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 4.13, The Public Open Lands District, Article 4. 7. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2, MA220151. 8. Attachments 1. Minor Amendment application 2. Planning Drawings sheets 3. Round 1 Comment Letter 4. Staff presentation Packet pg. 94 [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: __________________________________________________________________ Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement - Phase 2 303-591-4784 2201 S Shields St, Fort Collins, CO 80526 City of Fort Collins - Parks Dept - Attn Jill Wuertz 413 S Bryan St Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-416-2062 jwuertz@fcgov.com Rick or Randy Chestnut C&R Electrical Contractors Inc 10475 Irma Dr #13 Northglenn, CO 80233 rickcrelec@comcast.net - rchestnut1@comcast.net Replacing outdated sports lighting for Fields 3 and 4 Randy Chestnut 10475 Irma Dr #13, Northglenn, CO 80233 303-591-4785 Randy Chestnut Digitally signed by Randy ChestnutDN: C=US, E=rchestnut1@comcast.net, O=C&R Electrical Contractors Inc, CN=Randy Chestnut Date: 2022.12.01 08:41:09-07'00' ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 95 PROJECT SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885B2 · 22-Nov-22 Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO LighƟng System Pole / Fixture Summary Pole ID Pole Height Mtg Height Fixture Qty Luminaire Type Load Circuit A1 70'70'2 TLC-LED-1200 2.34 kW D 70'2 TLC-LED-900 1.78 kW D 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW F A3 70'70'2 TLC-LED-1200 2.34 kW C 70'2 TLC-LED-900 1.78 kW C 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW E 25'1 CREE OSQ 0.10 kW G A4 70'70'2 TLC-LED-1200 2.34 kW C 70'2 TLC-LED-900 1.78 kW C 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW E 70'2 TLC-LED-1200 2.34 kW D 70'2 TLC-LED-900 1.78 kW D 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW F 25'1 CREE OSQ 0.10 kW G B1 80'80'6 TLC-LED-1200 7.02 kW D 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW F B4 80'80'6 TLC-LED-1200 7.02 kW C 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW E 35'1 CREE OSQ 0.10 kW G B5 80'80'6 TLC-LED-1200 7.02 kW C 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW E 80'6 TLC-LED-1200 7.02 kW D 15'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW F 35'1 CREE OSQ 0.10 kW G C5-C6 70'70'4 TLC-LED-1200 4.68 kW C 15'2 TLC-BT-575 1.15 kW E C7-C8 70'70'4 TLC-LED-1200 4.68 kW D 15'2 TLC-BT-575 1.15 kW F 10 76 72.90 kW Circuit Summary Circuit Description Load Fixture Qty C Baseball 3 31.64 kW 28 D Baseball 4 31.64 kW 28 E Baseball 3 BT 4.6 kW 8 F Baseball 4 BT 4.6 kW 8 G Cree 0.42 kW 4 Fixture Type Summary Type Source Wattage Lumens L90 L80 L70 Quantity TLC-LED-900 LED 3000K - 80 CRI 890W 72,576 >120,000 >120,000 >120,000 8 TLC-BT-575 LED 3000K - 80 CRI 575W 42,120 >120,000 >120,000 >120,000 16 TLC-LED-1200 LED 3000K - 80 CRI 1170W 110,160 >120,000 >120,000 >120,000 48 CREE OSQ LED 3000K - 70 CRI 104W 15,345 ------4 Light Level Summary Calculation Grid Summary IlluminationGrid Name Calculation Metric Ave Min Max Max/Min Ave/Min Circuits Fixture Qty Baseball 3 (Infield)Horizontal Illuminance 32.7 26 38 1.46 1.26 C,E 36 Baseball 3 (Outfield)Horizontal Illuminance 25.5 15 33 2.29 1.70 C,E 36 Baseball 4 (Infield)Horizontal Illuminance 32.7 25 37 1.48 1.31 D,F 36 Baseball 4 (Outfield)Horizontal Illuminance 24.8 14 32 2.31 1.77 D,F 36 Spill Horizontal 0 0 0.10 0.00 C,D,E,F 72 Spill Max Candela (by Fixture)121 0 3142 0.00 C,D,E,F 72 Spill Max Vertical Illuminance Metric 0.01 0 0.20 0.00 C,D,E,F 72 Walkway 1 Horizontal 1.35 0 2 31.99 G 4 Walkway 2 Horizontal 1.31 0 2 29.73 G 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 96 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885B2 · 22-Nov-22 B4 A3 C5 C6 30 36 30 34 34 28 22 23 23 23 36 34 32 36 34 30 28 27 32 33 21 31 31 32 33 32 30 29 31 32 33 21 34 34 33 31 29 28 30 33 31 26 15 36 38 33 29 26 25 28 30 27 21 27 33 32 27 24 23 24 26 23 21 25 29 31 29 25 22 22 24 24 15 24 27 31 31 26 24 23 21 17 24 31 30 30 24 22 24 17 22 30 31 24 20 21 15 20 20 15 B5 A4 60'173'60'50'36'79'104'287'287'104'173'50'SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A370'10'80' 25' 35' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-900 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 A4 70'10'80' 25' 35' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-900 2/2* 1/1* 1 2/2* 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 B4 80'-15' 35' 80' TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-1200 1 1 6 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 B5 80'-15' 35' 80' TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-1200 1/1* 1 6/6* 1 0 6 1 1 6 2 C5-C6 70'-15' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 2 4 2 4 0 0 6 TOTALS 52 36 16 * This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO GRID SUMMARY Name: Baseball 3 Size: 297'/307'/297' - basepath 90' Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES InĮeld Ouƞield Guaranteed Average:30 20 Scan Average:32.72 25.52 Maximum:38 33 Minimum:26 15 Avg / Min:1.26 1.75 Guaranteed Max / Min:2.5 3 Max / Min:1.46 2.29 UG (adjacent pts):1.20 1.69 CU:0.75 ApplicaƟon Eĸcacy:67.9 No. of Points:25 75 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Applied Circuits: C, E No. of Luminaires: 36 Total Load: 36.24 kW Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 97 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885B2 · 22-Nov-22 B1 A1 C7 C8 29 36 30 34 34 29 24 23 23 22 36 34 31 36 37 31 25 24 30 30 20 30 31 32 34 33 29 27 28 29 31 20 35 34 33 31 28 25 27 30 30 26 16 34 37 34 29 25 23 25 28 26 22 27 32 32 27 23 22 23 26 24 21 25 28 30 28 25 22 23 25 24 14 24 26 30 31 26 25 24 21 17 23 30 29 29 24 23 24 17 23 29 30 24 20 21 14 20 19 15 65'172'65'50'287'104'172'69'50'69'104'287' B5 A4 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'10'80' 25' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-900 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 A4 70'10'80' 25' 35' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-900 2/2* 1/1* 1 2/2* 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 B1 80'-15' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 B5 80'-15' 35' 80' TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-1200 1/1* 1 6/6* 1 0 6 1 1 6 2 C7-C8 70'-15' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 2 4 2 4 0 0 6 TOTALS 50 36 14 * This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO GRID SUMMARY Name: Baseball 4 Size: 297'/307'/297' - basepath 90' Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES InĮeld Ouƞield Guaranteed Average:30 20 Scan Average:32.73 24.83 Maximum:37 32 Minimum:25 14 Avg / Min:1.30 1.76 Guaranteed Max / Min:2.5 3 Max / Min:1.48 2.31 UG (adjacent pts):1.22 1.71 CU:0.74 No. of Points:25 75 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Applied Circuits: D, F No. of Luminaires: 36 Total Load: 36.24 kW Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 98 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885C · 19-Dec-22 B4 A3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 60'50'173'50'36'79'A4 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 40 0'40'80' Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO GRID SUMMARY Name: Walkway 1 Size: 297'/307'/297' - basepath 90' Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:1.44 Maximum: 2 Minimum: 0 Avg / Min:8.26 Max / Min:13.91 UG (adjacent pts):1.69 No. of Points:28 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Applied Circuits: G No. of Luminaires: 4 Total Load: 0.42 kW Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES: City of Fort Collins Specification: Circulation Area 1 FC 15:1 max/min 21 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 99 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885C · 19-Dec-22 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 60'50'50'60'173'A4 B5 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 40 0'40'80' Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO GRID SUMMARY Name: Walkway 2 Size: 297'/307'/297' - basepath 90' Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:1.40 Maximum: 2 Minimum: 0 Avg / Min:8.11 Max / Min:12.77 UG (adjacent pts):1.68 No. of Points:28 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Applied Circuits: G No. of Luminaires: 4 Total Load: 0.42 kW Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES: City of Fort Collins Specification: Circulation Area 1 FC 15:1 max/min 22 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 100 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885B2 · 22-Nov-22 B4 A3 C5 C6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B5 A4 B1 A1 C7 C8 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 225 0'225'450' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'10'80' 25' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-900 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 A3 70'10'80' 25' 35' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-900 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 A4 70'10'80' 25' 35' 80' TLC-LED-1200 TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-900 2/2* 1/1* 1 2/2* 4 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 B1 80'-15' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 B4 80'-15' 35' 80' TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-1200 1 1 6 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 B5 80'-15' 35' 80' TLC-BT-575 CREE OSQ TLC-LED-1200 1/1* 1 6/6* 2 0 12 0 1 0 4 C5-C8 70'-15' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 2 4 2 4 0 0 10 TOTALS 76 72 4 * This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO GRID SUMMARY Name: Spill Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAX VERTICAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:0.0064 Maximum:0.20 Minimum:0.00 No. of Points:235 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Applied Circuits: C, D, E, F No. of Luminaires: 72 Total Load: 72.48 kW Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 101 Control System Summary Rolland Moore Park Ballfields Phase 2 / 191885 - 191885B HP1 - Page 3 of 5 T:\191\191885P1V2-1121165306.pdf CONTROL POWER CONSUMPTION 120V Single Phase VA loading of Musco Supplied Equipment INRUSH: 3675.0 SEALED: 390.0 SWITCHING SCHEDULE Field/Zone Description Zones Baseball 3 1 Baseball 4 2 Baseball 3 Ball Trackers 3 Baseball 4 Ball Trackers 4 Walkway 5 CIRCUIT SUMMARY BY ZONE POLE CIRCUIT DESCRIPTION # OF FIXTURES # OF DRIVERS *FULL LOAD AMPS CONTACTOR SIZE (AMPS) CONTACTOR ID ZONE A3 Baseball 3 4 4 7.2 30 C1 1 A4 Baseball 3 4 4 7.2 30 C2 1 B4 Baseball 3 6 6 10.5 30 C3 1 B5 Baseball 3 6 6 10.5 30 C4 1 C5 Baseball 3 4 4 7.9 30 C5 1 C6 Baseball 3 4 4 7.9 30 C6 1 A1 Baseball 4 4 4 7.2 30 C7 2 A4 Baseball 4 4 4 7.2 30 C8 2 B1 Baseball 4 6 6 10.5 30 C9 2 B5 Baseball 4 6 6 10.5 30 C10 2 C7 Baseball 4 4 4 7.9 30 C11 2 C8 Baseball 4 4 4 7.9 30 C12 2 A3,A4,B4,B5,C5 Baseball 3 Ball Trackers 8 8 7.5 30 C13 3 C6 A1,A4,B1,B5,C7 Baseball 4 Ball Trackers 8 8 7.5 30 C14 4 C8 A3,A4,B4,B5 Walkway 4 4 0.6 30 C15 5 *Full Load Amps based on amps per driver. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 102 Control System Summary Rolland Moore Park Ballfields Phase 2 / 191885 - 191885B HP1 - Page 4 of 5 T:\191\191885P1V2-1121165306.pdf PANEL SUMMARY CABINET # CONTROL MODULE LOCATION CONTACTOR ID CIRCUIT DESCRIPTION FULL LOAD AMPS DISTRIBUTION PANEL ID (BY OTHERS) CIRCUIT BREAKER POSITION (BY OTHERS) 1 1 C1 Pole A3 7.23 1 1 C2 Pole A4 7.23 1 1 C3 Pole B4 10.50 1 1 C4 Pole B5 10.50 1 1 C5 Pole C5 7.87 1 1 C6 Pole C6 7.87 1 1 C7 Pole A1 7.23 1 1 C8 Pole A4 7.23 1 1 C9 Pole B1 10.50 1 1 C10 Pole B5 10.50 1 1 C11 Pole C7 7.87 1 1 C12 Pole C8 7.87 2 1 C13 Pole A3,A4,B4,B5,C5,C6 7.53 2 1 C14 Pole A1,A4,B1,B5,C7,C8 7.53 2 1 C15 Pole A3,A4,B4,B5 0.57 ZONE SCHEDULE CIRCUIT DESCRIPTION ZONE SELECTOR SWITCH ZONE DESCRIPTION POLE ID CONTACTOR ID Zone 1 1 Baseball 3 A3 C1 A4 C2 B4 C3 B5 C4 C5 C5 C6 C6 Zone 2 2 Baseball 4 A1 C7 A4 C8 B1 C9 B5 C10 C7 C11 C8 C12 Zone 3 3 Baseball 3 Ball Trackers A3 C13 A4 C13 B4 C13 B5 C13 C5 C13 C6 C13 Zone 4 4 Baseball 4 Ball Trackers A1 C14 A4 C14 B1 C14 B5 C14 C7 C14 C8 C14 Zone 5 5 Walkway A3 C15 A4 C15 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 103 Control System Summary Rolland Moore Park Ballfields Phase 2 / 191885 - 191885B HP1 - Page 5 of 5 ZONE SCHEDULE CIRCUIT DESCRIPTION ZONE SELECTOR SWITCH ZONE DESCRIPTION POLE ID CONTACTOR ID Zone 5 5 Walkway B4 C15 B5 C15 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 104 Existing Utility Xfmr277/480 VMetering(Exisitng) (Existing)(2 Sets) 4 - 3/0 Cu 2" C Rolland Moore ParkCity of Fort Collins2201 S. Shields StFort Collins CO 80526C&R Electrical Contractors Inc10475 Irma Dr #13Northglenn CO 80233Musco LCCSite PlanConduit horizontal bore HDPE 2" Conduit(Not to Scale)Existing Utility TransformerExisting Concessions BuildingNorthA1B1C1C2B2A2C3C4A3B3C5C6B5A4C7C8Voltage Drop - Wire Size ChartField 1Field 4Field 2Field 3Musco LCC(1) 2" Conduit2" Conduit(2) 2" Conduit2" Conduit(3) 2" Conduit11Demo Remaining Switchgear that was used to feed old sportslighting system.Rolland Moore Ballfields Lighting UpgradesPhase 1 Scope:Replace lights on Field 1&2 - Completed in 2018 Phase 2 Scope: Replace field lights on Fields 3&4 to include seperate circuits for Ball Tracker Lighting and Pathway/Pedestrian Lighting22Location of existing field lighting service enclosure.Mount New Musco Controls in Spare CompartmentsAs RequiredPanel HP1(Existing)Panel HP2(Existing)Panel LP1(Existing)Existing Ballfield Lighting ServiceInstall New Musco Lighting Controls in Empty Compartments as RequiredRolland Moore Ballfields Lighting UpgradePhase 2Demo Remaining Original Sports Light Poles and Foundations to below grade on Fields 3&4.Recycle and dispose of all materials and debris from site. General Notes:2" Conduit2" Conduit(1) 2" ConduitB4(1) 2" Conduit(1) 2" ConduitBall Tracker Uplights and Walkway Downlights to be on seperate circuits via Musco LLC - See Musco Drawings for more information and Voltage drop table (This Page) for conductor sizing.(Typical)2" Conduit2" ConduitConductors shall be TWHN Cu 90 Deg C in accordance with NEC - Table 310.15(C) (1) HP1 - (1,3,5) Field LIghting(37,39,41) BT-Circuit F#10 Cu GroundPull new circuits through existing conduit HP1 - 31,33,35,(37,39,41) BT-Circuit F#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (1,3,5),(13, 15,17),(31,33,35) Field Lighting(37,39,41),BT-Circuit F#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (25,27,29) Field Lighting(37,39,41) BT Circuit F#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (7,9,11),(8,10,12), Field Lights(43,45,47) Pedestrian Light(37,39,41),BT-Circuit E(37,39,41),BT Circuit FHP1 - (19,21,23) (20,22,24)Field Lighting(43,45,47) Pedestrian Light(37,39,41) BT Circuit E(37,39,41) BT Circuit F#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (7,9,11),(8,10,12), Field Lights(43,45,47) Pedestrian Light(37,39,41),BT-Circuit E(37,39,41),BT Circuit FHP1 - (19,21,23)(25,27,29)(20,22,24)(32,34,36) Field Lighting#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (1,3,5),(13, 15,17),(31,33,35) Field Lighting#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (32,36,38) Field Lighting(37,39,41) BT Circuit E#10 Cu GroundHP1 - (26,28,30)Field Lighting(37,39,41) BT - Circuit E#10 Cu GroundAdd Fixtures for fields 3 and 4 to existing poles A1, B1,A3 per Musco DesignHP1 - (2,4,6)Field Lighting(37,39,41) BT - Circuit E(43,45,47) Pedestrian Light#10 Cu GroundPull new circuits in existing conduitHP1 - (14,16,18)Field Lighting(37,39,41) BT - Circuit E(43,45,47) Pedestrian Light#10 Cu GroundITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 105 Rolland Moore ParkCity of Fort Collins2201 S. Shields StFort Collins CO 80526C&R Electrical Contractors Inc10475 Irma Dr #13Northglenn CO 80233Rolland Moore Ballfields Lighting UpgradePhase 2E 2.0Lighting is 480v 3 phaseContactors E and F to be fed from circuit HP1 37,39,41 per panel scheduleITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 106 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 70FT POLE(S): C5, C6, C7, C8 Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (2) TLC-BT-575 15FT 39 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 107 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 70FT POLE(S): A4 Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Poletop luminaire assembly A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (1) TLC-BT-575 15FT A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket 35FT (1) CREE OSQ 40 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 108 Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 70FT POLE(S): A3 (5 fixtures & ECE's existing) 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Poletop luminaire assembly A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (1) TLC-BT-575 15FT A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket 35FT (1) CREE OSQ 41 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 109 Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 70FT POLE(S): A1 (5 fixtures & ECE's existing) 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Poletop luminaire assembly A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (1) TLC-BT-575 15FT 42 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 110 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 80FT POLE(S): B4 Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (1) TLC-BT-575 15FT A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket 35FT (1) CREE OSQ 43 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 111 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 80FT POLE(S): B5 Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Poletop luminaire assembly A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (1) TLC-BT-575 15FT A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket 35FT (1) CREE OSQ 44 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 112 Musco Light-Structure System pole TLC for LED luminaires 80FT POLE(S): B1 (7 fixtures & ECE's existing) 10 ft (3 m) 2 ft (600 mm) Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Ground level Poletop luminaire assembly Electrical components enclosure Galvanized steel pole Precast concrete base Poletop luminaire assembly A.G.L. Auxiliary mounting bracket (1) TLC-BT-575 15FT 45 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 113 MEMORANDUM COCREC01_RMParkFieldLightingPhase2_No-Rise_memo_2023-01-23.docx Page 1 of 5 January 23, 2023 DATE: January 23, 2023 ACE PROJECT NO.: COCREC01 TO: Rick Chestnut, C&R Electrical Contractors, Inc. Claudia Quezada, City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department FROM: Greg Koch, Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. SUBJECT: No-Rise Certification, Rolland Moore Park Ball Fields Phase 2, Field Lighting INTORDUCTION C&R Electrical Contractors is currently in the process of replacing the field lights and light poles for the two southern baseball fields located in Rolland Moore Park in west-central Fort Collins. Field lights and light poles for the two northern ball fields were replaced in 2018 during Phase 1 of this project. Spring Creek flows generally south to north adjacent to the west side of the ball fields. Consequently, most of these two baseball fields are located in the 1% annual chance of occurrence (100-year) floodplain, as well as the regulatory floodway, designated along Spring Creek. Since a number of the old and new light poles are located in the 1% annual chance floodplain, a City Floodplain Use Permit is required for the installation of the new lights. Design of the new lights has been completed and the old light poles have recently been removed. Installation of the new light poles is pending approval of a Floodplain Use Permit that was previously submitted by C&R. Due to the location of a number of the lights in the regulatory floodway, one of the conditions of approval of that permit is a certification of no-rise resulting from installation of the new light poles. The intention of this memo is to provide a qualitative evaluation of the proposed work in support of a no-rise certification. SPRING CREEK FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY The best available floodplain information for Spring Creek was obtained from the City Stormwater Department. This information is from the recent Spring Creek at Riverside LOMR that is currently being reviewed by FEMA; the LOMR floodplain work map covering the current project area is included with the attachments to this memo. According to Stormwater Staff, floodplain boundaries through Rolland Moore Park associated with this LOMR are identical to effective floodplain boundaries. In the vicinity of the baseball fields, the floodway and floodplain boundaries are generally coincident. LIGHT POLE REPLACEMENT DESIGN Light pole design information was provided by C&R; select sheets from the design set, pertinent to the floodplain discussion, are included with the attachments to this memo. The first design sheet in the attachments shows a plan view of ten new light poles; Figure 1 is an excerpt from that plan. Poles A1, A3 and B1 were installed in 2018 during Phase 1; however, light heads at the tops of those poles have either recently been installed or are in the process of being installed. Consequently, relative to potential floodplain impacts, the current project consists of the removal of ten light poles and the installation of seven new poles. Figure 1. New Light Pole Layout. LIGHT POLES INSTALLED IN 2018 – NOT PART OF THE CURRENT PROJECT ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 114 MEMORANDUM COCREC01_RMParkFieldLightingPhase2_No-Rise_memo_2023-01-23.docx Page 2 of 5 January 23, 2023 The second design sheet included in the attachments provides details concerning the light poles and pole foundations. The information on that sheet indicates that the new poles will be founded on 36-inch diameter concrete piers drilled to various depths and recessed 2 feet below adjacent grade. Pole diameters vary by location and range from 13.4 inches to 20.6 inches. Photographs of a typical light pole installation are shown in Figures 2 and 3. These photographs show light poles that were installed in 2018 for the northern baseball fields. The light poles and bases that are being replaced have already been removed and a photographic record of them prior to removal is not available. However, they were described by C&R personnel as having a similar diameter as the new poles, except the old poles were anchored to 36-inch diameter concrete caissons that protruded 6 inches above grade. Since the concrete piers for the new poles will be terminated 2 feet below grade, relative to the existing poles, each new pole installation will exhibit a reduced cross sectional area for impacting flood flows. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ON THE REGULATORY FLOODPLAIN In order to evaluate the potential impact of the Phase 2 light pole project, that is the removal of ten light poles and the installation of seven light poles, the light pole plan was combined with the floodplain/floodway mapping identified as best available data by City Stormwater Staff. The result is the map provided as Figure 4. The figure indicates that the proposed light pole work includes the removal of six existing light poles from the regulatory floodplain and floodway, along with the placement of five new light poles in the regulatory floodplain and floodway. Figure 2. Light Pole Installed in 2018 at the Northeast Baseball Field. Figure 3. Closeup of Light Pole Base Installed in 2018 at the Northeast Baseball Field. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 115 MEMORANDUM COCREC01_RMParkFieldLightingPhase2_No-Rise_memo_2023-01-23.docx Page 3 of 5 January 23, 2023 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 116 MEMORANDUM COCREC01_RMParkFieldLightingPhase2_No-Rise_memo_2023-01-23.docx Page 4 of 5 January 23, 2023 Four of the new light poles to be located in the floodplain/floodway will be installed directly adjacent to an existing/removed light pole. The fifth light pole to be located in the floodplain/floodway will be installed relatively near an existing/removed light pole. It is noted that the locations of the new light poles have been precisely identified to meet lighting requirements, as shown in the complete design plan provided by C&R. Given that each new light pole will present less cross sectional area above grade than each existing/ removed light pole, and one less light pole will be installed in the regulatory floodplain/floodway than previously existed, it can be concluded that the proposed light pole work will result in a reduction in obstruction to regulatory flood flows. It is also noted that the existing light poles were not specifically included in hydraulic modeling of the regulatory floodplain and floodway due to their nominal width relative to the width of the regulatory floodplain and floodway in this area. This approach was followed for the current evaluation and hydraulic modeling of the proposed light poles was not conducted. It can reasonably be concluded on a qualitative basis that the proposed light pole installation and removal work associated with Rolland Moore Park Ball Fields Phase 2, Field Lighting would not raise regulatory flood elevations, nor would this project lower regulatory flood elevations by a measurable amount (certainly not to the 0.3-foot threshold identified in State criteria). Consequently, this project would also not result in a change regulatory floodplain and floodway boundaries. The information provided above is considered justification for the Certification of No-Rise that is being submitted with this memo. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 117 MEMORANDUM COCREC01_RMParkFieldLightingPhase2_No-Rise_memo_2023-01-23.docx Page 5 of 5 January 23, 2023 ATTACHMENTS BEST AVAILABLE FLOODPLAIN/FLOODWAY WORK MAP FOR SPRING CREEK and SELECT DESIGN SHEETS FOR THE PHASE 2 FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 118 246542626425001243262570525757275812781624103504050605030 507050255035 50555045 5065 502 0 50505045502550555060505550455040505550455 0 6 5 50655065 5045504550555065504050505045504050455050505050405040503050355050503050605050506050455060 505050405045506550555040505550 455045 50555060503550655065504050655025504050455035506050605 065 50605060504550405030503050505065503550405030506550605045505050455030504550505060504050655055504550605 06 0 50405 0 40 50355055503550305 06 0 50505060504050555 0 60 506050555045502550455040504550555055503050605 0 6 0 503550405055504050 40 505550 60 5040 50605050504050505045505550505055 50655060504050505 04 5503550455045 506050555060504050405 0 2 5 50655065504550355065505050405050506050 55 5025504050455045504050505060505050505060 5035502550555050 506050505060506050455040502550455045504050355050506050455060502550455040504550405060 5065503 0 5060503550305060 50455030504550455035 50605065503050455040506550605035506050405 06 0 5035504550405 035 504550455060504050605055505050555065504050405040 5 0 3 0 50355025 CONTAINS:COMMUNITYDATEFort Collins, City ofSpring Creek – LOMRWorkmapMAP SCALE 1" = 100'DATAFRAME PROPERTIES:Coordinate System:NAD 1983 StatePlane Colorado North FIPS 0501 FeetProjection: Lambert Conformal ConicHorizontal Datum: North American 1983Vertical Datum = North Americal Vertical Datum 19880 100 200 300 400FeetFEBRUARY 16, 2022MAP SYMBOLOGYLOCATORPOST PROJECT AND EXISTING FLOOD HAZARD LINES*POST PROJECT AND EXISTING DELINEATION IS COINCIDENT IN ALLAREAS EXCEPT WHEREOTHERWISE NOTEDCORRECTED EFFECTIVE 1 PCT ANNUAL CHANCEPOST PROJECT CONDITIONS 1 PCT ANNUAL CHANCEPOST PROJECT CONDITIONS FLOODWAYEFFECTIVE DFIRM DATASHADED ZONEXZONE A, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINZONE AE, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINZONE AO, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCROSS SECTIONSZONE AE, FLOODWAYPARCEL OUTLINESPRE-PROJECT CONTOURSPOST PROJECT CROSS SECTIONSPOST PROJECT PROFILE BASELINEEXISTING PROFILE BASELINEREALIGNMENT AREAPOWER TRAIL EXTENTION AREAPOST PROJECT SHADED ZONEXZONE X, 1 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODHAZARD CONTAINED IN CHANNELITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 119 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2022 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: KDunkin · File #191885C · 19-Dec-22 B4A3 C5 C6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A4 B5 B1 A1 C7 C8 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 250 0'250'500' Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Rolland Moore Park Phase 2 Fort Collins,CO GRID SUMMARY Name: Property Line Spill Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:0.0003 Maximum:0.02 Minimum:0.00 No. of Points:245 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Applied Circuits: C, D, E, F, G No. of Luminaires: 76 Total Load: 72.9 kW Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES: City of Fort Collins Specification: Maximum Horizontal 0.1 FC 23 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 120 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 121 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 January 09, 2023 Randy Chestnut C&R Electrical Contractors Inc 10475 Irma Dr #13 Fort Collins, CO 80233 RE: Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2, MA220151, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement Phase 2. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Project Planner, Brandon Haynes via phone at or via email at bhaynes@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Katelyn Puga, kpuga@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 FOR INFORMATION- The proposal requires review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff will schedule the item for a public hearing upon all comments being resolved. Comment Number: 2 FOR HEARING - While appreciated, there is a great deal of information on these plans that is not necessary. Plans should include information related to the standards in Division 3.2.4 of the Land Use Code in a consolidated, clear, and concise manner. Any additional information not pertaining to the standards should either be removed or clearly differentiated from the rest of the submittal. The plan set should provide a photometric plan, specifications of the lighting fixtures, including the BUG ratings for each fixture. Details of the lighting fixtures, including height and color. Comment Number: 3 FOR HEARING- ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 122 Please clarify in the comment response letter with the next submittal how the proposal complies with the requirements of each item listed in Division 3.2.4(K). This information should be easily identifiable on the plan set. Staff recommends adding this to a Notes section on the plan sheet. Comment Number: 4 FOR HEARING- Please clarify what the red number values indicate on the Property Spill Line plans, shown on page 23 and 24 of the report. Comment Number: 5 FOR HEARING- Please provide the control box standard as required in Division 3.2.4(K)(3) of the Land Use Code and highlight in the plans where compliance to this standard is stated and demonstrate on the plans that the standard operating procedures for the lighting controls will minimize offsite impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Tim Dinger, tdinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/28/2022: Engineering has no comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/26/2022: No comments. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Andrew Crecca, acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 12/27/2022: For Information: No Comment from Erosion Control. Based upon the submitted materials it has been determined that this project; will disturb less than 10,000 sq. ft., is not proposed to be in a sensitive area, has no steep slopes (greater than 3H:1V) within or adjacent to the project, and is not part of a larger common development that will or is under construction. Therefore, Erosion Control Material submittal is not needed. If this project substantially changes in size or design where the above criteria now apply, erosion control materials should be submitted. Although the project at this time requires no erosion control material submittal, the project still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash & debris, landscape materials and other pollutants from the potential of leaving the site and entering the storm sewer at all times during the project in accordance with City Code §26-498. If complaints are received or site observation of the project seem not to prevent the pollutants from being discharged the City may require the project to install erosion and sediment control measures. Nearby inlets that may be impacted by the ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 123 pollutants, in particular dirt, should be protected as a good preventative practice and individual lots should be protected from material escaping onto the sidewalk through the use of straw wattles or silt fence. If at building permit issuance any issues arise please email erosion@fcgov.com to help facilitate getting these permits signed off. Contact: Claudia Quezada, (970)416-2494, cquezada@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 01/05/2023: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: A portion of this property is currently located in the FEMA-Regulated, 100-year Spring Creek floodway/floodplain. Any development within the floodplain must comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. Comment Number: 2 01/05/2023: FOR APPROVAL: Please add the following notes to site plan: 1. “A portion of this property is currently located in the FEMA-Regulated, 100 -year Spring Creek floodway/floodplain. Any development within the floodplain must comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code.” 2. “Any development within the floodplain boundary including, site work, utilities, and landscaping must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code.” 3. "CONSTRUCTION OF utilities, NEW STRUCTURES, HARD SURFACE PATHS, WALKWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, WALLS, AND PARKING AREAS IS PROHIBITED IN THE FLOODWAY UNLESS NO RISE CONDITIONS ARE MET, PER SECTION 10-45 OF CITY CODE. ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE REGULATORY FLOODWAY MUST ALSO INCLUDE A NO-RISE CERTIFICATION PREPARED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN COLORADO." Comment Number: 3 01/05/2023: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the most current boundaries of the floodplain on site drawings as applicable. Contact floodplainadministration@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work. Contact: Stephen Agenbroad, sagenbroad@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/28/2022: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: If there are no site improvements that require grading or an increase in impervious area, there are no Stormwater requirements. Please contact Water Utilities Engineering (WaterUtilitiesEng@FCgov.com) if site improvements are anticipated. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 124 Contact: Stephen Agenbroad, sagenbroad@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/28/2022: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: There is a 12-inch sanitary sewer that runs through the north western corner of field 4. Please have this line located to avoid any unnecessary crossing of the electrical line and sanitary line. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/27/2022: 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. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/06/2023: FOR APPROVAL: Part (K) of the new lighting code (LUC 3.2.4) outlines the requirements that Athletic and Recreational Fields must satisfy. The requirements are different (i.e., more lenient) from standard lighting requirements to allow for those uses. However, these fields are located in an ecologically sensitive area with Spring Creek (one of the City's preeminent natural features) to the west and Larimer County Canal No. 2 to the east. The submitted 'Lighting Details' report from Musco Sports Lighting has a 'Controls' section (p. 13) that indicates all the dimming, remote controlling/monitoring, and scheduling capabilities of the proposed lighting system. Please provide a plan that demonstrates how those capabilities are utilized to comply with LUC 3.2.4(K). Department: Forestry Contact: Freddie Haberecht, fhaberecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/30/2022: FOR INFORMATION Forestry has not concerns with this project at this time. If any trenching is to be associated with the install of the lights please reach out to fhaberecht@fcgov.com. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 125 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/05/2023: We have no comments, but will need to see any future submittals. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 126 Katelyn PugaCity PlannerPlanning and Zoning CommissionRolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement, Phase 2Minor Amendment, MA220151February 16, 2023ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 127 Project Location2Situated at the center and south side of the site~0.13 Miles West of South Shields Street and directly north of Rolland Moore Drive.SITES. Shields St. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 128 Project Context3Address 2201 S. Shields Street.68.58-acre sitePublic Open Lands (POL)Park programmed for sports activities, including baseball fields, basketball courts, and volleyball courts.Situated between two City Natural Areas and irrigation ditch system. The proposal is to complete a second phase of updates to the existing lighting at baseball Field 3 and Field 4 at the park. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 129 Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting ReplacementProject Overview4Proposed Scope:• Replace existing field and walkway lighting adjacent to Field 3 and Field 4 at the park. • Total of 10 lighting fixtures to be installed, with various mounting heights ranging from 15 ft. to 80 ft. • The lighting control strategy was provided with the plans:• Lighting levels for maintenance vs. active play • Preset illuminance levels• Automatic extinguishing of light after play• Directional requirements for upward and downward-directed field lighting. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 130 Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting ReplacementProject Overview5EXISTING SITEProposed Light Fixture Examples Showing Different Mounting HeightsITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 131 Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement, Phase 26Staff recommends approval of MA220151.Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement, Phase 2In evaluating the request for the Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting Replacement, Phase 2 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 4.13, The Public Open Lands District, Article 4.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 132 7Thank You.Rolland Moore Park Sports Lighting ReplacementITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 133